Second NomCom Organizational Review: Difference between revisions

Line 105:

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 [[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 />

@@ Line 105: / Line 105: @@
 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 [[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 />