Individual comments on the nomcom report
While I thought that much of the report was quite good, I have concerns on several of the recommendations. The primary issues I have are as follows: I. Self-Selection of appointees by the SO's and ALAC from the AD pool In giving this response I must point out that I am biased as I am a Nomcom appontee to the GNSO, nonetheless I think that eliminating outside appointees chosen by someone other then the SO itself would be a very bad thing. I believe it is a fallacy to indicate that SO seats only pertain to constituencies' interests. Even within a constituency structure it is critical to have some participants whose goals are the general welfare of ICANN, including the importance of the constituency/ shareholder bottom up process. These values must be expressed in the policies of the organisation in additon to the specific constituency/ stakeholder interests. So, it is not only on the board that some participants should have the general well being of ICANN as their primary motivation. I don't mean to indicate that stakeholder/ constituencies don't have the general well being in mind, but rather to indicate that their view of this well being is often colored by the needs of those who select them - as it should be. Within the GNSO I believe that it may eliminate the opportunity for adding a different perspective to the SO and may subject the selection to the normal political balancing and horse trading that goes on in the council. It will also make it very difficult to appoint someone who is not already a member of one of the stakeholder groups or constituencies and this will hinder the effort to bring more diversity to the council. I do not know the section balance in the ALAC very well, but for similar reasons would assume that going outside the RALO and ALS structure would also be a good thing in order to avoid inbred thinking and group think. If the ALAC, CCNSO or GNSO are responsible for selecting their own outside influences, these outside influences will always tend toward similarity with the insiders. It can be argued that the SO and AC may not decide to pick their new members themselves but may come up wth a method other then direct selection by the SO or AC. In my opinion, in the best case, they would pick a nomcom to do this job. This would also be in accordance with much of the argument in the Nomcom Report on the value of the nomcom model. It seems odd that the best possible outcome of this recommendation is that we end up with multiple nomcom mechanisms, with one for each group of candidates to be selected. I do not believe that the difference in criteria in selection for an SO or the ALAC and the Board should be a barrier to nomcom's ability in making selections, especially since the base requirement to "do what is right for the Internet, ICANN and all of its stakeholders" would be the same for all these appointments, with just the subject areas and scope of responsibility being divergent. Not only has the nomcom been doing this for a while, other Nomcoms with which I have expereince regularly select candidates for a diverse set of positions that have very different qualification sets for each of those positions. I strongly recommendation that this recommendation not be implemented and that the selection of SO and ALAC appointees remain within the scope of a common ICANN nomcom.
I do not think that it s a good idea to have a full time permanent staff position responsible for recruiting candidates and maintaining the database of available candidates for Nomcom consideration. This will result in a group of candidates that fit the model of volunteer preferred by the staff, even if the AD is nominally reporting to the Board instead of to the CEO. While I do not assert that the Board appointed AD would be influenced or coerced by the staff, I do believe that the AD would absorb ICANN corporate thinking patterns from permanent association and identification with the staff. In my view over time this could cripple the independence of the volunteer corps. In general I do not feel that the AD position would be an improvement and recommend that we stick with the current model of chair, vice-chair and previous chair for maintaining continuity. I also recommend that practices and lessons learned from year should be passed on to future Nomcom's as written documents to aid in resolving the continuity problem.
I do endorse the idea of having the next chair as a member of the nomcom, though I would prefer a model that proscribed that the chair and vice chair be selected by the board, with the advice of previous chairs, from the group of volunteers who have served at some point in a nomcom.
While I recognise that the board has these two roles I do not think that separating them into 2 boards, even if they are only two virtual or theoretic boards, is a good idea. One of the things that is important in the ICANN board is that they alwasy keep the two responsibilities linked. As a corporation for public benefit the fiduciary responsibility can never be met without consideration of the policy imperative of doing what is right for the Internet, the registrants and the community of users. Likewise, in approving policies, the board cannot forget that it must maintain a fiduciary trust. These responsibilities cannot be seperated and should not be separated in the considerations that form the nomcom or that shape the nomcom's decisions. V. Consistent thinking At several points in the analysis and recommendation the report laments the fact that people in the nomcom do not have a uniform perception of the goals and needs. I do not see this lack of consistency in understanding as an obstacle to the nomcom performing its job well. In fact, it may be an asset. Often the combination of views in a committee is what counts and not that there be uniformity of thought or goal. So, while of course an effort should be made to give all nomcom members the big picture, the goal of making everyone see the world in a homogeneous way seems not only futile but counter productive.
I am surprised at the report's apparent endorsement of ICANN's 'due diligence' background check requirements which, while necessary, are far more intrusive then such checks need to be. Currently these background checks resemble security checks more then they do fiduciary background checks, especially in the case of non director appointments. Also there is a disparity between the checks required for nomcom appointments and those made, or not made as the case may be, for those elected by constituencies or by Supporting Organisations. I found the characterisation that the fault was with the candidate's understanding and not with the extent of the practice very problematic and am wondering to what degree the details of these investigative techniques and the companies hired by ICANN, e.g. ICANN's use of KROLL which has a strong US security service relationship, were reviewed. I recommend that ICANN's practices in doing background checks on candidates, all candidates, be the subject of a separate, transparent and independent study. VII. Transparency and release of candidate names I praise the report for its advocacy of more transparency. One area I recommend is the publication of the names of all who are being considered with the invitation of confidential public comment on them. I have recommended this frequently in the past, even when I was under consideration, and have been told that such a practice might scare away a good candidate. I have never felt this to be a valid concern. I think that ICANN service requires that one not be highly sensitive to personal insult or embarrassment, and feel that anyone who would be overly embarrassed at being not chosen is probably not suited to functioning within the ICANN environment. I also believe that fear of embarrassment would be a liability for ICANN as such a director or SO member could not be an independent voice as they could be controlled by the threat/fear of embarrassment. VIII. Respect for those under consideration I can heartily endorse the suggestion that one often feels like a supplicant at the altar of ICANN when going through the Nomcom process, as if ICANN were doing one a favor to consider them for a volunteer position. After the first time I had affirmed that I would never put myself through it again. It was only due to a sense of having wok to finish that convinced me to do it a second time. That and the fact that we forget pain after a while. I think that it is also important that this attitude of repsect for the volunteer, with an understanding that all volunteers are of equal importance and are all due the same degree of respect that ICANN gives it senior staff, be the norm in ICANN's attitude toward the volunteers corps that makes ICANN viable. I know that this is beyond the scope of the Nomcom review as it relates to what happens after someone is allowed the opportunity to volunteer for an office. I do, however, believe that it merits consideration. Avri Doria |