NomCom Review 4 March 2009 Mexico City >>ROBERTO GAETANO: I think we're ready to start. So welcome to this meeting, which is the NomCom review evaluation. Alejandro Pisanty was the chair of the NomCom Review Working Group, has a different commitment. And he apologizes, but he can't be with us. He's the speaker at one concurrent conference. But we have -- we can do some introductions -- two members of the NomCom Review Working Group, Steve Goldstein and Jonathan Cohen. And we have also other VIPs in the previous and current chairs of the NomCom who are pretty much interested in the NomCom review. We have George Sadowsky and we have Hagen Hultzsch and Tricia Drakes. As for myself, I'm the chair of the SIC, who is in charge for the coordination of the working groups on reviews. I would like also to introduce Marco. And I have to think twice. More often than not, I say Massamiliano, and I call Massamiliano Marco. But this time I get it right. But Marco will walk us through the history of what has been done up to now and what are the recommendations. And then my plan is to go back to each and every recommendation to have a little bit of discussion, and then from there on, figure out what's next. Marco. >>MARCO LORENZONI: Thank you, Roberto. Marco Lorenzoni. And I'm staff, as many of you know already, in charge of the coordination of the organization review function. Let's have a look first to the timeline of what has been done so far. So the external review of the NomCom and the following activity of the working group. And let's see also the dates in which all the deliverables were issued. The initial report has been produced by the Interisle Consulting Group in October 2007, and it's still available on the Web, so you can access the independent report. Following the report, as it is always the case in ICANN, we had a period of public comments, and also the public comments that I received are still accessible on the Web. NomCom Review Working Group was set up, as Roberto reminded, under the chairing of Alejandro Pisanty with the task to understand and to collate, let's say, the recommendations of the independent reviewers with the comments received and to pass to a final document containing recommendations for action for the attention to the board. The report of the working group was issued in July 2008. And at that time, further action was put on hold, waiting for the outcomes from other reviews that were ongoing, particularly, the review of the board of directors of ICANN. Now we have the independent board review that has been issued in November 2008. So what we were awaiting at that time has arrived. The working group of the board is working, and tomorrow we will present the interim report from the activity of the board review working group in the main meeting room here. Let's have a very quick overview of the key -- sorry? >>TRICIA DRAKES: Just one point of clarification on the first slide. When you said the working group report was issued, I do not believe it was issued in the normal way in terms of being published. I don't think the world at large has seen the working group report. >>MARCO LORENZONI: Correct. >>TRICIA DRAKES: And I think that's actually -- it's important. Because when you see the procedure for working groups, it's actually they produce the report, and they are then published so that the world at large can see what's there. And I think that needs to be very clear, because no comments have been input in terms of that report. Not a criticism. But I think it needs to be made as a big step that's been missed. And from the community standpoint, we're back to the secret society. It's been issued, but issued to somebody, but not actually made public. And I think that's -- and for this group as well I think it's really important. >>ROBERTO GAETANO: Yes, you're right. And it was my intention, then, to release it for public comment at the end of this meeting if there is agreement within this group. The fact is that the report has been given to the BGC at the moment when we were discussing -- when the BGC was coordinating these activities, when we were discussing about moving over to a new committee that was coordinating then the review activities. At the same time, we have figured out the fact that there were several correlations between the NomCom, the recommendation for the NomCom, and potential issues in the ALAC and in the board review. So I think that it's not that the step has been skipped, but what we - - we just had a long delay in -- before doing the public comment. But we are definitely going to have -- we are going to definitely release it for public comment. >>TRICIA DRAKES: The thing, though, what's -- I'm actually trying to be very constructive here, so I'm not actually trying to create problems. I'm trying, rather, to avoid them. When it is published and in the way you may publish it, because the report itself is now effectively two years out of date, let's say, not quite that amount, there have been two Nominating Committee chairs since then. The world is different. And in trying to be helpful in terms of catch-up, I think it's important that when you do release it, you take into account not just the comments, but openly say -- which is not what everybody understands -- but actually make it clear that what's being put out is a report based on a position two years ago. And one of the reasons you have so many red