comment on BWG-NomCom recommendations

[Adam <ajp@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Board Working Group on 
Nominating Committee's recommendations (BWG-NomCom).
 
The BWG-NomCom is correct, the current representational model is 
disproportionate, it favors an outdated representation of the GNSO while the 
ccNSO is significantly under represented. 
 
The BWG-NomCom's focus in regional representation is important, but gender 
balance should also be emphasized in selecting delegates.
 
Comments on recommendations:
 
"Recommendation 1 - Enhancing Regional Representation and Diversity – ASO, 
ccNSO and ALAC"
 
The ccNSO should be represented by 5 delegates, 1 from each of ICANN's 5 
regions.  The ALAC currently follows this model and should continue. 
 
There is no reason for 5 ASO delegates.  Unlike the ALAC and ccNSO, the NomCom 
does not select any of the ASO (NRO) leadership.  In my experience (NomCom 
member, Associate Chair and Chair) the ASO collectively has not shown great 
interest in the NomCom's work (note, ASO delegates I have served with on 
NomComs have been excellent).  Has the ASO expressed any wish for 5 delegates?  
Suggest there is no need to change the number of ASO delegates.
 
All selecting organizations should be reminded that geographic and gender 
diversity is important and must be considered when selecting delegates.
 
"Recommendation 2 - Aligning with Organizational Structure – GNSO"
 
Agree with the BWG-NomCom and reasons given that realignment is required.   The 
non-contracted houses have a complicated constituency structure.  Suggest that 
the Commercial and Non-Commercial stakeholder groups provide 2 delegates each, 
1 of the 2 must be from the Global South. The Registry and Registrar 
stakeholder groups 1 delegate each. 
 
Total of 6 delegates from the GNSO. 
 
"Recommendation 3 – GAC Representation Capable of Increase at GAC Discretion"
 
For a number of years the GAC has declined to send a delegate to the NomCom.  
Has the BWG-NomCom asked the GAC if it wishes to appoint 3 delegates?  If the 
GAC is willing to send delegates to the NomCom, 5 might be more appropriate to 
enable regional representation (GAC tends to follow the 5 region representative 
model).
 
Suggest discussing participation with the GAC.  Perhaps consider option of the 
GAC providing an observer to the NomCom.  A person who has full access to all 
NomCom's shared information, signs the NomCom's code of conduct and agrees to 
confidentiality, but does not participate in candidate recruitment or selection 
processes.  Might advise on characteristics of the desirable candidate profile. 
 The person would report to the GAC that process is being appropriately 
followed.  NomCom engagement with the GAC should be improved.
 
"Recommendation 4 – Technical Entity Inputs Remain Unchanged"
 
In addition to IETF, SSAC and RSSAC, consider inviting the IAB to provide a 
delegate.  Mirrors technical community's contribution to IANA transition, 
reflects IAB role in Internet ecosystem.  With the single RIR representative, 
brings a total of 5 delegates from the technical group. 
 
"Recommendation 5 – Organization of NomCom by Delegation"
 
Over complicated and not helpful to the organization of the NomCom's work.  See 
comments on recommendation 8 below.
 
"Recommendation 6 – NomCom Leadership Positions"
 
Why?  The recently published 360 reviews suggest the system works. Merits more 
time to see if the chair/chair elect model is the right one.   See comment on 
recommendation 10 below.
 
"Recommendation 7 – Removal of Non-voting Member Roles"
 
Yes.  Important improvement.
 
"Recommendation 8 – Candidate Selection Voting by Delegation"
 
No, over complicates the NomCom's internal organization.  NomComs typically use 
polling (voting) intensely throughout the candidate evaluation process.  Rounds 
of polling are used to reduce the candidate pool to those favored candidates 
who will progress through the various stages of review: e.g. external 
interview, in-depth review by the NomCom, invited for face-to-face interview, 
etc. Voting by delegation would introduced the need to agree/implement rules on 
who will vote and on what basis they will cast their vote: an over 
complication.  There is no need for voting by delegation.
 
"Recommendation 9 – Implement Two Year Terms for Voting Members"
 
This is reasonable.  With a minimum two-year break between periods of service.
 
"Recommendation 10 – Leadership of the NomCom"
 
Why?  The chair/chair elect model has only recently been introduced and seems 
to be working well, deserves more time to confirm if the best approach. 
 
The 3 member leadership team is valuable, the chair elect (the previous chair 
under the old model) and associate chair provide valuable support to the chair. 
 Seems to work, why change?
 
"Recommendation 11 – Implement Two Year Term for Chair"
 
Retain the chair/chair elect model.
 
"Recommendation 12 – Succession Planning for Chair"
 
If the chair elect for some reason (their own choice or the board's) does not 
become chair then this is the process working, a potential mistake avoided in 
seating a person as chair. 
 
"Recommendation 13 – Regular Review of NomCom Chair Performance"
 
Is being done for both chair and chair elect, and NomCom members (see 360 
reviews). 
 
"Recommendation 14 – Succession Planning"
 
By a vote of all NomCom delegates, not "delegations", perhaps a higher standard 
of three quarters of the delegates. 
 
"Recommendation 15 – Maintain NomCom Appointments to Entities Other Than the 
Board"
 
Focusing on Board appointments would most likely ensure the NomCom performed 
better in recruitment and selection of Directors.
 
Summary
 
Delegates:
 
GNSO (some geographic requirement), 6 delegates
ccNSO (representing 5 regions), 5 delegates
ALAC (representing 5 regions), 5 delegates
ASO, 1 delegate
IETC, 1 delegate
IAB, 1 delegate
SSAC, 1 delegate
RSAC, 1 delegate
Total 21 members, all voting.

Non-voting leadership:

Chair
Chair Elect
Associate Chair

And, consider GAC observer

Total 25 member committee.
 
Suggest that the NomCom should have its own website.  The nomcom.icann.org 
format was appropriate, reflecting NomCom's importance as an independent 
committee.  NomCom's site should be prominently accessible from the ICANN 
homepage.
 
Thank you,
 
Adam Peake