<<< Date Index >>>     <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [alac] Nomcom process



I still disagree. This sounds far too time-intensive for the actual input the chosen members will ultimately have.
Can't we leave it to the ALS, in regions where we have them?

--Wendy

At 11:27 PM 04/06/2004 +0900, Izumi Aizu wrote:
Thanks Thomas,

At 12:43 04/04/03 +0200, you wrote:
As a basic process for sending people to the nominating committee, I
believe we should stick with soliciting interest from the general
public, producing short-lists, etc.

I agree.

That said, there are several things I'd suggest we change against
last year's practice:

* We selected free-form applications.  That has proven to be a bad
  idea, given the unstructured and sometimes lengthy material we
  received.  I'd suggest we go for a form-based approach like last
  year's nominating committee.  Before adopting their form from last
  year, though, it could be a good idea to hear about any practical
  experiences -- as in, "nobody seriously answered question x."

* If we go for a form-based approach, we have to think about
  possibly adding some questions on how people believe that *we* are
  the ones who should send them to nomcom.

Good point. That may require them to understand and hopefully
support us.


* We need to get at-large structures involved.  There are several
  ways to do that:

  - Ask them for nominations, and give their nominations particular
    weight.
  - Look for candidates among their members.

These two above are fine.

  - Ask them to vet a short-list of nominees.  This, of course,
    brings us to the question what information about nominees we are
    going to make publicly available, and how we possibly expect
    structures to deal with that informtion.  We could, of course,
    ask the structures to send us one person, each, that
    participates in the nomcom member picking exercise.

I have some reservation about this, given various different
involvement of ALSs to ICANN.

* We need to be more proactive in soliciting statements of interest
  from good candidates.

In terms of moving forward now, I'd suggest that we attempt to come
up with a rough proposal quickly, and send that to als-discuss for
review and further refinement. Maybe we even get some feedback this
time...

I agree, though the responses may not be as high as last year.

Let's act quickly and see how it goes,

thanks Thomas,

izumi


Thoughts?
--
Thomas Roessler  <roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
At-Large Advisory Committee: http://alac.info/

                     >> Izumi Aizu <<
                 Asia Network Research
                        www.anr.org
                             &
 GLOCOM /Institute for HyperNetwork Society

        << Writing the Future of the History >>


--
Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx
Staff Attorney, Electronic Frontier Foundation
Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html
Chilling Effects: http://www.chillingeffects.org/