[council] NomCom discussion

[Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>]

Councillors,

FYI. In the context of our ongoing discussions with the NomCom, which I have 
kept you informed of, and of Vanda's latest message asking us if we had a 
transcript of the Dakar meeting when we discussed the NCA allocation procedure, 
I asked Glen to search for a such a transcript. She did a fantastic job of 
coming up with the text below, and as a follow-up I have asked Vanda to let us 
know when the NomCom would make a final determination for this year's NCA 
assignments and inform us of this.

I will note that my understanding from the text below, and Rob Hall's 
explanations, is that the NomCom actually only assign when they pick the 
candidates. If that is correct, it would mean that the NomCom will only give us 
directions for the single NCA they pick this year, leaving the other two 
assignments up to the Council. This seems to me to be consistent with what 
Vanda has already told us, but as I mentioned above, I have asked her for a 
final determination from the NomCom just to make sure we are doing what needs 
to be done on this issue.

Copying Vanda and Rob on this to make sure they are in the loop as well.

Thanks,
 
Stéphane Van Gelder
Directeur Général / General manager
INDOM Group NBT France
----------------
Head of Domain Operations
Group NBT

Début du message réexpédié :

> De : Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@xxxxxxxxx>
> Objet : RE: hi Stéphane
> Date : 6 août 2012 18:54:05 UTC+02:00
> À : Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>, 'Vanda Scartezini' 
> <vanda@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Neuman Jeff <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben 
> <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>, "gnso-secs@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-secs@xxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Dear Vanda and Stephane,
>  
> This is an excerpt from the transcript of the Wrap-Up meeting on 27 October 
> 2011 in Dakar where the issue was raised and Rob Hall spoke.
> http://dakar42.icann.org/meetings/dakar2011/transcript-gnso-wrap-up-27oct11-en.pdf
> I have highlighted certain parts of Rob Hall’s discussion with the Council 
> for you.
>  
> I hope this is helpful.
> Thank you.
> Kind regards,
> Glen
>  
> Excerpt from the transcript of the Wrap-Up meeting on 27 October 2011 in Dakar
> http://dakar42.icann.org/meetings/dakar2011/transcript-gnso-wrap-up-27oct11-en.pdf
> 
> Stephane Van Gelder:
> So we’ll move on to the next topic which is a discussion. I want to ask to be 
> able to discuss the - some of the topics that came out of a meeting that 
> leadership team had with the NomCom earlier in the week and sent the council 
> a short recap of the notes that I’ve taken from that meeting. 
> see the text of the email below that you sent to the council:
> http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg12320.html
>  
> And in that meeting the NomCom made it clear through us that in their work at 
> both selecting and assigning NCO NomCom appointees to the council, they were 
> now under obligation to have discussions with the GNSO council so it wasn’t 
> something - I mean, it’s always something that they’ve wanted to do but now 
> it’s something that they are under obligation to do and if those discussions 
> can’t take place, then they would report back in the - when they make their 
> assignments.
> So I just wanted to touch on that, get some feedback possibly from you on how 
> we should approach that with the NomCom. Wolf. 
> 
> Wolf-Ulrich Knoben: Thank you Stephane. I would like to say in general that 
> the whole process, how it worked in the past, it must’ve been a big problem, 
> big issue for those who are coming in for the (UNTA) I would say, because you 
> know, if you are - I (offer your opinion) to come in here or you are already 
> in and you think about and think something is (severed), and then it turns 
> out that the process didn’t work which as been.
> There was a process but a - one of the major bodies, NomCom did not take care 
> of all of that. It must be really critical so that’s one point, to say that 
> very clearly.
> In - I learned from that as well. Right now they are obliged to deal with 
> that in the future. That means if I understand that correctly that the 
> council in this respect shall not have any right or any obligation now to act 
> on this in the future, just to accept what is coming on - out from the 
> NomCom. That’s my understanding on that.
> So the only question from me is that then if that is the case or how we can 
> then start to incorporate those who are coming in and to help them to find 
> their places, the right places here or told they will be allocated but they 
> have to learn how to educate and perhaps into a system to understand what’s 
> going on.
> So - and this is what probably we should think about or how we could deal 
> with them – because I understand people who are not allocated to any specific 
> stakeholder group or specific (part of the constituency) for example. They 
> would say they may have problems to find the positions here.
> And so, my suggestion is, well, that (successfully this has to be) in the 
> stakeholder groups. They should come up with some ideas or (we don’t) take 
> this up within our constituency as well. Think about that and then these 
> ideas should be put on the table before the next round which is in one year.
> So, we have some time but it is not too much time as I understand because now 
