A few comments on the report

["Dr. Sebastian Ricciardi" <sricciardi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Sirs,

 

Thanks for this opportunity to comment on the recent NomCom review Report.

 

Please note that the following notes express solely my personal opinion.
They do not constitute the standing of any of the organizations that I am
involved with, including my current employer, Garcia Lema, Jauregui,
Entelman & Bougain, Attorneys at Law.

 

I have been an interim ALAC member from the creation of the committee until
the LAC RALO was formed and elect their representatives. After that, I was
appointed to the 2007 NomCom by the ALAC. These interesting and challenging
experiences give me some understanding of the issues addressed in the
report, and make me believe this could be a positive contribution.

 

First, I would like to highlight the existence of the report. To have an
independent review of the different ICANN bodies is ?without any doubt- a
useful tool for improvement. A timely posted report, with sufficient time
for public comment, is an important piece of this review. It would have been
useful to have the report translated into 3 or 4 major languages, though,
but I am sure that this may be addressed in the future.

 

On the report itself:

 

Recommendation III.1.must be taken in account with the proper careful.
Confidentiality is a key to NomCom success, and if we reduce confidentiality
and non disclosure rules to assure more transparency, we could undermine the
whole process. From my humble perspective, Confidentiality should prevail.
It would?ve been great to have examples in the report of transparent
recruiting practices. I think they are inexistent.

 

Recommendation III.2.is very desirable. Particularly in regards of
communication with applicants and a promptly announce of the results. Any
candidate that was not selected should be able to know so at the earliest
possible time. 

 

Recommendation III.3 could be unfair. During the last years NomCom members
have gather with different ICANN bodies and constituencies trying to asses
their needs and requirements. I cannot understand why this is a specific
recommendation, if its working fine. This is applicable to some other
recommendations in the report, specifically III.9 and III.10.

 

Recommendation  III.11.is worthy. In fact, there should be a mechanism to
assure that NomCom appointees performance is measured and their performance
evaluated, possible including comments and opinions of their peers in the
different bodies. It should be a very clear process with well established
rules, though.

 

Some final comments on recommendation III.12:

 

 

The whole structure could add more problems than solutions, from my humble
point of view, and should be carefully studied before being implemented. My
worries hinges around the ?pool? and ?lottery? ideas: it is necessary to
have a proper NomCom composition to assure that candidates SOIs will be
reviewed in the proper way, and the best way to assure this is to have
NomCom members coming from the different bodies.

 

A final thought:

 

According to the report, it is no longer necessary or advisable for the
NomCom to be involved in the selection of ALAC members, since ALAC has
matured. 

 

I think it would be prudent to wait until the ALAC review published its own
report to draw such conclusion ? ALAC has matured ?, but I think there are
many proofs right now that suggest that this is not happening yet. While it
is true that the RALOs are now in place, the level of input received form
the structure is still meaningless. Information flowing from/to ALSs need to
be improved, in order to assure timely discussions on the relevant policy
issues. ALAC discussions do not reflect ?yet- the concerns of the different
ALSs through the RALOs, and these organizations are still struggling to find
proper financing beyond ICANN. The original idea of promoting a ?structured
and informed participation? form the internet user around the globe is far
from being achieved.

 

Moreover, having an independent committee like NomCom that selects a third
of the ALAC members is very positive to assure the absence of eventual
concerted practices by some ALSs that ?capture? the ALAC seats.

 

Once again, thanks for this opportunity to comment.

 

Sebastián Ricciardi Lima

 

 

Dr. Sebastián J. Ricciardi Lima

 

Estudio Jáuregui - Abogados 
Carlos Pellegrini 961 1º Piso 
C1009ABS - Buenos Aires 
Tel / Fax: (54-11) 4328-3579/3834
sricciardi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
www.estudiojauregui.com.ar

 

Integrante de GLE
García Lema, Entelman, Jáuregui & Bougain
Consorcio de Cooperación
www.gle-legal.com.ar

 

Este mensaje es confidencial. Puede contener informacion amparada por el
secreto profesional. Si usted ha recibido este e-mail por error, por favor
comuniquenoslo inmediatamente via e-mail y tenga la amabilidad de eliminarlo
de su sistema; no debera copiar el mensaje ni divulgar su contenido a
ninguna persona. Muchas gracias.

 

This message is confidential. It may also contain information that is
privileged or otherwise legally exempt from disclosure. If you have received
it by mistake please let us know by e-mail immediately and delete it from
your system; you should also not copy the message nor disclose its contents
to anyone. Many thanks.