Re: [ga] Nominating Committee procedures

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Vittorio and all assembly members,

  The idea of a "Nominating Committee" is in fact just another way of
excluding parties to become actively involved that a minority of
other parties doe not like.  Ergo it is a form of Censorship.

  Super majorities are another method of exclusion to a degree that
only serve to propagate a cliquish groups of controlling the processes
of certain aspects of governance.  They should be avoided.  Simple
majority should always rule, unless there is a specific set of
circumstances
that can adequately justify otherwise, and than those circumstances need
to
be delineated.

Vittorio Bertola wrote:

> I am posting here another comment I just sent to the ERC.
> ------
>
> Dear ERC members,
>
> I would like to reinstate my proposal about the procedures and
> timelines for selections by the Nominating Committee that I submitted
> in September:
>
> http://forum.icann.org/reform-comments/implementation/msg00016.html
>
> (A text copy is attached below for your convenience.)
>
> Particularly, I would like to stress the point about the need for a
> supermajority requirement for NomCom appointments, as justified in the
> document, and exposed again during the public forum in Shanghai. This
> idea has obtained support in the community during the last weeks; it
> could be worth adopting it at least as a transition requirement for
> the very delicate work of the first NomCom, in view of its evaluation
> for final adoption in the Bylaws or in NomCom's internal procedures.
>
> I thus propose that the following section is added to the Transition
> Article:
>
> "Section 11. NOMINATING COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS
>
> Any appointment made by the Nominating Committee before the end of
> annual meeting 2003 will require approval by at least [two thirds |
> four fifths] of the voting members of the Committee."
>
> Regards,
>
> ======
> Comments to "Tentative timetable for the NomCom Process"
>
> Vittorio Bertola
> September 13, 2002
>
> This document contains my personal comments on the "Tentative
> timetable for the NomCom Process", a sub-section of the "Second
> Interim Implementation Report". These comments are personal and do not
> reflect the view of any of the entities I am involved with (i.e. ISOC
> Italy, icannatlarge.com, or the At Large Organizing Committee). While
> I have comments on other sections of that Report, and specifically on
> those regarding the At Large Advisory Committee, I will contribute
> them to the discussion of the ALAC Advisory Group of which I am a
> member, in view of a group document about them.
>
> While it is desirable that the NomCom preserves some degree of freedom
> about the way it wants to organize its work, the practical
> implementation of the selection process is way too crucial to the
> effectiveness and accountability of the new ICANN structure to leave
> it to the tastes of any particular instance of the NomCom. For
> example, if, as stated in the draft timeline, "NomCom meets as needed
> by telecon, pursuing consensus and/or taking votes until its
> selections are completed.", then the order in which potential
> candidates are put to votes might deeply change the outcome. This is
> why, in my opinion, there needs to be some more degree of
> formalization of the process the NomCom will use for determining its
> selections.
>
> Personally, I hope that voting won't be always necessary; that each
> NomCom member will propose candidates that can show broad vision and
> act super partes, rather than people who would only defend the
> specific interests of their constituency; and that the NomCom as a
> whole will be able to reach by discussion an agreement on the complete
> set of appointees, rather than end up running a small scale replica of
> an electoral process among its members, or fostering public and
> private bargains among the constituencies to gain votes for each one's
> favourite candidate. However, real life shows that not all
> disagreements can be taken to a compromise, and not all specific
> interests can be put aside, so provisions for a fair and open
> selection process must be inserted in a solid way.
>
> If any instance of the NomCom ever ended up, for example, by showing
> up an alliance between a majority of the constituencies who selected
> its members to exclude candidates proposed by the remaining minority,
> that would end up as a hard blow to ICANN's credibility. This is why I
> believe that, as the last step in the process, the final set of
> appointments should be put to votes as a whole, and approved with a
> very qualified majority (i.e. 80% of the voting members); this would
> reduce risks of capture and force the NomCom as a whole to come to an
> agreement. If this majority cannot be reached, there should be a
> "cooling period" of at least three days, and then another vote should
> be called by the Chair (possibly on an updated and more agreeable list
> of appointments), requiring the same qualified majority - and so on.
>
> While the Committee should be free to work out its own process, its
> phases should be better identified; one risk, for example, is to have
> a long unsorted list of people under consideration up to the end, that
> would not allow real and deep analysis on each individual, so that in
> the end decisions are taken at the last minute in a hurried way. The
> difficulty of reaching a very short final set of appointees from a
> very long list of candidates in a meaningful and rational way has been
> evident in past processes - for example, in the first round of the
> 2000 At Large elections. In that occasion, more than 150 names were
> submitted as potential Board members, only for the At Large
> constituency! If the Committee has to work on a list of 50-100 names
> or more, either it will come to conclusions based on preconceived
> opinions, or it will make superficial choices. On the other hand, it