ribbons around is because we want to make sure that the NomCom review report reflects the current position. And if we can, to catch up with a community who wants openness and transparency, I think it's really important to make that point clear and for us to try and do a quick catch-up. Because I, like anyone else, want this to be brought. And there were issues with ALAC review or even the GNSO review, as you know, since you chaired it, that had linkage the NomCom (off microphone) from this meeting and from the slides. I think that we have to be honest and clear that it was missed, for whatever reason. And that we pick up -- actually got the NomCom chair that was relevant when the report was there, two current, and, actually, the current members of NomCom who were here and in other meetings (off microphone) to try and do that. But I think we have to be honest with the community. Because there is a big step. And we've got to report this two years out of date. >>ROBERTO GAETANO: (off microphone). >>HAGEN HULTZSCH: Adding one comment. >>STEVE GOLDSTEIN: Hagen, you almost have to swallow the microphone. >>HAGEN HULTZSCH: I'm sorry. I do very much support what Tricia has just said. I just wanted to mention that I, in my function as chair of the Nominating Committee last year, have never been asked by the reviewers at any time for situation, for changes, and for comments, just as an information regarding transparency. >>JONATHAN COHEN: (off microphone). Does that work? There it is. I must say, I never felt on this review group that it could possibly reach any conclusions that were firm until the GNSO improvements and the board review were complete. Because the relationship between what the NomCom does and who decisions are made there are absolutely crucial to making serious recommendations. I'm not saying you can't make any recommendations. But in terms of really how you do it -- and I think I would consider the work of the working group NomCom review not to have been completed, but merely the initial stage completed, and that it probably has to be picked up again, whether the same people or otherwise, so soon as the board review and GNSO improvements are finalized. >>TRICIA DRAKES: I think that's fine. I mean, Jonathan, if that were to have been the case, then the NomCom review in the scheduling shouldn't have started until the timing or maybe even in parallel with the board review. My issue is really that it's two years out of date. And to post something that's two years out of date, calling it being issued, is actually the wrong thing. I'm trying to be helpful here to avoid us -- a cycle of -- an extra cycle coming in there. So if that had have been the case, then the slide there should just say "we did a review. Goodness, we realize we shouldn't have done it until the board review," rather than publishing something which, as Hagen said, you know, you're missing two chairs' and two committees' input. We must do some form of updating, otherwise, we won't get to the journey of bringing everything together until six months later with a whole missing of comments and other aspects. And I'm sure some of our current Nominating Committee who are here today, as well as others, will have input in that. But I think in this time of honesty and transparency of the community, it's really important. I'll stop so I don't repeat myself. But I feel really strongly. >>ROBERTO GAETANO: I'm fine with this discussion. But I just think that it's not in the right order in the agenda. I think that what we are discussing here is what to do next. Now, I would like to just spend one word of clarification on where -- for Jonathan where we are now in terms of the global reviews. There is a committee that has been formed specifically for this, for the coordination of the reviews. And this committee that I am chairing is now taking one by one all these reviews and trying to figure out how we can act in a coordinated way. In the meeting that we had this morning at 7:00, actually, we have evaluated the intercorrelation, and we have taken a certain set of decisions. So I think the issue is now, we need to that I can this into our hands, this set of recommendations, figure out what is actual, what has to be integrated, and then decide what to do next. Whether we go for public comment with the document as is, or whether we need to update the document and then go to -- for the public comment, that is up to us to decide in this meeting. And the second thing to decide is that if we are going to update it, who is going to update it? Whether we need to re-form the working group, or whether that we can act within the structural improvement committee with added contribution from other people that have participated to the NomCom Working Group. So this is -- but this is part of what to do next, in my opinion. So unless you have specific things to say now, I would go through the recommendations so that we have them clear in mind. Yes, Steve. >>STEVE GOLDSTEIN: Thank you, Roberto. I may be repeating what's been said, but perhaps from a slightly different point of view, so I'll say it anyway. Yes, we collectively on the board learned a lot from this first review cycle. One of the things we learned is, having a three-year review cycle with all these different reviews and trying to put them all together just doesn't make much sense. So it's going to have to be done in a different way in the