Content Comparison

ALAC ATRT2 CANDIDATE ASSESSMENT (2012-2013)

Name of Evaluator:

Evaluation Criteria

Part A: Criteria 1-5 (80% weightage)

Part B: Criteria 6-8 (20% weightage)

Part C: Total Candidate Score 

 PART  A – CORE CRITERIA

Subjective Scoring 1-5 (5 highest, 1 lowest)

Proxy Indicators

Candidate 1

Score

Candidate 2

Score

Candidate 3

Score

1.  Accountability to the ALAC and At-Large 

Elected or appointed to the ALAC/Leadership roles

2. Trusted by the Community

Known to the ALAC & At-Large community/Leadership roles with no recall/Extended leadership roles

3. Knowledge of ICANN and its working practices and culture

Years engaging ICANN

Cross-community experiences

4.  Knowledge of the Subject Area of Review (see *)

• ICANN Board governance
• GAC role and effectiveness
• GAC-Board interaction
• ICANN Public input process
• Community & public acceptance/support of ICANN decisions
• Policy development process 

Years of experience/Opinion leader or considered as an expert

5. Analytical skills & Ability to interpret quantitative and qualitative evidence

Successfully drafted (or contributed input to) statements/reports that required analysis of data/information involving complex issues that required an understanding of qualitative and quantitative data

SUB-TOTAL [PART A]

OVERALL COMMENTS

[PART A]

 *Subject Area of Review (Extracted from ATRT2 Call for Volunteers)

1. Continually assessing and improving ICANN Board of Directors (Board) governance which shall include an ongoing evaluation of Board performance, the Board selection process, the extent to which Board composition meets ICANN's present and future needs, and the consideration of an appeal mechanism for Board decisions;
2. Assessing the role and effectiveness of the GAC and its interaction with the Board and making recommendations for improvement to ensure effective consideration by ICANN of GAC input on the public policy aspects of the technical coordination of the DNS;
3. Continually assessing and improving the processes by which ICANN receives public input (including adequate explanation of decisions taken and the rationale thereof);
4. Continually assessing the extent to which ICANN's decisions are embraced, supported and accepted by the public and the Internet community; and
5. Assessing the policy development process to facilitate enhanced cross community deliberations, and effective and timely policy development.

 PART  B – SUPPLEMENTAL CRITERIA

Subjective Scoring 1-5 (5 highest, 1 lowest)

Proxy Indicators

Candidate 1

Score

Candidate 2

Score

Candidate 3

Score

6. Team spirit, adaptability, consensus-seeking attitude

Peer Ranking

7. Willingness to learn

Peer Ranking

8. Capacity to reason objectively, putting aside personal opinions or preconceptions & Capacity to draw conclusions purely based on evidence

Peer Ranking

9. Commitment to devote sufficient personal time to review process

Demonstration of sufficient time commitment in other areas of work

SUB-TOTAL [PART B]

OVERALL COMMENTS

[PART B]

 PART C – TOTAL CANDIDATE SCORE

Candidate 1

Total Score

Candidate 2

Total Score

Candidate 3

Total Score

TOTAL: 80% (PART A) + 20% (PART B)

CANDIDATE RANK