NomCom Review, Recommendation 2
This is the third of two, well, three, comments for the record on the Draft Report (DR) of the NomCom Revew Finalization Working Group. This note is a personal reflection on the process as experienced by a single person. I was asked by a NomCom member some years ago to submit a Statement of Interest. I did so, but for reasons more comic than reasonable, the SOI was lost. The act of considering the request by a prior NomCom to offer to make myself available was illuminating, and coincidental to consulting for the IANA and hire by CORE in the following years. Last year I submitted a SOI, and a few weeks after the Sydney meeting I received a form letter thanking me for my interest, and suggesting how I could otherwise participate. The utility of the management company doing a behavioral profile seems debatable. I encountered a European former member and a South American current member as the primary NomCom interviewers at Sydney. I'd ample opportunity to disclose my thoughts on what I think are fundamental issues, for the areas I spend most time on -- GNSO and BoD. I was willing to accept any appointment.The process seemed to work, though as I've pointed out previously, there are no structurally low income participants in staff or management roles, and this includes the NomCom. I'm not unhappy with the NomCom selections for the Board, the GNSO Council, the CCNSO Council and the ALAC, do not consider the likelihood of selection credible -- after all, thinking the NomCom ought to be independent and thinking it has to benefit (or afflict) me personally are slightly inconsistent, and the current composition, without taking a position on Recommendation 10, unlikely to result in the selection of someone from neither of the polarized factions of the GNSO -- and will not submit a SOI again. This concludes my comments on Recommendation 2. Eric Brunner-Williams in a personal capacity |