future. But that's the future and this is now. One of the responsibilities of Roberto's new structural improvement committee -- and the work will fall to Marco over there, so see him cringe would be to harmonize all these different reviews to the extent possible. And I think that's what Roberto was just talking about, to identify the dependencies and try and adjust them accordingly. And yes, this report is quite old, and the working group's report is quite old. And, frankly, I've had so many other things go through my head to read this week that I'm not sure I remember everything that's in our own working group report. I think Jonathan agrees, too. But there are a couple of things that I think -- a couple of key points which I hope Roberto would be willing to receive your comments on, because those are quite seminal points. One regards the size of the NomCom. And there was no single agreement on that. We had divergent views on that. And another key point was the employment of a, if you will, a NomCom - - what do we call them? -- a manager, Marco? >>MARCO LORENZONI: Administrative director. >>STEVE GOLDSTEIN: -- administrative director as a permanent position. And, again, we had no real closure on that. And I certainly have had no experience working in a NomCom, so it would be very difficult for me to have commented with any kind of insight. So if you do have comments on key points that come up in this, can you and the SIC accept them, at least -- even if you identify them as late-coming -- late-entry comments? >>ROBERTO GAETANO: That was the -- that was the intention. So, to be clear, I would like now to go quickly through the different recommendations so that we are all on the same page, without comments, just in a few minutes. And then we pick the recommendations one by one and we have comments. And Marco will write them down. And then from there on, we'll decide what to do. >>MARCO LORENZONI: All right. Let's go very quickly through the recommendations. Let's take it as sort of a refreshment also in consideration of the time that has passed from -- >>STEVE GOLDSTEIN: Is there any way you can increase the text size? >>MARCO LORENZONI: Uh-oh. (off microphone). >> Better. There you go. >>MARCO LORENZONI: Yeah, but then I lose it. >> That's okay. >>MARCO LORENZONI: That's okay? >>JONATHAN COHEN: I can see it. >>MARCO LORENZONI: Yeah, we'll lose a part of screen. But sorry. The first recommendation contained in the independent reviewer's report was the establishment of a position for a full-time administrative director. And in the intention of the reviewers, this was suggested to manage outreach processes in order to give continuity of support to the NomCom. As Steve rightly mentioned, no conclusive position was found from the working group on this particular issue. But the working group issued recommendation that in case of acceptance by the board of this recommendation, the administrative director would be responsible to ICANN board and to the chair of the NomCom and not to staff. The second recommendation that was discussed in the working group report was to treat candidates more respectfully. This links up to a remark that was contained in the independent reviewer's report, where they pointed out that some candidates complained of not having been informed about the -- all the different steps of their candidacy process. So both the independent reviewers and the working group agreed about the necessity of informing the candidates of the NomCom processes, and, in particular, the working group stressed the fact that the NomCom should publish the conference minutes respecting rules of confidentiality for names of the candidates and other data, other data sets that are confidential. The third recommendation was to recruit and select based on requirements. In particular, both agreed, both, I mean the reviewers and the working group agreed in recommending that the NomCom consult with both the board and the council to identify the needed skills to be selected. And this is very interesting also in a comparative perspective, because it's an issue that comes out very strongly also from the board review that has been conducted, and we are going to discuss tomorrow about the present stage of this review. Continuing on the first cluster of recommendations, outreach and recruitment, another point of agreement between reviewers and working group was about the need to keep separate the recruitment from selection, so to consider them as two distinct phases. And the working group added to this the recommendation for the NomCom or for its administrative director to make use of the existing ICANN networks in recruitment and outreach. So he specified that, in particular, that alumni of -- former board members and so on and so forth. >>ROBERTO GAETANO: I think that Hagen wanted to say something. >>MARCO LORENZONI: Sorry. >>HAGEN HULTZSCH: I have seen the report more than a year ago first time. And I must -- I would like to say here that, first, the three recommendations on the right side, I find them -- which are on the screen -- I find them odd. I don't find them suited well to the task. And I would not think that ICANN should do it. But the other things that you just mentioned don't apply to the way the ICANN Nominating Committee at least has worked last year. I wouldn't say all, but most of the things you have just listed do not apply to the way the nominating