3,197
edits
Changes
no edit summary
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 ten written comments 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>
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,
<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.
<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>
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>
* 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 [[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" />
==References==
==References==
[[Category:Organizational Reviews]]
[[Category:Organizational Reviews]]