<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Bill, thank you for a
really good summary of how things evolved in my case -- a
written summary from someone who was actually in the room. Much
appreciated.</font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"> In my previous
message, when I mentioned the fact that reps need to be properly
briefed, I was alluding to the fact below that the ccNSO rep
didn't appear to know about the agreement in question. Sorry if
my note could have been interpreted more broadly. I just did not
want to name names as my info was third party. I was obviously
not in the room during the selection process. </font><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif">In the end, the ccNSO rep was also
obviously caught in a really difficult situation because he
had not been briefed on this agreement. I can only imagine
what the fallout was on the ccNSO side of the fence. <br>
</font></font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">It is good to hear
that one of the things that has come out of this is a
subcommittee to address institutional memory. Without something
like this in place, this kind of dispute had to happen at some
point.</font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Cheers<br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"> </font>Marita<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 12/9/2017 6:03 AM, William Drake
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:FAB699D3-FF9D-46BF-BA55-619EE02FFA12@gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
Hi Ayden<br class="">
<div><br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">On Dec 9, 2017, at 00:37, Ayden Férdeline <<a
href="mailto:icann@FERDELINE.COM" class=""
moz-do-not-send="true">icann@FERDELINE.COM</a>> wrote:</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">But, this is only useful if the information
reaches the NomCom. Please correct me if I am wrong, but
one of the recent issues which the ccNSO had with the
NomCom was they appointed an individual <a
href="https://ccnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/field-attached/sataki-to-nomcomm-29sep17-en.pdf"
title="https://ccnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/field-attached/sataki-to-nomcomm-29sep17-en.pdf"
rel="nofollow" class="" moz-do-not-send="true">contravening
long-standing guidance</a> issued by the ccNSO. This was
unfair on the candidate who was rejected. And from what I
understand, it happened because the NomCom hadn't done
their homework and reviewed the advice received on their
evaluation criteria.<br class="">
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br class="">
</div>
Per your invitation, I will correct you. Each NomCom starts
from scratch, and does not have access to records of information
exchanged with SOACs in years prior. When I was on NomCom I
argued at length that the NomCom needed to have some
institutional memory, at least with respect to organizational
process issues (it should not have access to information on
previous candidacies, but there’s no reason to be hampered on
its own processes and have to reinvent wheels without knowing
how others made them). We eventually set up a subcommittee to
look at areas where institutional memory could be improved, and
that work continues in the current NomCom and hopefully will
also be considered in the current board mandated review, but at
the time that the ccNSO thing happened we did not have any
access to correspondence between the ccNSO and the NomCom from
2012. So the NomCom had no idea that ccNSO had given one its
predecessors guidance on what it did and didn’t want in a
candidate. This despite the fact that the NomCom had a high
ranking member of the ccNSO on it, who said nothing about this
when the candidate was being considered because he didn’t know
either. Hence, it’s really not right to assert that the NomCom
willfully disregarded “long standing guidance” and “failed to
do its homework.”</div>
<div><br class="">
</div>
<div>In addition, it should be noted how this played out. In late
September, almost a month after the NomCom announced its 2017
selections, the ccNSO chose to publicly post on ICANN’s site a
strongly worded letter denouncing the appointment and claiming
inter alia that “the proposed appointment contravenes the
Nominating Committee’s avowed role and mission." <a
href="https://ccnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/field-attached/sataki-to-nomcomm-29sep17-en.pdf"
class="" moz-do-not-send="true">https://ccnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/field-attached/sataki-to-nomcomm-29sep17-en.pdf</a>
ccNSO did not bother to privately reach out the NomCom
leadership team and say he we have an issue let’s talk about it,
instead they went public with an attack on the NomCom and just
said the selection was unacceptable. That doesn’t leave much
room to work things out.</div>
<div><br class="">
</div>
<div>Further, the ccNSO’s letter is flat out wrong about the
NomCom contravening its role and mission. The Bylaws say the
NomCom is to select people for positions, including in the
ccNSO, and those bodies are expected to accept these. The
Bylaws do not say that the NomCom is bound by any advice SOACs
may provide, only that selectees must meet the criteria of
Section 8.4 (e.g. independence integrity etc.). I’m told by
people who were around then that when the ccNSO was established,
it did not like the idea that NomCom should appoint any of their
members, given their limited commitment to ICANN generally and a
belief they should select all their own people. They were
ultimately persuaded to accept this bit of the Bylaws, but it
appears that in this case they didn’t like the result so they
chose to reinterpret the Bylaws meaning to be “you send us
people we want.” Maybe some in ccNSO will use this as a tool
in their larger disagreements with ICANN, but that’s not our
business.</div>
<div><br class="">
</div>
<div>So in sum, I would suggest not following the ccNSO model of
publicly fanning flames based on misunderstandings. Better to
reach out privately to someone who knows the case and get the
facts straight.</div>
<div><br class="">
</div>
<div>In light of this experience, the 2017 NomCom recommended to
the 2018 that they enter into consultations with the SOACs early
in the cycle to hear what they are looking for in candidates.
That’s why the NomCom is talking to Farzi. But bear in mind,
NCSG can give the NomCom advice, but the NomCom is not legally
bound to follow it. Which is a good thing. Imagine if the
Board thought it could oblige the NomCom to appoint particular
people. This would render the entire exercise irrelevant and
could result in incumbents being consistently reappointed based
on friendships etc.</div>
<div>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">I wonder if this might be something we should
discuss with our colleagues in the CSG at the
Intersessional [and also amongst ourselves]?</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br class="">
</div>
</div>
I suppose you could, but to what end?
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">I think the only real NCPH issue re: the NomCom is
the fact that the CSG has a four person voting bloc on the
NomCom and we have one representative, from NCUC. I leave the
consequences of this to your imagination.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Best</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Bill</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>