3,197
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 131:
Line 131: − + Line 157:
Line 157: + + + + + + + + + + + − + − ''*Some comments were outside the scope of implementation planning and offered specific solutions to the issues underlying the recommendations. ICANN staff assisted in clarifying the relevant comments on each recommendation.''+ + + + + + + + + − + − In addition, the IWG contacted the Board, the [[PTI]], NomCom support staff, and NomCom leadership with questions, both regarding opinions or suggestions for process and to solicit background information on the activities and processes that were already in place.<ref>[https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/111383823/Implementation%20Outreach%20vfinal%2019122019.docx NomCom2 Workspace - Outreach Communications for Feedback on Implementation Steps], compiled December 19, 2019 (Word document)</ref>+
→Implementation Phase
===Plan Refinement and Submission to the Board===
===Plan Refinement and Submission to the Board===
The IWG conducted a number of plenary sessions throughout 2019 in order to finalize the details of the implementation plan.<ref>[https://community.icann.org/display/OR/Team+Meetings+2019 NomCom2 Workspace - IWG Team meetings, 2019], last updated November 24, 2020</ref> In June 2019, the working group conducted a webinar to update the community on its progress and solicit feedback on its approach to implementation.<ref name="juneweb">[https://community.icann.org/display/OR/Webinar+-+NomCom+Review+Implementation+-+Status+Update+in+Preparation+for+ICANN65+-+Thursday%2C+13+June+2019+@+2300+UTC NomCom2 Workspace - IWG Implementation Status Update in Preparation for ICANN 65], June 13, 2019</ref> There were no public meetings of the IWG scheduled for [[ICANN 65]], so the webinar represented the only opportunity to engage with the IWG on the record before the meeting in Marrakech.<ref name="juneweb" /> [[Tom Barrett]] highlighted six recommendations that the IWG solicited feedback on from the community, and encouraged attendees to connect with their ACs or SOs regarding the organization's response, or to respond indiviually.<ref name="juneweb" />
The IWG conducted a number of plenary sessions throughout 2019 in order to finalize the details of the implementation plan.<ref>[https://community.icann.org/display/OR/Team+Meetings+2019 NomCom2 Workspace - IWG Team meetings, 2019], last updated November 24, 2020</ref> In June 2019, the working group conducted a webinar to update the community on its progress and solicit feedback on its approach to implementation.<ref name="juneweb">[https://community.icann.org/display/OR/Webinar+-+NomCom+Review+Implementation+-+Status+Update+in+Preparation+for+ICANN65+-+Thursday%2C+13+June+2019+@+2300+UTC NomCom2 Workspace - IWG Implementation Status Update in Preparation for ICANN 65], June 13, 2019</ref> There were no public meetings of the IWG scheduled for [[ICANN 65]], so the webinar represented the only opportunity to engage with the IWG on the record before the meeting in Marrakech.<ref name="juneweb" /> [[Tom Barrett]] highlighted six recommendations that the IWG solicited feedback on from the community, and encouraged attendees to connect with their ACs or SOs regarding the organization's response, or to respond indiviually.<ref name="juneweb" />
The compiled feedback<ref name="comminput1">[https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/111385853/NomCom%20Outreach%20Analysis%20v1.3.docx NomCom2 Workspace - Community Outreach Analysis], August 1, 2019</ref> from ACs, SOs, and individuals was discussed by the IWG at plenary sessions held on July 25<ref>[https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=111385848 NomCom2 Workspace - IWG Meeting #11], July 25, 2019</ref> and August 1, 2019.<ref>[https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=111385853 NomCom2 Workspace - IWG Meeting #12], August 1, 2019</ref> A summary of IWG questions on those recommendations, and germane* community feedback, follows:
The compiled feedback<ref name="comminput1">[https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/111385853/NomCom%20Outreach%20Analysis%20v1.3.docx NomCom2 Workspace - Community Outreach Analysis], August 1, 2019</ref> from ACs, SOs, and individuals was discussed by the IWG at plenary sessions held on July 25<ref name="725mtg">[https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=111385848 NomCom2 Workspace - IWG Meeting #11], July 25, 2019</ref> and August 1, 2019.<ref>[https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=111385853 NomCom2 Workspace - IWG Meeting #12], August 1, 2019</ref> A summary of IWG questions on those recommendations,<ref>[https://community.icann.org/display/OR/Webinar+-+NomCom+Review+Implementation+-+Status+Update+in+Preparation+for+ICANN65+-+Thursday%2C+13+June+2019+@+2300+UTC?preview=/109480704/111381561/NomComRIWG%20Pre-ICANN65%20Webinar.pdf NomCom2 Workspace - June Webinar Slides], June 13, 2019</ref> and germane* community feedback,<ref>[https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=111385853&preview=/111385853/111392524/NomCom%20Outreach%20Analysis%20v1.3.docx NomCom2 Workspace - Community Outreach Analysis], August 1, 2019</ref> follows:
* '''Recommendation 10''': Representation on the NomCom should be re-balanced immediately and then be reviewed every five years.
