My first meeting with the nominating committee at ICANN

[Marita Moll]

Hello all. As the candidate who withdrew (there is no process for 
rejecting an appointment) from this messy dispute between the nomcom and 
ccNSO, I can tell you that you need to make sure your rep on the nomcom 
is adequately briefed every time a new round starts.  The turnover means 
that institutional knowledge falls away and that is what happened in the 
case of nomcom and ccnso.

Marita


On 12/8/2017 6:37 PM, Ayden Férdeline wrote:
> Farzaneh, thanks-
>
> I think you touched on something very important. I think we do need to 
> develop our own profile of our ideal candidate in order to assist the 
> NomCom in finding people who can faithfully represent the diverse 
> interests and communities of the GNSO. As a starting point we might 
> turn to some of the documents that ISOC has produced in relation to 
> its recent call for nominations for its Board of Trustees to get a 
> sense of what qualifications they consider to be highly desirable.
>
> 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 contravening 
> long-standing guidance 
> <https://ccnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/field-attached/sataki-to-nomcomm-29sep17-en.pdf> 
> 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.
>
> It is hard to know how true this is, because a lot of what the NomCom 
> does happens behind closed doors, but given how the NomCom is 
> presently structured (turnover of representatives by design) it has to 
> be hard to build up institutional knowledge. I think the onus is on us 
> to be communicating to the NomCom every year what we'd like to see in 
> their slate of candidates. Those attributes are another conversation 
> altogether, and broadly I agree with you that they are transparent 
> communication, openness, commitment, passion, and strong community 
> ties. However, I would also suggest the addition of "integrity" and 
> "good judgement".
>
> I wonder if this might be something we should discuss with our 
> colleagues in the CSG at the Intersessional [and also amongst ourselves]?
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Ayden Férdeline
> linkedin.com/in/ferdeline <http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline>
>
>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: My first meeting with the nominating committee at ICANN
>> Local Time: 7 December 2017 6:50 PM
>> UTC Time: 7 December 2017 18:50
>> From: farzaneh.badii at GMAIL.COM
>> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> I had my first meeting with NomCom as the NCSG chair.
>>
>> The Nominating Committee selects 8 members of ICANN board + some key 
>> positions at ICANN, namely to NomCom Appointees to GNSO Council. Here 
>> you can read more about it. 
>> https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/nomcom-2013-12-13-en
>>
>> I didn't know what they were going to ask so I did not consult with 
>> you about the meeting. The gist of it was that they wanted to get to 
>> know us as a stakeholder group better and wanted to understand what 
>> our values are.
>>
>> Here are some of the points I made:
>>
>> They asked what we are looking for in a leader. I said we need 
>> transparent communication, openness, we need them to be committed and 
>> have a strong tie with the community and be passionate.
>>
>> They also asked what we think our priorities for the next year will 
>> be. This is the list some of the issues that I said are important for 
>> me personally and I think they are on our many of our members agenda 
>> too, but we can discuss later :
>>
>> 1. "privacy protection"
>> 2. "rights protection mechanism and preventing trademark overreach"
>> 3. "Clarifying and narrowing the definition of DNS abuse"
>> 4. "Making sure the work stream 2 recommendations are implemented" 
>> (go here for the 
>> recommendations: https://community.icann.org/display/WEIA/WS2+-+Enhancing+ICANN+Accountability+Home 
>> <https://community.icann.org/display/WEIA/WS2+-+Enhancing+ICANN+Accountability+Home>
>> Not yet finalized)
>> 5. "preventing governmental and trademark overreach in generic domain 
>> name policy"
>>
>>
>>  They also asked what do we want the leaders advocate for (it was not 
>> framed exactly like that, nomcom is an independent committee  and 
>> cannot just choose an advocate based on what we say but they wanted 
>> to know what we care about)
>>
>> I said, for GNSO positions I believe it should be someone who is 
>> active at GNSO preferably and not an outsider, does not have 
>> governmental ties and truly cares about the GNSO and its policies.
>>
>> Some from nomcom told me that it is advisable to create a profile 
>> about our ideal candidates so that nomcom understands our needs.
>>
>> They also want to be in touch so I said we could invite them to NCSG 
>> meeting in PR.
>>
>> Best
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Farzaneh
>> -- 
>> Farzaneh
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20171208/b65e9b40/attachment.htm>