3,197
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 25:
Line 25: − + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
no edit summary
===Assessment Report: Findings===
===Assessment Report: Findings===
The
Analysis Group provided an executive summary of its findings within two broad categories - people and processes:
* '''People'''
** NomCom members have significant technical and policy-related experience in their fields but have difficulty fully understanding the role of Board members and the skills and attributes needed to be a successful Board member at ICANN.
** NomCom members have exerted, and continue to exert, tremendous effort and time to the activities of the committee. On average, NomCom members lack substantive recruiting and selection experience for an organization the size and complexity of ICANN.
** The extent to which NomCom appointees and members are independent and prioritize the interests of the global internet community in their decision-making is an area of concern within ICANN.
*'''Processes'''
** The NomCom is generally seen as performing its role effectively, but there is room to improve the functioning of the NomCom.
** The NomCom has made progress in increasing the extent to which it preserves policies and procedures from year to year, however, it still “reinvents the wheel” on many process issues and exhibits a lack of continuity.
** There is a lack of communication between the NomCom and SO/ACs regarding the desired skills and qualities of potential candidates. In addition, the Board and SO/ACs sometimes struggle to reach consensus on what they need and do not have an effective way to communicate to the NomCom if current appointees should be re-appointed.
** NomCom’s recruiting processes are generally effective, especially in recent years, but there is room for improvement. The NomCom should continue to increase the diversity of the candidate pool.
** There is a lack of understanding around the role of, and consensus regarding, the effectiveness of the professional recruitment firm OB Brussels.
** The NomCom’s interactions with candidates has improved significantly over the past five years and is generally viewed positively. However, several candidates expressed negative experiences regarding their interactions.
** The NomCom does not always evaluate candidates in a consistent manner.
** The role and effectiveness of the professional evaluation firm, OB Frankfurt, generates some disagreement within the ICANN community.
** The NomCom has made significant progress in becoming more transparent, but transparency of its processes is still a concern within parts of the ICANN community.
** Diversity requirements for NomCom appointees are currently appropriate.
** The NomCom itself is not seen as sufficiently diverse, particularly with respect to gender.
** The current size of the NomCom is appropriate.
** There is concern that the NomCom may not accurately represent constituencies (both across organizations and within organizations) and over the role and participation of non-voting members.
** The NomCom term length of one year, even if often renewed for a second year, may not allow for sufficient learning and engagement of members.
** The leadership structure of the NomCom generally works well, although the effectiveness of the NomCom depends heavily on the effectiveness of the Chair.
** The NomCom is highly dependent on ICANN Staff support. There is concern that the NomCom Staff is under-resourced, which has affected the functioning of the NomCom.
These findings were discussed in detail in the body of the report. Of note among the opinions gathered regarding the people who serve on the NomCom was a growing belief that "independence" of both NomCom members and the appointments that the NomCom makes went beyond ICANN's traditional interpretation of "conflict of interest."
<blockquote>Many people viewed the concept of independence as going beyond the requirement that appointees are free from conflicts of interest, which is covered by policies of the bodies to which the NomCom appoints people, and instead encompasses a more general view that the NomCom should appoint people that address issues without strong personal bias in favor of a particular viewpoint even if such a person did not stand to gain from that viewpoint financially...
...A common concern raised by both interviewees and survey respondents was that NomCom members too often voted as blocs based on the organization that sent them to the NomCom or some other common interest. As a result, these people felt that sending delegates to the NomCom was seen as a way for those organizations to advance an agenda instead of appointing people that acted in the best interest of the broader ICANN community.<ref name="assess" /></blockquote>
==References==
==References==
[[Category:Organizational Reviews]]
[[Category:Organizational Reviews]]