ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>


  • To: <comments-bwg-nomcom-21aug14@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: BWG_NOMCOMM report
  • From: Juhani Juselius <juhani@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2014 21:43:35 +0300

Thank you for the opportunity to comment the BWG NomCom report. I served in the 2014 Nominating Committee and the following opinions are based on that experience. All comments are my personal opinions, they do not represent any constituency nor any other community.

Recommendation 1:

ICANN is a global entity with multistakeholder governance model where geographic diversity plays an important role. I fully agree that diversity should be taken seriously but selecting people on every level based on their origin, might lead to over stressing the importance of diversity. In current model 1) ALAC is already nominating their NomCom reps based on the geographic regions. 2) ccNSO Council, that appoints the single ccNSO representative to NomCom, consists of Councillors from all geographic regions. Thus the diversity is already properly taken into account. 3) GAC is truly diverse AC, their representative represents the diversity as much as one can. 4) NomCom has guidelines about the maximum number of board members that could be appointed from a certain geographic region which ultimately guarantees diversity.

In addition to these all ready existing forms of diversity, appointing significantly more NomCom members mainly based on the geographic origin, might lead to focusing too much on the origin of applicants - at the cost of their skills, knowledge and other important factors. ICANN needs the best individuals to the Board and other leadership positions - no matter where they are from. Diversity is important but it should be only one selection criteria among others.

Recommendation 3:

I'm in favor of the proposed change. Increased number of the seats in the NomCom would make it easier for the GAC to be able to nominate the representatives than just selecting the current single representative that GAC failed to appoint in 2014.

Recommendation 5:

Currently NomCom selection process is very much based on the iterative rounds of discussions among the NomCom members. All members have their own opinion and possible vote. Discussions are very straightforward and effective. But if there are delegations among the members - they must first find their own consensus before taking part in the discussion or voting. How much would it take time before they reach the consensus? What happens if they won't reach it? It's quite realistic to assume that with delegations, the NomCom selection process would take much more time than in the current form.

In my opinion, in order to guarantee efficiency of the NomCom selection process, the number of votes should be equal with the number of representatives - one person, one vote.

Recommendation 6, 7 and 9:

I fully agree.

Finally, currently NomCom consists of 21 persons with only 18 taking actively part in the selection discussions. My personal view is that this is the maximum number of participants for effective decision making. Increased number of members would lead to more inflexible and time consuming discussions and processes. The optimal NomCom size is not bigger than the current one.

Juhani Juselius

2014 NomCom member

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy