3,197
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 1:
Line 1: − + Line 101:
Line 101: − + − + − + − + − − − The ALAC simply "agreed" with the recommendation.<ref name="alacpc">[http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-nomcom2-review-27mar18/attachments/20180511/9f710525/AL-ALAC-ST-0507-01-01-EN-0001.pdf NomCom2 Draft Final Report Listserv - ALAC Comment], May 11, 2018</ref> + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
→Implementation Phase
The '''Second NomCom Organization Review''' was initiated in 2016 and concluded in 2019, with implementation of improvements continuing throughout 2020.<ref name="dashboard">[https://www.icann.org/resources/reviews/org/nomcom ICANN.org - NomCom Organizational Review Dashboard]</ref>
The '''Second NomCom Organizational Review''' was initiated in 2016 and concluded in 2019, with implementation of improvements continuing throughout 2020.<ref name="dashboard">[https://www.icann.org/resources/reviews/org/nomcom ICANN.org - NomCom Organizational Review Dashboard]</ref>
==Background==
==Background==
After [[ICANN 61]], the draft report was published for public comment on March 27, 2018.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/public-comments/nomcom2-review-2018-03-27-en ICANN.org - Public comment proceeding, NomCom2 Draft Final Report], March 27, 2018</ref>
After [[ICANN 61]], the draft report was published for public comment on March 27, 2018.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/public-comments/nomcom2-review-2018-03-27-en ICANN.org - Public comment proceeding, NomCom2 Draft Final Report], March 27, 2018</ref>
===Public Comment on Draft Report===
===Public Comment on the Draft Final Report===
Public comment was solicited at the [[ICANN 61]] presentation, and at a subsequent webinar held on April 10, 2018.<ref name="drwebinar">[https://community.icann.org/display/OR/Webinar+for+Draft+Final+Report+-+Call+Details NomCom2 Workspace - Webinar: Draft Final Report], April 10, 2018</ref> The slides and presentation of the Analysis Group were substanitally the same as the ICANN 61 presentation. The webinar comments were again complimentary of the Analysis Group's work and recommendations as a whole. [[Mark Seiden]] lamented the lack of fine-grained attention in the review to policy-making by each NomCom. As an example, he noted that the current NomCom did not routinely publish its decision-making or proposed changes to process for public comment. This, and other transparency issues, indicated to Seiden that the "secrecy" issues surrounding the NomCom remained. [[Ole Jacobsen]] commented that there should be better connection and communication between the different NomCom cycles, so that continuity and transparency could be strengthened. [[Tom Barrett]] solicited comments on how the NomCom might better address and support the Empowered Community model. [[Cheryl Langdon-Orr]] agreed that the Empowered Community had placed additional obligations on the NomCom, as with all organizations. However, she noted too that there was not yet a full-term NomCom process within the post-EC world, and that this might be something to readdress in the future.<ref>[https://community.icann.org/display/OR/NomCom+Review+Working+Party+Meetings?preview=/66078095/84214267/NomCom%20Webinar_10APR18_mp3%20audio.mp3 NomCom2 Archive - Audio Recording of Draft Report Webinar], April 10, 2018</ref>
Public comment was solicited at the [[ICANN 61]] presentation, and at a subsequent webinar held on April 10, 2018.<ref name="drwebinar">[https://community.icann.org/display/OR/Webinar+for+Draft+Final+Report+-+Call+Details NomCom2 Workspace - Webinar: Draft Final Report], April 10, 2018</ref> The slides and presentation of the Analysis Group were substanitally the same as the ICANN 61 presentation. The webinar comments were again complimentary of the Analysis Group's work and recommendations as a whole. [[Mark Seiden]] lamented the lack of fine-grained attention in the review to policy-making by each NomCom. As an example, he noted that the current NomCom did not routinely publish its decision-making or proposed changes to process for public comment. This, and other transparency issues, indicated to Seiden that the "secrecy" issues surrounding the NomCom remained. [[Ole Jacobsen]] commented that there should be better connection and communication between the different NomCom cycles, so that continuity and transparency could be strengthened. [[Tom Barrett]] solicited comments on how the NomCom might better address and support the Empowered Community model. [[Cheryl Langdon-Orr]] agreed that the Empowered Community had placed additional obligations on the NomCom, as with all organizations. However, she noted too that there was not yet a full-term NomCom process within the post-EC world, and that this might be something to readdress in the future.<ref>[https://community.icann.org/display/OR/NomCom+Review+Working+Party+Meetings?preview=/66078095/84214267/NomCom%20Webinar_10APR18_mp3%20audio.mp3 NomCom2 Archive - Audio Recording of Draft Report Webinar], April 10, 2018</ref>
The draft final report also received eleven written comments, mostly from ICANN organizations and constituencies, during the public comment period.<ref>[https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-nomcom2-review-27mar18/2018q2/date.html NomCom2 Listserv Archive - Public Comments on Draft Final Report], April 12 - May 10, 2018</ref> Some themes and highlights from the comments are listed below:
The draft final report also received eleven written comments, mostly from ICANN organizations and constituencies, during the public comment period.<ref>[https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-nomcom2-review-27mar18/2018q2/date.html NomCom2 Listserv Archive - Public Comments on Draft Final Report], April 12 - May 10, 2018</ref> Some themes and highlights from the comments are listed below:
* Recommendation 9, that all members be participating and voting members of the NomCom, drew much attention. [[Nigel Roberts]], in the sole individual comment, noted that the recommendation might create a problematic situation with the GAC, due to ICANN's founding principle that the organization remain free of governmental influence.<ref>[https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-nomcom2-review-27mar18/2018q2/000000.html NomCom2 Draft Final Report Listserv - Nigel Roberts Comment], April 12, 2018</ref> This comment was echoed by the [[RySG]],<ref>[http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-nomcom2-review-27mar18/attachments/20180507/5848c750/RySGcomment-DraftFinalReportontheNomCom2ReviewMay2018.pdf NomCom2 Draft Final Report Archive - RySG Comment], May 7, 2018</ref> The [[SSAC]] also objected to the conversion of the non-voting status of its representative, as it perceived advantages in placing the same person in the non-voting representative role over consecutive iterations of the NomCom.<ref>[http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-nomcom2-review-27mar18/attachments/20180507/7d095e25/ssac2018-12-en.pdf NomCom2 Draft Final Report Listserv - SSAC Comment], May 7, 2018</ref> The [[BC]] also demurred, arguing that the "advisory" role of the non-voting members of the NomCom was a principle drawn from the ICANN Bylaws.<ref name="bcpc">[http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-nomcom2-review-27mar18/attachments/20180508/070e4305/BCcommentonNomCom2Review.pdf NomCom2 Draft Final Report Listserv - BC Comment], May 7, 2018</ref> The [[RSSAC]] approved of the recommendation in principle,
* Recommendation 9, that all members be participating and voting members of the NomCom, drew much attention. [[Nigel Roberts]], in the sole individual comment, noted that the recommendation might create a problematic situation with the GAC, due to ICANN's founding principle that the organization remain free of governmental influence.<ref>[https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-nomcom2-review-27mar18/2018q2/000000.html NomCom2 Draft Final Report Listserv - Nigel Roberts Comment], April 12, 2018</ref> This comment was echoed by the [[RySG]].<ref>[http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-nomcom2-review-27mar18/attachments/20180507/5848c750/RySGcomment-DraftFinalReportontheNomCom2ReviewMay2018.pdf NomCom2 Draft Final Report Archive - RySG Comment], May 7, 2018</ref> The [[SSAC]] objected to the conversion of the non-voting status of its representative, as it perceived advantages in placing the same person in the non-voting representative role over consecutive iterations of the NomCom.<ref>[http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-nomcom2-review-27mar18/attachments/20180507/7d095e25/ssac2018-12-en.pdf NomCom2 Draft Final Report Listserv - SSAC Comment], May 7, 2018</ref> The [[BC]] also demurred, arguing that the "advisory" role of the non-voting members of the NomCom was a principle drawn from the ICANN Bylaws.<ref name="bcpc">[http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-nomcom2-review-27mar18/attachments/20180508/070e4305/BCcommentonNomCom2Review.pdf NomCom2 Draft Final Report Listserv - BC Comment], May 7, 2018</ref> The ALAC simply "agreed" with the recommendation,<ref name="alacpc">[http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-nomcom2-review-27mar18/attachments/20180511/9f710525/AL-ALAC-ST-0507-01-01-EN-0001.pdf NomCom2 Draft Final Report Listserv - ALAC Comment], May 11, 2018</ref> while the [[RSSAC]] approved of the recommendation in principle,
<blockquote>especially...now that the NomCom also appoints two members of the Board of Directors of Public Technical Identifiers (PTI), an affiliate of ICANN, and the current IANA functions operator. Given its mandate6, the RSSAC believes its liaison can provide valuable insight to inform discussions and deliberations about the operational and technical expertise necessary to serve in these leadership positions.
<blockquote>especially...now that the NomCom also appoints two members of the Board of Directors of Public Technical Identifiers (PTI), an affiliate of ICANN, and the current IANA functions operator. Given its mandate, the RSSAC believes its liaison can provide valuable insight to inform discussions and deliberations about the operational and technical expertise necessary to serve in these leadership positions.<br />
<br />
However, the RSSAC will make a determination on the voting status of its liaison after the recommendations are more fully vetted by the NomCom, the ICANN Board and its Organizational Effectiveness Committee, the broader ICANN community, and after its own thorough review of the options for this change and the subsequent implications.<ref>[http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-nomcom2-review-27mar18/attachments/20180508/4bf13e73/rssac-035-en-0001.pdf NomCom2 Draft Final Report Listserv - RSSAC Comments], May 7, 2018</ref></blockquote>
However, the RSSAC will make a determination on the voting status of its liaison after the recommendations are more fully vetted by the NomCom, the ICANN Board and its Organizational Effectiveness Committee, the broader ICANN community, and after its own thorough review of the options for this change and the subsequent implications.
<ref>[http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-nomcom2-review-27mar18/attachments/20180508/4bf13e73/rssac-035-en-0001.pdf NomCom2 Draft Final Report Listserv - RSSAC Comments], May 7, 2018</ref></blockquote>
* The [[RrSG]] suggested that the continuous improvement of the NomCom as a "one-and-done," annual committee, was not best effectuated by a five-year review cycle. They proposed a standing committee, formed of ex-NomCom and ex-Board members, and possibly also the current Chair-elect and/or Associate Chair, that "could be given the responsibility for improving the productivity, transparency and accountability of the NomCom."<ref>[http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-nomcom2-review-27mar18/attachments/20180507/92972307/RrSGResponse-DraftFinalReportoftheNomCom2Review1.pdf NomCom2 Draft Final Report Listserv - RrSG Comment], May 7, 2018</ref> The [[IPC]] expressed agreement with this concept in its comment.<ref>[http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-nomcom2-review-27mar18/attachments/20180508/d027a3da/IPCCommentsreDraftFinalReviewofNomCom2Report050718.pdf NomCom2 Draft Final Report Listserv - IPC Comment], May 11, 2018</ref>
* The [[RrSG]] suggested that the continuous improvement of the NomCom as a "one-and-done," annual committee, was not best effectuated by a five-year review cycle. They proposed a standing committee, formed of ex-NomCom and ex-Board members, and possibly also the current Chair-elect and/or Associate Chair, that "could be given the responsibility for improving the productivity, transparency and accountability of the NomCom."<ref>[http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-nomcom2-review-27mar18/attachments/20180507/92972307/RrSGResponse-DraftFinalReportoftheNomCom2Review1.pdf NomCom2 Draft Final Report Listserv - RrSG Comment], May 7, 2018</ref> The [[IPC]] expressed agreement with this concept in its comment.<ref>[http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-nomcom2-review-27mar18/attachments/20180508/d027a3da/IPCCommentsreDraftFinalReviewofNomCom2Report050718.pdf NomCom2 Draft Final Report Listserv - IPC Comment], May 11, 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 [[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> In October 2018, the IPT presented a draft of the FAAIP to a number of SOs and ACs during [[ICANN 63]], <ref>[https://community.icann.org/display/OR/Implementation+Planning+Team+%28IPT%29+Presentations+at+ICANN63 NomCom2 Workspace - IPT Presentations at ICANN 63], last updated November 7, 2018</ref> and received what the board later described as "broad support" for the draft plan.<ref name="impreso">[https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2019-03-14-en#2.f Resolution of the Board], March 14, 2019</ref> 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" />
The FAAIP was submitted to the [[Organizational Effectiveness Committee]] (OEC) in December 2018.<ref name="dashboard" /> The OEC discussed the FAAIP and approved its submission to the board in February 2019.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/minutes-oec-2019-04-17-en OEC Meeting Minutes - Affirmation of Actions Taken via Email], April 17, 2019</ref> On March 14, 2019 the board approved the FAAIP and instructed the IPT to convene an implementation working group (IWG) to create a detailed implementation plan, oversee the implementation, and communicate with the OEC regarding progress.<ref name="impreso" /> A call for volunteers for the IWG followed on March 25, 2019.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2019-03-25-en ICANN.org Announcement - Call for Volunteers for the IWG], March 25, 2019</ref> Again, the membership of the group included members of the IPT, and the RWP before it.<ref name="impplan">[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/nomcom-implementation-plan-15sep19-en.pdf ICANN.org Archive - NomCom2 Implementation Plan], September 15, 2019</ref>
===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 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.
** ''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?
** ''Community Responses'':
*** Ask community consensus on considering the growth and expansion of SO/ACs when rebalancing the NomCom, including allowing all stakeholder groups and constituencies to be treated equal...
*** Creation of a working group that would be tasked with undertaking an assessment and ultimately making recommendations for the actual re-balancing.
*** A constituency-based approach, trying to maintain a proportional representation, diversity within the representatives should be one of the criteria.
*** Follow these principles:
**** Gain consensus on the purpose of re-balancing
**** Identify if there are any SO/ACs not adequately represented on the NomCom
**** Determine if we envision a future where there might be more SO/ACs and whether this would have an impact on the proposed review period of five years
**** Determine if there are there methods for re-balancing aside from how seats are allocated to SO/ACs (i.e. suggest that the SO/ACs re-balance their NomCom reps)
**** Identify options for re-balancing, assuming no change in the size of the NomCom
**** Identify options for the unutilized GAC seat for the NomCom
**** The NomCom Review could develop several possible solutions and conduct a workshop during the AGM whereby the community provides feedback to the different solutions
*** The suggested review of the NomCom structure should incorporate comments on the rebalancing exercise from all bodies that appoint members to the NomCom
* '''Recommendation 14''': Formalize communication between the NomCom and the Board, SOs/ACs, and the PTI Board in order to understand needed competencies and experience.
** ''IWG Question to Community'': What process would you suggest to formalize the communication of the needed competencies and experiences of NomCom appointees to your SO/AC?
** ''Community Responses'':
*** There was general agreement that there should be formal and clear communication of required/desired competencies and experience.
*** The ALAC offered specific guidance on process:
**** A procedure be put in place for NomCom to formally request - at least on an annual basis - the Board, SOs/ACs, and the PTI Board to provide their understanding of their needed skills, competencies and experience for the Board, SOs/ACs and PTI Board seats to which NomCom appoints individuals. ''E.g.'' a designated task undertaken by NomCom staff as part of the Preparatory Phase I of the NomCom Cycle, under the supervision of NomCom Leadership.
**** Request by NomCom, should where possible, be accompanied by NomCom’s own assessment of any perceived gaps in the skills, competencies and experience of Board members either as a result of appointments made in the immediate past NomCom Cycle or whose seats the NomCom will be tasked to appoint individuals in the immediate next NomCom Cycle.
**** In particular, in respect of the 5 ALAC seats for which NomCom is tasked to appoint individuals, the ALAC should be asked for not only a job description for an ALAC Member position but also its understanding of the gaps in needed skills, competencies and experience of those appointed members, whether in association with or independent of Recommendation 16 and Recommendation 24, as well as other considerations such as diversity in gender.
* '''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?
** ''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.
** ''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.
** ''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."
** ''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 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]]