Comments from Nominet

[lesley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

On behalf of Nominet UK, the country code Top Level Domain registry for .
uk, I would like to thank ICANN for the opportunity to comment on the 
Nominating Committee review.
 
I make the following comments on the proposed terms of reference:

General Comments
Whilst noting and appreciating the efforts that will have been made in 
order to develop the comprehensive list of proposed questions, it is 
considered that:
- the list may constrain the review by its level of detail
- the structure of the review seems to be implied by the questions
- there are some potentially leading questions
- apparent limits to the review could appear to be imposed by some of the 
questions.

There is also a concern that the main focus of the review should be on 
proposals for the best way forward, rather than a comprehensive review of 
the past. The following suggestions are made:

- Separate out the questions seeking to assess the effectiveness etc of 
the current Nom Com and the current Nom Com process from those looking to 
the future.
- Make it clear that the main focus of the review should be on developing 
recommendations for the best way forward.
- Re-phrase the questions that might be perceived as leading, such as 
?what is the extent of candidate fatigue??
- Re-phrase the questions that may appear to restrict the review, or add a 
statement clarifying that options involving alternative arrangements are 
welcomed ? for example, the use of an independent director recruitment 
organisation at stages in the process should not be ruled out of 
considerations.
- Remove some of the more detailed level of questions that one would 
expect to be covered in recommendations for a way forward, such as ?should 
there be feedback to candidates applying multiple years in a row??


Specific Comments

Purpose of NomCom 
Rather than start with whether the Nom Com is achieving its current 
purpose, one should firstly ask ?is the purpose the right one for ICANN 
going forward?? and ?what changes to the purpose might be appropriate 
going forward?? 

It is crucial that ICANN has the ?best Board? to meet its future needs and 
the review should therefore also ask ?what skills and qualities will be 
needed by future ICANN Board members?? and ?will the current Board 
composition and appointment process result in the best possible ICANN 
Board??

Only when these questions have been addressed can the review examine the 
best ways of achieving the future purpose.

Question 2 appears to me to be the main body of work of the review as it 
asks ?whether the Nom Com process is the best way?..what other methods 
could be considered and what are their benefits and drawbacks?? With the 
addition of ?and what are their respective costs?? this question could set 
the scope of the overall review.

Question 3 refers to corporate governance best practices and should also 
draw on international corporate governance best practice, and not solely 
that of the US. For example, the UK Higgs report on the role and 
effectiveness of non-executive directors. Reference should also be made to 
the forthcoming review of the appropriate administrative structure for 
ICANN.

Question 4 could perhaps also ask whether the members appointed have been 
successful in practice, rather than purely focus on whether they have been 
?expected?.

Question 5 is viewed as rather a leading question, providing one of the 
possible options for a way forward.


Committee Composition
Question 6 appears to be covered in question 45.

Suggest that this section could be expanded to consider the stage in the 
process that the committee becomes involved.


Selection Criteria
Question 23 covers the selection criteria described in the ICANN bylaws, 
but could also ask whether additional criteria should be able to be 
developed and used. For example, a number of organisations firstly assess 
the skill set of existing Board members and develop a ?shopping list? of 
any new skill sets that will be needed in the light of the organisation?s 
future strategic plan. They then use these to develop Board member 
selection criteria for new recruitment rounds.


Effectiveness
Question 40 covers the costs associated with the Nom Com process, but 
could also ask how the process could be carried out more cost-effectively 
or whether additional investment might be cost effective in the longer 
term.


I do hope that these comments will be of use to you for the review.

Regards,

Lesley

Lesley Cowley
CEO
Nominet UK