Recommendations to ICANN Board Seat #15 ALAC and At-Large selection and BCEC future processes
 

It was noted that there remains Members of the At-Large Community and indeed serving Members of the BCEC, who retain “issues with the principal(s) of the Board Selection by At-Large and or the overall Community agreed processes”.

Community concerns and perspectives included:

• Time allowance for adequate RALO ad ALS Member assessment and interaction of Candidates.
• Size of Slate from BCEC
• Petition Process' and lack of harmony of process between Regions
• Time available for Petition Process

Committee concerns and perspectives included:

• Early setting of clear criteria for slate inclusion/exclusion
• Size of Slate.
• Need to suitable Time Allowed for Outreach and Community Interaction at all phases of the process.
• Ability for BCEC to adjust for slate size and candidate additions prior to release of names (including {formalised} internal processes one assumes) where less than expected number met the pre-set established criteria.
• Matters of Confidentiality
• Matters of Community and Candidate trust in the process.

Notes and Recommendations from the debrief between ABSdt and BCEC held 14 Jan 2011 and follow up with those not attending.

A) BCEC review of design

• It was proposed that unless the BCEC has odd numbers (and based upon experience of tied votes in this preliminary process) that the Chair may need to have the right to exercise a deciding vote or be a voting member.
• There was no meeting quorum requirement. It was proposed that there should be one where at least one representative from each region required on each call.  It was noted that this did in fact occur, but it was clear not all Members contributed equally to the process and this needs to be addressed. (One could also assume some expectation and performance metrics should be held so that BCEC Members understand the need to regularly attend and that their Regions are aware of their performances.)
• However, whilst there was not full participation in all the teleconferences it was viewed as a positive outcome that 10 out of 10 BCEC members fully did both of the two rounds of scoring.  This showed strong participation in the Statement of Interest (SOI) analysis and ranking if not the discussions per se.
• It was agreed that equitable regional balance of Members was essential.
• One or two people believed that the BCEC chair should not be a Member of the ALAC.

B) BCEC review of processes 

The following process points were reported and seen as valuable and could/should be considered by future BCEC's and or formalised:

• The ABSdt indicated a range for the number of candidates to be on the slate. (No less than 3 and up to 7-10). Due to the time constraints, the BCEC decided to narrow the number down to the lowest suggested by the ABSdt. But this may not be necessary in the future.
• The BCEC decided on a set of objective criteria, outlined by the White Paper and the ABSdt. Then, based on those criteria, we went through the SOIs with an agreed online scoring tool. BCEC Members scored SOI's in 2 rounds of process individually not jointly.
• It was endorsed that it was a good practice that could/should be formalised that discussion was held and there was agreement on what was wanted from the SOIs and the number of candidates we were looking for to complete the slate before review of the SOIs.
• Specifically it was proposed that having a pre-agreed threshold of total possible ranking points for candidates to be considered for the slate before any aggregation of scores (if not at the outset of the process) was desirable. Set up a cut-off score that the SOIs needed to reach in order to make it to the next round.  As it was believed this was good process, perhaps it can be better advertised as a process as an aid to public perception.  And/or in the future, the set the scoring criteria could be decided on by a broader group or in a more transparent manner.
• It was felt the sift and sort process where a culling of “need not be processed further” (due to low points score on agreed criteria); “will be held for future review” (due to points score close to the desired selection for slate criteria ranking on initial allocation and review); and the “clearly held for consideration” (due to their high ranking in points allocated. Was a useful methodology and could be 'formalized' for future BCEC use.
• Larger slate size than agreed to in pilot should be considered 'normal expectation' for future BCEC processes.  The OP's allow for 7-10 as slate size but only 3 were selected in this pilot due to compressed time scales and the probability of RALO petition processes taking place.  It should be noted that with future processes hopefully not being time compressed,  there should be no need to pre-determined slate size but rather operate within the OP parameters of “up to 7-10”. NOTE: The relevant section of the ABSdt recommendation as adopted in the BCEC Operating Principles was "The BCEC has a responsibility to keep the size of the slate to a reasonable number, even if it receives a large number of eligible applications. While the size of the slate is not specified, at least one candidate must be named, and it is expected that the slate created by the BCEC will not exceed three to seven candidates."
  

C) BCEC review of implementation 

• Attention needs to be paid to ensure that SOI's are called for as early as practical in future processes and that sufficient time and attention to detail of the Reference checking. We did not give enough time for the candidate’s references to respond or for the BCEC to read through them all.  The result is that, this first time, not enough references were received. and If BCEC based 'due diligence' on candidates had been formalised and carried out early enough in the procedure, we may have ended up with a different slate.
• An orientation and BCEC discussion to ensure all participants understand what Seat 15 is about should be gone over with the BCEC members at the beginning, as part of the training.  That way, it won’t have to be repeatedly discussed during the actual work.
• The initial processes slate had a lack of geographical and gender diversity, which was recognised as an issue. This should be addressed to some extent by ensuring a larger slate where possible BUT is still limited to the diversity of quality SOI's conforming to the desired criteria and receiving suitable ranking by BCEC Members in any given process.  “When you only have one seat to fill, you need simply the best person to fill it.  Gender, geography, and language were not considered.”
• Clear confidentiality instructions expectations and guidelines need to be established for future BCEC's  and possibly a form on 'non-disclosure' or 'confidentiality undertaking' needs to be formally made by future BCEC members.
• It was proposed that perhaps more NomCom experienced  community member being appointed to future BCEC's would assist in ensuring implementation of processes and expectation of work load and numbers of SOI's etc.,  be facilitated. (although one would presume this is a desirable rather than mandatory trait).
• It was felt that it could be useful if unsuccessful SOI candidates could be funnelled into the NomCom process. 
• A lot of logistical support is needed for an effective BCEC process and should be planned. In fact, perhaps a temp staff person allocation is needed for it in the future.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr

Chair 2010 -11 ALAC, ABSdt and BCEC

26 Jan 2011