Hi Olivier, Since you ask: 1 I want ICANN to be uninvolved - from day one until the end of the vetting process. I do not trust them to not trip up people they consider unacceptable or somehow outliers. And from the private mail I am getting, I am assuming I am not the only one who is concerned about this. I just tend to be more outspoken than most and am ready to stand up about the little revenges that ICANN doles out to those who go against the corporate will. 2. I want the process used to be fully documented, and the tracking through the process public. So for example if some applicant misses a stage in the process for some undefined reason, they can see on a public chart that they were supposed to have sent in a specific form and the staff has reported them as having refused to send in the form and perhaps even have to time to remedy a situation. 3. I want the names of candidates published. I understand the cross-cultural pressures. But ICANN is a cross-cultural pressure cooker, and if you can stand the heat of losing an appointment, you don't belong in a role governing it. I know people will say we won't get candidates, but getting candidates now, when it is in secret, is like pulling teeth, I doubt it would get worse. 4. I am fully fine with the personal details discussed as well as any information gained in the vetting remaining private - this is private information. This is the only part that should be confidential. The SOI's, with the exception of personal data should be available for all to read and all to comment on. As for the process being one of the most independent. From the vantage point of the volunteers, I am sure that this is the case. But since everything is done in the dark, one never knows what machinations might have been going on behind the scenes that maybe even the members and the chairs did not know about. And I too think the choices made last year were for the most part great. Some, and I not just speaking of the board, have yet to prove themselves. But this is not my point and I have every faith that they will all be stars. I know that it is a lot of things I want to see changed. But the most important, and the one I was addressing in my note is that I want ICANN staff excluded from the process as soon as possible. As long as the staff is responsible for the behind the scenes services, they can affect the process - and there is not way to prevent it. And since the roles of those picked by the Nomcom have an affect on ICANN's operations this risk of interference is intolerable in an open and accountable process. a. On 3 Mar 2011, at 13:07, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:

On Wed, 2 Mar 2011 19:48:37 +0100, Avri Doria wrote:

...

This is the message I send whenever I see a solicitation for Nomcom.

I think that Nomcom is currently flawed in that it is managed/coordinated by staff as opposed to being a totally separate function as I believe it is defined to be.

This combined by the utter secrecy and non transparency of the process allows for a situation where ICANN officers can, should they be wish, affect the outcome. The process is especially vulnerable to influence by acts of omission and to other difficult to discover acts.

I am not making an accusation against any of the staff that serve to support the Nomcom itself, they are nice hard working people who are loyal ICANN employees who do what they are instructed to do. It is the possibility of misdeed by those more senior that concerns me.

I advise everyone I know to avoid ICANN Nomcom, and will continue to do so until such time as it has a completely separate staffing. I also avoid it myself, but that is as much because I do not believe that insiders, which I am defining as people who have already been active in ICANN for 4 years or more in recent years, as for reasons of mistrust and for the personal reason of having been burned without real redress in a nomcom like process in the recent past.

...and Avri, I beg to differ.

I served on the NomCom last year and in my view, it is one of the most independent processes in ICANN that I ever took part in. It is shrouded with "confidentiality", often confused as "secrecy" in order to protect the candidates themselves because unfortunately we live in a world where people who do not get selected are sometimes pointed out as "losers" and shamed. How do you wish to be transparent in a discussion where you discuss a candidate's most private details, their career, their track record? Their perceived potential? How do you wish the discussions in NomCom to be frank and open within the group, if NomCom members were not bound by confidentiality?

I have found serving on NomCom for a year, to be a very refreshing experience, and I am so pleased to see the candidates we chose last year, spread their wings and serve ICANN successfully this year. I encourage everyone to apply for leadership position through NomCom, not only for Board positions, but also for GNSO, ccNSO and ALAC positions. At first glance, these might appear "less glamorous" than a Board position on a CV but ICANN isn't about glamour, it's about making the bottom-up decision process work, and NomCom members will quickly see through an application that's filed to make a CV look good.

Warmest regards,

Olivier (wearing an individual hat)

-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html