> seems impossible to find reasonable and objective criteria for
> pre-qualification, to avoid having an excessively high number of
> candidates right from the start; for example, individual endorsements,
> in the absence of a verified At Large Membership, can be faked or
> captured quite easily.
>
> This is why I would devise a process in which there is a free-entry
> initial list, then a first round of analysis and decisions to reduce
> the list to a manageable size, then the final round of decisions. So
> the process should be subdivided into more detailed phases:
> 1.      Collection of nominations and endorsements of candidates (Day
> 35-50)
> 2.      Analysis on the initial list of candidates (Day 50-65)
> 3.      Reduction to a pre-final set (ie, 2-3 times the number of
> seats to be filled) (Day 65)
> 4.      Deeper analysis on the remaining candidates (Day 65-80)
> 5.      Reduction to a final set and final approval (Day 80-90)
>
> In the first phase, every individual (or constituency) should be free
> to submit names to the NomCom, or even to nominate himself. I don't
> think that there should be particular entry barriers at this stage;
> there should be a public endorsement mechanism, for example a web
> forum, so that candidates can gather and show their support, but there
> should not be a binding condition such as a minimum number of
> endorsement to enter into this first list. However, there should be a
> standard submission form, so that each name is accompanied by an
> uniform set of documents, including a personal statement, a CV, and
> any information that could show the person's suitability for the
> position; even candidates that have been nominated by someone else
> should supply themselves this material by the deadline of phase 1, as
> proof of acceptance of the nomination.
>
> In the second and third phase, the NomCom would take into
> consideration the whole list of candidates, with a first round of
> liaisons with the SOs, the Committees and the community in general, to
> then reduce it to a fixed size, according to the skills of the
> candidates and the support they have received. At this stage,
> diversity requirements should already be known, so that the Committee
> can ensure that there are candidates in the remaining list that can
> meet them. The NomCom should try to approve the new list with a single
> qualified majority vote (ie 80%); this should force the Committee to
> have a discussion on the candidates and try to agree a good set to be
> approved. If this majority can't be reached, the Committee could then
> pass to a preferential vote, so that the candidates with the highest
> number of preferences will stay. The result of the vote should be
> immediately made public.
>
> In the fourth and fifth phase, the NomCom should repeat the process,
> again collecting input and preferences for the remaining candidates
> from all the community, the Advisory Committees, the SOs etc., and
> then would come to the final vote as described above, with qualified
> majority votes separated by cooling periods. During the fourth phase,
> the endorsement forum should be reopened, so that endorsements could
> be shifted to those candidates who are still under consideration.
>
> I also note that, given the introduction of the At Large Advisory
> Committee, the list of Advisory Committees that are to be consulted by
> means of mandatory teleconferences ("Day 35-80") should be updated by
> adding the ALAC to the list. I think that, even if the process is not
> formalized as described above, there should be more than one mandatory
> telecon with any liaising entity - at least one at the beginning, to
> get input and suggestions for names, and one at the end, to get
> opinions on the appointments under consideration.
>
> Finally, I would like to add here some comments about the criteria of
> selections to be adopted by the NomCom (section 2.B.3 of the main
> document).
>
> About item b., I would add that not only the set of appointees as a
> whole should have familiarity with the different constituencies and
> issues that ICANN has to deal with, but that the fact that a possible
> appointee has experience in more than one of these constituencies and
> issues, even if participating to ICANN for one constituency only,
> should constitute a significant plus in favour of his choice.
>
> About item c., I would stress more clearly that diversity must not be
> limited to geographical diversity. In ICANN discussions, due to
> geopolitical reasons, often diversity has been automatically intended
> as geographical diversity, also because this form of diversity is easy
> to guarantee by simple rules referring to an individual's nationality.
> However, other types of variety among the users, the professionals and
> the Internet industry must be taken into account. Thus I would mention
> other types of diversity, such as diversity in career, in social
> outcome, in gender, in age; all these factors should be considered.
>
> Finally, I would add another item, which is "Support by ICANN and
> Internet communities". Even if Board members could be found outside of
> the usual ICANN communities, and thus be completely new to the ICANN
> environment, I personally think that the ability to build profitable
> personal relationships with a number of ICANN constituencies and
> participants, and with Internet users and participants to other
> Internet bodies, should be considered as a plus; this ability could be
> demonstrated by a past history of participation in ICANN and by
> explicit statements of support by individuals in a public forum.
> Though this should not be the sole or the main criterion used to
> select the appointees, it should definitely be taken into account.
> --
> vb.            [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<---
> -------------------> http://bertola.eu.org/ <-----------------------
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html