[governance] Re: The due diligence process for ICANN NomCom appointees

[Adam Peake]

Avri, hi

One of the issues NomCom took away from our 
meeting with the non-commercial stakeholders 
group in Cartagena was concern about due 
diligence. We discussed it at our first meeting 
last week, we will look into it and will make 
improvements.

And the long silence candidates have endured is 
also something we will try to fix, I hope with 
regular notes, a blog reporting on what we're 
doing <http://icann2011nomcom.wordpress.com/>, 
and better communication with candidates. ICANN 
NomComs always struggle over the desire for 
openness and the need to protect confidentiality, 
plus the usual problem that volunteers lack time. 
There's been a general trend in ICANN towards 
increased transparency, we'll try to follow it.

I hope people won't be put off from becoming 
candidates. The request for statements of 
interest will be released very soon.  NomCom 
appointees have done much to improve ICANN.  Some 
extremely good directors and people who have been 
chairs of the Board, GNSO and ALAC have come 
through the NomCom.  I agree people should be 
participate in working groups, that's where a lot 
of the work gets done, but ICANN also needs 
leaders who will promote the public interest.

Adam





>Hi George,
>
>All well and good.  I have only advised people 
>to make sure they knew what they were getting 
>into.
>
>I find it interesting to now know that the 
>Corporate Secretary, also an ICANN legal staff 
>employee, is informed of all of the private 
>information obtained.  In the past, I was told 
>no one from ICANN staff saw any of it.  Now we 
>know it is at least nobody -  1 see it.  What 
>about the rest of his staff, also ICANN 
>employees?  Anyone else?  The opacity of this 
>process, consistent with ICANN's culture of 
>secrecy, makes the entire chain of custody for 
>the private information very suspect.
>
>Note, I agree with the need for due diligence 
>when if comes to Board members who have 
>fiduciary responsibility.  I do not agree with 
>the ICANN Staff being responsible for it or 
>having access to this information. 
>
>As for the arduous process, I was not referring 
>to the due diligence per se.  That is just a 
>simple form where you sign away your privacy 
>rights, and I have signed it several times.  I 
>am referring to the application process and the 
>long forms required of one's references.  And 
>then the long wait in the dark while the process 
>unwinds with the only news one gets being the 
>rumors that always leak.  I encourage people to 
>know what they are getting involved in.
>
>I encourage people to consider the nomcom 
>process, but I warn them to make sure they know 
>what they are getting into first.  But I mostly 
>ask them to consider getting involved in the 
>give and take of ICANN's working group process 
>where the work is actually done.
>
>a.
>
>
>
>On 16 Dec 2010, at 10:52, George Sadowsky wrote:
>
>>  All,
>>
>>  I would respectfully disagree with Avri's 
>>reaction to the privacy implications of  the 
>>degree of due diligence that ICANN applies to 
>>selected nominees for the positions to be 
>>filled by the Nominating Committee.  I speak 
>>from my experience as Chair of the Nominating 
>>Committee in 2005, 2006, and 2007, and I doubt 
>>that the due diligence process has changed 
>>significantly since that time.
>>
>>  Being on the Board of a Corporation comes with 
>>a serious fiduciary responsibility for its 
>>proper fiscal management.  Corporations must 
>>perform adequate due diligence on prospective 
>>Directors.  We have all seen news reports of 
>>people who claimed non-existent degrees, or 
>>worse, licenses to practice medicine.  It's 
>>important to ensure that there is an adequate 
>>understanding of the backgrounds of people to 
>>whom Directorships are offered.  A lesser 
>>degree of due diligence is appropriate for 
>>membership on the Councils of the Supporting 
>>organizations.
>>
>>  I have executed due diligence processes for 
>>the NomCom for three years.  With one exception 
>>that required full discussion, only I and the 
>>Corporation Secretary have been privy to the 
>>results.  Further, I have gone through the due 
>>diligence process myself, and I found it 
>>neither objectionably invasive nor 
>>uncomfortable.
>  >
>>  Bottom line: if you are interested in ICANN 
>>leadership positions, I would encourage you to 
>>apply, and to consider the due diligence 
>>process an understandable and necessary part of 
>>the selection process.
>>
>>
>>  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>>  At 8:58 AM -0500 12/16/10, Avri Doria wrote:
>>>  On 16 Dec 2010, at 07:12, Adam Peake wrote:
>>>
>>>>> 
>>>>>http://blog.icann.org/2010/12/planned-changes-to-ipv4-reverse-dns-infrastructure/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  No, this 
>>>><http://blog.icann.org/2010/12/2011-nominating-committee-opens-up/>
>>>>
>>>>  :-)
>>>>
>>>>  Adam
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  Think carefully before you get involved in 
>>>the the ICANN nomcom process.  Make sure you 
>>>understand the incredible degree of privacy 
>>>you will have to give up to ICANN and its 
>>>hired investigators before going through a 
>>>very long and arduous process that is likely 
>>>to leave you, and those you ask for 
>>>references, feeling very burned.
>>>
>>>  It is not that I recommend against getting 
>>>involved, and I encourage as many people as 
>>>possible to get involved in the working groups 
>>>and other efforts that are open to all.   I 
>>>just recommend caution when getting involved 
>>>with its Nomcom - get a full picture first of 
>>>what they will ask of you, especially if you 
>>>are chosen.  And make sure you are comfortable 
>>>with the role of the ICANN staff, the access 
>>>they (especially their legal department) may 
>>>or may not have with the information their 
>>>investigators find and the degree of guarantee 
>>>you are given on the protection of your 
>>>privacy.
>>>
>>>  a.
>>
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t