* '''Recommendation 10''': Representation on the NomCom should be re-balanced immediately and then be reviewed every five years.
** ''IWG Question to Community'': What process, based on which principles, would you suggest for the implementation of this recommendation to rebalance the NomCom? And, what criteria should the overall allocation of all NomCom seats among the SO/ACs be based on?
** ''IWG Question to Community'': What process, based on which principles, would you suggest for the implementation of this recommendation to rebalance the NomCom? And, what criteria should the overall allocation of all NomCom seats among the SO/ACs be based on?
* '''Recommendation 16''': Implement and codify a system for providing feedback to the NomCom regarding the contributions and participation of members up for re-appointment by the NomCom (i.e. for the Board, PTI, GNSO, ALAC and ccNSO)
* '''Recommendation 16''': Implement and codify a system for providing feedback to the NomCom regarding the contributions and participation of members up for re-appointment by the NomCom (i.e. for the Board, PTI, GNSO, ALAC and ccNSO)
** ''IWG Question to Community'': What process would you suggest to improve feedback to the NomCom regarding the contribution and participation of NomCom appointees members that wish to apply for re-appointment by the NomCom?
** ''IWG Question to Community'': What process would you suggest to improve feedback to the NomCom regarding the contribution and participation of NomCom appointees members that wish to apply for re-appointment by the NomCom?
** ''Community Response'': There was overall consensus that feedback on NomCom appointees should be collected at different stages, automatically and on a regular basis. Community responses included:
*** Publish formal written questionnaires at “entry," “yearly” and “exit” to be filled by the appointees about their work plans and achievements while holding the position. This would also include any recommendations for improvement and highlight best practices.
*** Confidential process should be conducted annually, even if there is no NomCom appointee who is re-applying. The process should be a peer-review method but separate from any 360-reviews conducted by some groups. The NomCom already has a third-party consultant to assess candidates. This same assessment process could be customized for re-applying candidates to include a confidential survey of the other members of the Board and other bodies on the re-applying candidates. This should also include the PTI Board.
*** NomCom’s candidate evaluation and selection processes should be refined to automatically incorporate such feedback; NomCom members should be strongly discouraged from disregarding the feedback.
*** In the July 25 meeting of the IWG, [[Cheryl Langdon-Orr]] noted that review of only NomCom appointees who are up for re-appointment would introduce a possibly insurmountable challenge to the NomCom's committment to confidentiality of personal data regarding candidates.<ref name="725mtg" />
* '''Recommendation 24''': An empowered body of current and former NomCom members should be formed to ensure greater continuity across NomComs, and in particular, to recommend and assist in implementing improvements to NomCom operations.
* '''Recommendation 24''': An empowered body of current and former NomCom members should be formed to ensure greater continuity across NomComs, and in particular, to recommend and assist in implementing improvements to NomCom operations.
