Unfortunately I can't comment on the individual appointments. I'd like to provide you with more detail, but the nominating committee process doesn't permit me to. The nominating committee made recommendations to the board, that are in the process of being implemented, that will help us deal better with geographic diversity in future years. I hope this response helpful in some way, although I realize that I haven't answered your question. On Sep 6, 2008, at 9:13 AM, Danny Younger wrote:

Ross,

Please correct me if I am wrong, but it appears that the NomCom selected a representative for the European region that resides and works in Japan... and yes, the candidate comes to the table as a highly respected and qualified individual. But honestly... the NomCom couldn't manage to find a single person to represent the European user community that actually resides in Europe? What went wrong that forced you folks to look outside of the European continent for a suitable candidate to represent the European region?

--- On Fri, 9/5/08, Ross Rader <ross@tucows.com> wrote:

...

From: Ross Rader <ross@tucows.com> Subject: [NA-Discuss] ICANN | 2008 ICANN Nominating Committee Announces Selections To: "NA Discuss" <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Date: Friday, September 5, 2008, 6:38 PM Hello everyone.

The 2008 nomcomm appointments have been made public. I hope that these selections benefit ICANN and this community. I really appreciate having had the opportunity to serve the NA-RALO and At-large community this past year.

On Sep 6, 2008, at 10:15 AM, Danny Younger wrote:

Was an Assessment Organization in fact hired? Or is this also something you can't talk about?

Yes, we did use an outside firm to help us establish a baseline that we could use to help us with the evaluation of the candidates. BTW - the processes used by the Nominating Committee are not "secret", but information about the Candidates and the specifics of the deliberations are. I think the restrictions are reasonable and lend themselves to attracting the best candidates. I would love to be able to tell everyone how I think the selections made did or didn't live up to my expectations - in fact, given that I'd like to this again, it would be in my interests to do so, but the fact is, its just not fair to the people that didn't get picked to go into the gory details. Every year, excellent candidates get passed over - its just not fair to them to have these details publicized. /ross

I have a different take on the situation - I have the pleasure of personally knowing both candidates (either from ALAC or WSIS) and know that they will be effective and active representatives for the user constituency @ ALAC. So i'd rather be constructive - congratulations are in order to Adam & Allan! As well, thanks to the At-Large reps on the nomcom for the hard work and many hours involved in the process. regards Robert

If it is indeed a problem (and I am not making a case for or against), then we should be talking about changing the rules that are based on citizenship. In this particular case , would have preferred if the dialogue was carried out on the world-wide list so that those people involved could also have a say. Alan At 07/09/2008 11:18 AM, you wrote:

Robert,

While it's wonderful that you know and like both candidates, we are trying to discuss a very real issue -- residency requirements. Out of the 27 candidates that hailed from Europe the NomCom chose a candidate to represent Europe that works and resides in Japan. I consider that to be a poor decision, and whether you like Adam or not has no bearing on whether the process needs to be reformed.

Danny

--- On Sun, 9/7/08, Robert Guerra <lists@privaterra.info> wrote:

...

From: Robert Guerra <lists@privaterra.info> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] 2008 ICANN Nominating Committee Announces Selections To: "NA Discuss" <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Date: Sunday, September 7, 2008, 11:03 AM I have a different take on the situation - I have the pleasure of personally knowing both candidates (either from ALAC or WSIS) and know that they will be effective and active representatives for the user constituency @ ALAC.

So i'd rather be constructive - congratulations are in order to Adam & Allan! As well, thanks to the At-Large reps on the nomcom for the hard work and many hours involved in the process.

regards

Robert

------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org

http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica...

...

Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------

------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica...

Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------

By "rules", I meant the ICANN By-Laws (in this case Article XI,Section 2.4.b.ii) which dictate that the five NomCom appointees must include a citizen of a country in each ICANN region. The ALAC annually can (and I think does) give the NomCom criteria which it would like to see met. I don't think that there is anything preventing a particular region from including region specific criteria if this is a year that their slot is being filled. And the NomCom of course includes a delegate from each region who can speak up inside the NomCom. The NomCom also consults publicly and presumably privately on what is needed and wanted regarding any particular appointment. To my knowledge, NomComs are not bound by anything other than the By-Laws and are free to accept of ignore any particular bit of advice or preference (which are no doubt conflicting at times). Choices are of course ultimately subjective. In regard to the specific issue at play here, I do not recall previously hearing a discussion a NomCom appointee had to reside in the region that he is associated with by citizenship, but perhaps it was done before my time or out of my earshot. Perhaps to some, it was so obvious that it did not need discussion. Alan At 07/09/2008 02:44 PM, Dharma Dailey wrote:

Are there posted criteria for these positions that can be used as a guideline so that there isn't as much second guessing after the fact?

It's helpful when making decisions such as these to have a prioritized list of bullet pointed criteria to use as a guide for discussing candidates. IMO, rules should be saved for non-starters. In an all volunteer context, I find it's useful to have an idea of the characteristics of an ideal candidate, but also have the flexibility to make rational compromises based on the fact that no two volunteers are likely to excel at everything you might like them to do.

Guidelines help decision makers wade the facts in a systematic way because guidelines separate making decisions of organizational priority from making decisions of who is best at taking on fulfillment of specific tasks. In the real world, these two tasks are often conflated making both decision making processes harder, more personal, less rational.

Dharma Dailey

On Sep 7, 2008, at 1:36 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote:

...

If it is indeed a problem (and I am not making a case for or against), then we should be talking about changing the rules that are based on citizenship. In this particular case , would have preferred if the dialogue was carried out on the world-wide list so that those people involved could also have a say.