> only people are thinking when the event is very close. Thank you. 
> 
> Stephane Van Gelder: Thanks Wolf. Any further discussion? (Carlos).
> (Carlos): Thank you Stephane. I have nothing to say more then I said in my 
> mails during the last two weeks. I think my position is clear. I think the 
> whole community needs to know how is the procedure (taken) by NomCom to the 
> (unintelligible) every NomCom appointee needs GNSO houses and how will be the 
> (resolution).
> And maybe looking past. The question is why our chair and vice chairs didn’t 
> ask the NomCom or NomCom appointee like by (last set). Thank you. 
> 
> Stephane Van Gelder: Well, I can begin to answer that and we have the chair 
> elect of the NomCom here who I know wants to say a few words. But because you 
> mentioned the leadership team, I feel I should address some of those points 
> and add a bit of history and context to the discussions. And the assignments 
> for the NomCom appointees is something that’s relatively new because it’s 
> coming out of the new structure of the council so we basically had to face 
> this situation twice.
> And both times we have not had direction from the NomCom whom I believe have 
> felt that the GNSO council itself working with the NCOs were able to work out 
> the best assignments that would suit both the houses and the appointees. And 
> I have to say that in the past up to this year, that system has worked 
> exactly like that and the appointee themselves have made their wishes or 
> requirements known and have talked to the houses directly to be assigned. So 
> I think we were slipping into that system and the clarifications that have 
> been brought up this year have meant that we are changing and looking at now 
> sticking to the bylaws as the note from general council said we should. Rob. 
> 
> Rob Hall: Thank you for the opportunity to perhaps clarify. My name is Rob 
> Hall. I am - as of Friday, the chair elect. I’ll be chairing the 2013 NomCom, 
> (Vend), of course, chairs this one.
> This is a great discussion. Let me perhaps clarify some things. Steph, you’re 
> sort of right. The bylaws changed last year with respect to the nominating 
> committee so it’s not that the previous nominating committees were ignoring 
> this, the ATRT recommended that the nominating committee begin assigning the 
> specific houses.
> In the middle of last year’s nominating committee, the bylaws changed. The 
> committee at the time decided to continue on the bylaws of when they were 
> struck which were in place at the last AGM which is why the committee did not 
> appoint to the individual houses.
> It became apparent through request of the general council that we should do 
> that. The general council says, “Yes, the bylaws are enforced now even though 
> they weren’t when you started your deliberations, so it is your duty to 
> appoint.” So that is why we regrouped the last year’s nominating committee 
> which ends its duties tomorrow. The new nominating committee sits tomorrow. 
> Just to clarify I think something Steph said earlier, the - those same new 
> bylaw changes require the nominating committee to go out to the community of 
> which, of course, the GNSO is one, and ask its advice on what skill sets we 
> should be looking at for the board members and we read that as for all the 
> members we appoint because we appoint to the GNSO, the ccNSO and the ALAC.
> So we have formally done that. You may be getting a letter from us to request 
> it even more formally. I heard some comments about timing so let me be 
> perfectly clear on what they are.
> This is the first year that we will be appointing where we have knowledge 
> before we ask for candidates to your individual houses. We’re looking for 
> what questions should we be asking, what criteria and that can be on a house 
> level.
> For instance, one of your houses may have different criteria for what it 
> wants in its house then the other, and as a whole, you may have some comments 
> on what the non-voting representative criteria should be.
> We’re happy for those. We’re desperate for those. Applications open in 
> December typically and we’re planning on following that again this year. They 
> close in April. So the time to get a feedback is between now and December as 
> to what qualities we should be looking for because we’ll include it in the 
> application process.
> These candidates will be picked at the Prague meeting which I believe is next 
> summer and will be assigned to a house on the announcement when we pick them. 
> So that’s the timing of what we’re deciding so if you want us to consider 
> criteria for candidates before application, the time is December.
> If you want us to consider criteria when we’re actually picking them after we 
> have the candidates, that time would be before Prague, and I can assure you 
> with the new processes of the first year under the new bylaws as well, where 
> there is a chair elect, I have the privilege of serving in that.
> So I will be coming to you much sooner. So the old bylaws prevented it. We 
> had a chair and past chair. The chair was not allowed to reach out to you 
> prior to actually sitting so the previous chair had to do the work as (Adam) 
> has done this year.
> I’ll start the process of who are your candidates for the NomCom? What are 
> you looking for, probably in the spring or summer so you’ll see it many 
> months earlier. So that’s all part of the ATIT recommendations.