** ''IWG Question to Community'': What process do you suggest should be put in place to help ensure cross-community consensus on developing the Charter and formation of this body? The Charter would address issues such as membership, term limits, number and allocation of seats?
** ''IWG Question to Community'': What process do you suggest should be put in place to help ensure cross-community consensus on developing the Charter and formation of this body? The Charter would address issues such as membership, term limits, number and allocation of seats?
** ''Community Responses'':
*** Disagreement on who should be responsible for forming the standing committee. Suggestions included: a cross-community model, where SOs and ACs appointed delegates to the standing committee; a Board-constituted committee with current NomCom chair, at least one former NomCom chair, and 2 former "highly performing" (according to NomCom's self-assessments) former NomCom members appointed from each body that receives NomCom appointees; and a chartered committee created via charter development within a cross-community working group.
*** Resistance to the standing committee having oversight of the substance of NomCom processes and decision-making. Several recommendations sought to restrain the scope, influence and size of the committee with an eye toward maintaining an independent NomCom.
* '''Recommendation 25''': Improve NomCom selection decisions by assessing the performance and needs of all bodies receiving NomCom appointees.
* '''Recommendation 25''': Improve NomCom selection decisions by assessing the performance and needs of all bodies receiving NomCom appointees.
** ''IWG Question to Community'': What process would you suggest for your organization to inform and improve future NomCom appointments?
** ''IWG Question to Community'': What process would you suggest for your organization to inform and improve future NomCom appointments?
** ''Community Responses'':
*** ICANN Staff found "general consensus that a structured and clearer communication is needed between SO/ACs and the NomCom to gather information on a candidate’s past performance, but also on current gaps and skills needed for future candidates.
*** The ALAC reiterated its recommendations to incorporate organizational self-assessment work into any such decision-making.
* '''Recommendation 27''': Provide clarity on desire for and definition of "independent directors" Upon clarification of desire and definition, determine the number of specific seats for "independent directors."
* '''Recommendation 27''': Provide clarity on desire for and definition of "independent directors" Upon clarification of desire and definition, determine the number of specific seats for "independent directors."
** ''IWG Question to Community'': What are your suggestions regarding the process of implementing of this recommendation?<ref>[https://community.icann.org/display/OR/Webinar+-+NomCom+Review+Implementation+-+Status+Update+in+Preparation+for+ICANN65+-+Thursday%2C+13+June+2019+@+2300+UTC?preview=/109480704/111381561/NomComRIWG%20Pre-ICANN65%20Webinar.pdf NomCom2 Workspace - June Webinar Slides], June 13, 2019</ref>
** ''IWG Question to Community'': What are your suggestions regarding the process of implementing of this recommendation?
** ''Community Responses'': Broad variation on the means of achieving a definition of "independence," with a general theme that community consensus was important in whatever process was established. One suggestion was a small working group to draft a definition for board consideration and, presumably, public comment.
''<noinclude>*</noinclude>Some comments were outside the scope of implementation planning and offered specific solutions to the issues underlying the recommendations. ICANN staff assisted in clarifying the relevant comments on each recommendation.''
