3,197
edits
Changes
no edit summary
* The [[NCSG]] reiterated its concerns about representation and diversity, noting that [[George Sadowsky]]'s comment at ICANN 61 that the NomCom structure was representative of the ICANN structure in 2003 was yet another example of the common knowledge that the NomCom's structure was in need of reform.<ref>[http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-nomcom2-review-27mar18/attachments/20180508/2b030ddc/DraftFinalReportoftheNomCom2Review-NCSGComment.pdf NomCom2 Draft Final Report Listserv - NCSG Comment], May 8, 2018</ref>
* The [[NCSG]] reiterated its concerns about representation and diversity, noting that [[George Sadowsky]]'s comment at ICANN 61 that the NomCom structure was representative of the ICANN structure in 2003 was yet another example of the common knowledge that the NomCom's structure was in need of reform.<ref>[http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-nomcom2-review-27mar18/attachments/20180508/2b030ddc/DraftFinalReportoftheNomCom2Review-NCSGComment.pdf NomCom2 Draft Final Report Listserv - NCSG Comment], May 8, 2018</ref>
* The [[BC]] objected on practical grounds to the recommendation that the NomCom appoint three independent directors to the Board, taking issue with the Analysis Group's suggested definition that "independent directors are those with limited prior ICANN experience: "In our view, board members without prior ICANN experience must typically devote the first half of their term just to build an understanding of what ICANN does and how it does its work."<ref name="bcpc" /> The ALAC agreed, noting that the current process did not need to be "hardened" when it was doing a reasonable job thus far.<ref name="alacpc" />
* The [[BC]] objected on practical grounds to the recommendation that the NomCom appoint three independent directors to the Board, taking issue with the Analysis Group's suggested definition that "independent directors are those with limited prior ICANN experience: "In our view, board members without prior ICANN experience must typically devote the first half of their term just to build an understanding of what ICANN does and how it does its work."<ref name="bcpc" /> The ALAC agreed, noting that the current process did not need to be "hardened" when it was doing a reasonable job thus far.<ref name="alacpc" />
===Final Report===
On June 5, 2018, the Analysis Group released its final report.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/en/announcements/details/nominating-committee-review-final-report-now-available-5-6-2018-en ICANN.org Announcement - NomCom2 Independent Examiner Final Report Now Available], June 5, 2018</ref> The report noted that the NomCom's strengths included its commitment to improvement in response to recommendations from NomCom1 as well as ATRT1 and ATRT2. Indeed, "[a]s an example of such improvement from year to year, the 2018 NomCom has implemented, partially or in whole, several recommendations we had formed based on our assessment of the 2017 NomCom’s policies and procedures."<ref name="finalrep">[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/nomcom-review-final-05jun18-en.pdf ICANN.org Archive - NomCom2 Final Report of the Analysis Group], June 5, 2018 (PDF)</ref>
The recommendations remained largely the same as in the draft final report, with the addition of the RrSG/IPC suggestion of a standing committee focused on continuity and improvement of NomCom processes from year to year. Although occasional references were made to public comments, there was no discussion of objections to elements of the draft final report. For example, Recommendation 9 remained intact, with no discussion of the multiple responses the recommendation evoked.<ref name="finalrep" />
==Implementation==
===Implementation Planning===
With a few alterations in membership, the NomCom2 RWP re-assembled as the NomCom2 Review Implementation Planning Team (IPT), and started work on a Feasibility Assessment and Implementation Plan (FAAIP) for the recommendations.<ref>[https://community.icann.org/display/OR/Implementation+Planning+Team+Membership NomCom2 Workspace - Implementation Planning Team], last updated August 2, 2018</ref> The FAAIP was submitted to the [[Organizational Effectiveness Committee]] (OEC) in December 2018.<ref name="dashboard" /> With the exception of some edits to the wording of particular recommendations to better reflect the views of the community or the IPT members, all of the twenty-seven recommendations in the final report were accepted by the IPT. With an eye toward prioritization, the team's implementation plan separated the recommendations into five categories:
# Accountability and Transparency;
# ICANN/NomCom Charters/Operating Procedure;
# Skills & Training;
# Recruitment; and
# Assessment
As the IPT explained: "The five categories are not equal in significance. In particular, category 1 and 2 above are “macro”‐level issues related to ICANN’s mission, which in turn influence the next three “micro”‐level categories that relate more to the operational details of the NomCom."<ref name="faaip">[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/nomcom2-ipt-review-faiip-14dec18-en.pdf NomCom2 Feasibility Assessment and Implementation Plan], December 14, 2018</ref> The macro-issues informed multiple operational categories. Implementation of some recommendations were interdependent upon the progress and direction of other recommendations within the same or different categories. The FAAIP also sought to identify recommendations that, because of the simplicity of work, source of activity and effort, or preexisting community consensus, would have short implementation timelines.<ref name="faaip" />
==References==
==References==
[[Category:Organizational Reviews]]
[[Category:Organizational Reviews]]