> I think I’ve answered most of the questions you clari- you touched on. If 
> there’s anything else, I’ll be happy to answer it to the best of my ability. 
> Thank you sir. 
> 
> Stephane Van Gelder: Rob, thanks very much for those great explanations. 
> Alan. 
> 
> Alan Greenberg: Yes, this doesn’t affect the current situation but just to 
> get the history right, in the first round after the reorganization, the rules 
> council adopted was if the three NCAs and the two houses could come to an 
> agreement as to how they were assigned by a certain date, that will be 
> assigned as such otherwise a random selection would be drawn.
> There was agreement but not by the date and a random selection was used which 
> incidentally changed radically the - what they had come to an agreement on. 
> 
> Stephane Van Gelder: Thanks Alan. Any further comments? Okay, we’ll continue 
> discussing the topic and seeing how we can interact with the NomCom. The next 
> top- I just want to just go down the list a bit, just make sure we cover 31
>  
>  
> http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg12320.html
> Councillors,
>  
> At the NomCom's request, a meeting was called with them on Monday. I wanted to
> pass on my notes from the meeting to ensure the Council was aware of it.
>  
> Attendees were:
>  
> Adam Peake: previous NomCom Chair (from Friday) appointed by the Board
> Vanda Scartezini: New NomCom Chair (from Friday) SSAC rep
> Rob Hall: Chair NomCom elect (from Friday) Registrar rep
> Mary
> Jeff
> SVG
>  
> Rob: Intro. We would like to know what you want, and don't want, in an NCA.
>  
> SVG: Intro. This meeting planned at last minute at the NomCom's initiative.
> Council not aware. Leadership team cannot speak for Council and cannot be
> telling the NomCom in this kind of a meeting what the Council wants and 
> doesn't
> want. My expectations for this meeting were that we would not be speaking 
> about
> this, but only about the current assignment situation.
>  
> Mary and Jeff: In agreement.
>  
> Rob: Understood. We could sit in your Open meeting on Wednesday and talk to 
> the
> Council if you want and ask this question. This year, for the first time, we
> have to have opinions. We are required to by the bylaws and we have to report
> on how we have come to our decisions. So please go back to the Council if you
> think you need to, but be aware that we need some feedback soon.
>  
> Adam: Process so far has been for informal discussions with the GNSO. Now
> discussions need to be more formal.
>  
> Rob: The GNSO can also provide input on the other positions the NomCom 
> assigns,
> like the Board. Not just the GNSO positions.
>  
> Rob: Process for NomCom assignments. We pick 2 people one year, and 1 person
> the next year. But every year we decide how to assign all three.
>  
> SVG: So why didn't you assign 3 people this year?
>  
> Adam: Yes, we should probably have assigned Carlos on the note we sent you, 
> but
> of course we considered that assignment to be implicit in the letter we sent
> you as the other 2 NCAs were assigned. Don't forget that this was an emergency
> situation and we had to reconvene the old NomCom to decide this.
>  
> Adam: The NomCom is an independent committee under the bylaws and we operate
> under strict privacy laws.
>  
> Follows discussion on how the past NCAs have worked and what the history of
> past NCAs is, the NomCom wanting to get feedback on their previous assignments
> to get a better idea of how they should act going forward.
>  
> Rob: In the selection process, right now we have a generic questionnaire. I
> would like to see us have an additional questionnaire as well which would be
> more specifically for the group that we're assigning the candidate to.
>  
> Stéphane
> Glen de Saint Géry
> GNSO Secretariat
> gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://gnso.icann.org
>  
>  
>  
> De : Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx] 
> Envoyé : vendredi 3 août 2012 23:48
> À : Glen de Saint Géry
> Cc : Neuman Jeff; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben
> Objet : Re: hi Stéphane
>  
> Glen,
>  
> Do we have a transcript of our meeting with the NomCom in Dakar? My 
> recollection is that it was an inscribed meeting, but I am not sure.
>  
> Could you please respond to Vanda if you find something?
>  
> Thanks,
>  
> Stéphane Van Gelder
> Directeur Général / General manager
> INDOM Group NBT France
> ----------------
> Head of Domain Operations
> Group NBT
>  
> Le 3 août 2012 à 19:37, "Vanda UOL" <vanda@xxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :
> 
> 
>  
> Dear Stéphane
> We start again, as I said,  debating inside the Committee and since our notes 
> are not recorded, we have the best the staff get from  the points discussed 
> inside our meetings/calls.
> My personal recollection is that we just debated and no final decision was 
> taken related to placing of the appointee within the GNSO structure.
> By the other hand, we do deal with the position open for the GNSO this year 
> as a non-voting position during the selection process, as all Committee 
> members have stated when you first asked. However, this does not mean the 
> candidate does not fit for a vote position.
> Do you have any transcription of the meeting  we had with GNSO about the 
> issue, to share with NomComm members?  
>  
> If you have and can share, will certainly help.
> Thank you in advance,
>  
>  
> Vanda Scartezini
> ICANN Nominating Committee
> Chair 2012
> Tel + 5511 3266.6253
> Mob + 55118181.1464
>  
>  
>  
>