Upon incorporating the community feedback on the six recommendations, and finalizing the remainder of the detailed plan, the IWG submitted its implementation plan to the board on September 15, 2019.<ref name="impplan" /> The plan was approved by the board at its meeting at [[ICANN 66]].<ref>[https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2019-11-07-en#2.b Resolution of the Board], November 7, 2019</ref> The day before the board meeting, [[Tom Barrett]] of the IWG gave a brief update as to the status of the project and implementation to the ALAC.<ref>[https://66.schedule.icann.org/meetings/ePQ7BNobp3XcJbBC9 ICANN 66 Archive - At-Large Leadership Session: ATRT3 and NomCom2 Review Leadership Team], November 6, 2019</ref>
===Implementation Phase===
After approval of implementation plan, the IWG again contacted the SOs and ACs and constituent groups - along with the Board, the [[PTI]], NomCom support staff, and NomCom leadership - to solicit background information on each organization's "standard" activities and processes in interaction with the NomCom, using the final report's recommendations as a framework of inquiry.<ref>[https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/111383823/Implementation%20Outreach%20vfinal%2019122019.docx NomCom2 Workspace - Outreach Communications for Feedback on Implementation Steps], compiled December 19, 2019 (Word document)</ref> This elicited responses from across the community,<ref>[https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/126421147/Outreach%20Input%20Received%20v4.0.pdf NomCom2 Workspace - Implementation Outreach: Input Received], January 31, 2020</ref> which the IWG utilized to inform their work as they set about implementing improvements.
The IWG subsequently sent a proposed "rebalancing" plan (regarding Recommendation 10) to all GNSO stakeholder groups and constituencies, proposing that language regarding the specific allocation of GNSO seats be removed from the Bylaws, and empowering the GNSO to independently engage in a "rebalancing" process on a periodic bases. Such rebalancing, in the eyes of the IWG, was best conceived and implemented by the GNSO, in alignment with ICANN's principles of bottom-up, consensus action.<ref>[https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/nomcomriwg/2020-June/000472.html IWG to GNSO SG and constituency leadership], June 16, 2020</ref> The proposal was discussed during an SG/C leadership call,<ref name="rec10email">[https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/nomcomriwg/2020-October/000592.html IWG to GNSO SG/C leadership], October 9, 2020</ref> and written responses were sent by the [[BC]], [[IPC]], [[ISPCP]], and [[RySG]].<ref name="outreachdb">[https://community.icann.org/display/OR/Implementation+-+Outreach NomCom2 Workspace - Implementation: Outreach], last updated October 12, 2020</ref> The IWG also issued its first status report to the OEC in June.<ref name="status1">[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/nomcom2-status-report-29jun20-en.pdf NomCom2 Implementation Status Report], June 29, 2020</ref> The status report detailed progress on initiating steps for most of the recommendations, and also laid out the input received from the ICANN community regarding implementation of specific recommendations.<ref name="status1" />
The IWG submitted its implementation plan to the board on September 15, 2019.<ref name="impplan" /> The plan was approved by the board at its meeting at [[ICANN 66]]. Also at ICANN 66, Tom Barrett of the IWG gave a brief update as to the status of the project and implementation.
The second status report was submitted in December 2020.<ref name="status2">[https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/126421307/NomComRIWG%20Progress%20and%20Implementation%20Status%20Report%20%232%20-%2022%20December%202020.pdf NomCom2 Implementation Status Report], December 22, 2020</ref> The status report included proposed bylaws amendments in redline, as well as a draft charter for the standing committee for NomCom improvement.<ref name="status2" /> Progress was identified in implementation areas, and areas where further community engagment was required (such as Recommendations 10 and 27) were highlighted, and current steps described.<ref name="status2" /> Following the publication of the status report, and in line with the implementation plan for the recommendations requiring modification of the bylaws, ICANN Legal weighed in on the proposed bylaws amendments.<ref>[https://community.icann.org/display/OR/Implementation+Progress+Report?preview=/126421307/155191126/NomComRIWG%20Progress%20and%20Implementation%20Status%20Report%20%232%20-%2022%20December%202020%20-%20with%20legal%20tracked%20changes%20.docx NomCom2 Workspace - Second Implementation Status Report with ICANN Legal tracked changes]</ref>
As of June 2021, implementation is ongoing, with a third status report expected at the end of the month.<ref>[https://community.icann.org/display/OR/Implementation+Progress+Report NomCom2 Archive - Implementation Progress Reports], last updated January 15, 2021</ref>
==References==
==References==
[[Category:Organizational Reviews]]
[[Category:Organizational Reviews]]