Alan

At 07/09/2008 11:18 AM, you wrote:

...

Robert,

While it's wonderful that you know and like both candidates, we are trying to discuss a very real issue -- residency requirements. Out of the 27 candidates that hailed from Europe the NomCom chose a candidate to represent Europe that works and resides in Japan. I consider that to be a poor decision, and whether you like Adam or not has no bearing on whether the process needs to be reformed.

Danny

--- On Sun, 9/7/08, Robert Guerra <lists@privaterra.info> wrote:

...

From: Robert Guerra <lists@privaterra.info> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] 2008 ICANN Nominating Committee Announces Selections To: "NA Discuss" <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Date: Sunday, September 7, 2008, 11:03 AM I have a different take on the situation - I have the pleasure of personally knowing both candidates (either from ALAC or WSIS) and know that they will be effective and active representatives for the user constituency @ ALAC.

So i'd rather be constructive - congratulations are in order to Adam & Allan! As well, thanks to the At-Large reps on the nomcom for the hard work and many hours involved in the process.

regards

Robert

------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica...

Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------

------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica...

Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------

------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica...

Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------

On Sep 7, 2008, at 2:44 PM, Dharma Dailey wrote:

Are there posted criteria for these positions that can be used as a guideline so that there isn't as much second guessing after the fact?

It would be *very* helpful to the nominating committee representatives if each of the RALO's and in a separate document, the ALAC itself, collaborated on a document each year to provide this kind of guidance. Picking representatives from the candidate pool can be a bit of a black art - nomcomm reps are essentially guessing what characteristics would be useful for each of the open positions. I tried to inform my guesses through discussions with members of the community prior to the start of the 2008 nomcomm work, but having a more definitive statement would definitely be very helpful. It would also help inform the discussions that the RALO nomcomm reps have during the appointment process. Had I known more about the nomcomm process going into it, I would have definitely sought more indepth guidance from a broader range of perspectives (most of my conversations were with folks working within the RALO's, but given that we also need to appoint people to other parts of the organization, having discussions about the needs of the ccNSO, GNSO and Board in addition to the ALAC would have been beneficial. It would be important that these documents be updated each year, as the needs of the committees being appointed to change (i.e. this year, the board might need people with a financial background, next year they might need someone with intergovernmental affairs experience) I'd also note that candidates need to fill a variety of requirements, geography is just one dimension. With different candidates, these requirements are weighted differently based on the rest of their skills, the skills of the other candidates and also the skills of those already sitting on the various committees. The goal is to pick great people that can help move the work forward in a positive fashion. I have no doubt that each of our picks this year will do their best to live up to this expectation. /ross

At 07/09/2008 11:04 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:

Alan Greenberg wrote:

...

If it is indeed a problem (and I am not making a case for or against), then we should be talking about changing the rules that are based on citizenship. In this particular case , would have preferred if the dialogue was carried out on the world-wide list so that those people involved could also have a say.

It is timely in a NARALO context because of our meeting tomorrow.

The begining of our call will have Tricia Drakes of the Board Governance Committee as a participant, as the BGC is seeking input regarding the ALAC review. One of the two issues on which the BGC is most keen to hear input is the Westlake recommendation to address regional imbalance by adding two Asian NomComm members to ALAC (without any corresponding RALO-elected members).

If the NomComm cannot be relied upon to pick, for ALAC reps designated for a region, people who are actually from that region, then isn't the Westlake recommendation pointless?

- Evan

PS: The other issue they want to hear about regards the recommendation to better clarify the distinction between NCUC and At-Large, from the point of view of participating stakeholders.

If indeed the By-Laws were changed (or whatever is required) to have the NomCom select two additional people from AP (an idea which I don't support, for whatever that is worth), then presumably and hopefully, they would provide some guidance as to the selection criteria. I can make arguments for and against the current rules and for one based solely on residence and a rule based on the coincidence of both. In the end, it matters more that the NomCom (which include regional people) tries to find someone who will actually help the organization they are being appointed to. And that is a far more critical issue than their residence/citizenship. If residency is an issue, the RALO or ALAC should say so. Personally, I would be careful about it though. I am not sure that Evan would be a less qualified candidate to represent North America is he was on assignment in the UK next year, nor would I think it makes him more qualified to be the EU appointee (and I say that without having any prior knowledge of Evan's plans to apply to the NomCom or to work in the UK). Regarding the second question, I have already had an opportunity to present my ideas to Tricia at a recent GNSO meeting, so I may not again. In summary, I think the Recommendation 12 (which is the one about ALAC/NCUC) is addressing a non-issue. It suggests that the ALAC identify what kind of groups should be an ALAS and which should join NCUC. Ignoring that the playing field has been radically changed with the approval of the new GNSO structure, I don't see the reason to have to make the distinction. The ICANN By-Laws EXPLICITLY allow a person or organization to participate in more than one GNSO constituency at the same time. Why should the same not apply to an ALS. Many ALS's are ISOC chapters. If one also want to join NCUC, and they meet NCUC's criteria, more power to them. The real differentiation is: = NCUC is a part of the GNSO which has a mandate to get involved in ALL gTLD policy issues in ICANN. No more, no less. = ALAC and it's At-Large organization has a mandate to advise the Board on ANY ICANN issue. But because of the wider scope, we will always need to pick and choose what we select to address. Depending on where your interest and priorities lie, you pick who you want to associate with. Or both. Can the ALAC help make that clear to prospective applicant ALSs? Sure. But it is not an either/or choice. Alan Alan