committee has worked last year. And I assume this year as well, because -- but this year is not yet completed. And Tricia, you -- but that's why I'm so annoyed about the way how this report is treated, and also that it is not relevant to at least last year's work. >>ROBERTO GAETANO: Yeah. However, this is -- what we are trying to do here is, we are going to take the -- what is written in the report. We all know that this is old information. And I think that if we can very quickly go through this initial reading without a lot of explanation -- >>TRICIA DRAKES: But it's also wrong, Roberto. >>ROBERTO GAETANO: We are going to take all these points and then see what is relevant we can take away. >> How many more slides, so I don't forget? How many more slides? I have some things I want to remember. I'm either going to start writing them down -- >>TRICIA DRAKES: Can I make a suggestion? >>ROBERTO GAETANO: We are going to do the slides then again. >>TRICIA DRAKES: Because on each of those points, there are comments. So picking up on Bill's point -- >>ROBERTO GAETANO: Why don't we do this. Why don't we go -- can we change the way we proceed? Let's go back to the first slide, and let's start opening to comments. Because then, otherwise, we are losing 15 minutes for nothing. Because we are going to get comments anyway. So can you go back to one? Yes. And then on these first group of recommendations, what are the comments? I understand that -- >>TRICIA DRAKES: Shall I take them one by one and then you can perhaps ask other comments? >>ROBERTO GAETANO: Okay. Let's pick the first. >>TRICIA DRAKES: And maybe if we do them each point by point and then Hagen and others and committee members. I mean, firstly, in relation to the creating a full-time administrative director responsible to the ICANN board and NomCom chair, I have two points, really. One, although ICANN staff are overworked -- and I think they are at the moment -- actually having people who are within the organization supporting NomCom and NomCom chair and that that might change actually works very well, because they understand -- thank you, Hagen -- they understand the issues. NomCom is a very unusual, and as you know, as well as being on the board to the working group, it needs somebody with an understanding and sensitivity. The second point is one of the fundamental points in relation to the Nominating Committee is its independence. And if the administrative director is reporting to the ICANN board and the nominating chair, you've actually -- and I know you can change bylaws, but you're actually going further than bylaws here. I think you're breaking the principle of independence. So that's the first one. And maybe it's helpful just in timing. Maybe it's helpful just in timing. And as I say, this is -- we're doing this because it's better than washing our dirty linen in public. As NomCom former chairs or people around the table can take them point by point. >>GEORGE SADOWSKY: I believe I did not support this recommendation as it's been made and stated on the slide. There was, however, another aspect to it that might deserve some consideration and that is that the administrator director not only supported the NomCom but kept a database of individuals interested in volunteering for various ICANN opportunities, including the NomCom, starting with the NomCom and the centralization of expressions of interest overall struck me as a very good idea given the fact that there is not explicitly within ICANN anything that one might remotely call a career ladder so that people could enter in ways that took advantage of the skills they had and allow them to continue to contribute to the organization let me say one other thing, Tricia and Hagen's comments are absolutely correct, we are dealing with old information, and we're dealing with, I think, six NomComs here. The first one, Linda Wilson, the second, Jean-Jacques Damlamian, my three, Hagen's one, and Tricia's current committee. And what I've seen, looking at this various recommendations, has been that every NomCom has done these things somewhat better than the previous NomCom. >>JONATHAN COHEN: (Speaker off microphone). Not working? Yeah? Okay, jumping the gun, I have to tell you. In a matter of about 15 minutes, I've already reached the tentative conclusion this whole thing has to be done again. That what has to be done is whether it's your committee or a new committee, we've got to sit down and really talk to each of the people who ran a NomCom, learn from their experience, also have the information about the coordinating efforts with the GNSO and board review before anything that we put out can possibly be relied on as sensible. >>TRICIA DRAKES: And I think, Jonathan, if you're doing that, because this is a suggestion, you also need to speak with the current NomCom members and perhaps others that are inputting because if you look at, say, the recruit and the outreach separate from selection, that's what we're doing here. That's why people are doing it. I mean, on every single one of these items -- and with respect, I mean, we can go through everything here, but actually, to then have current nominating committee members, chairs since then and the community coming up and jumping up and down I think, actually, isn't particularly a bright thing to -- to happen. And particularly when we're all making a huge -- I mean, we have a fantastic team, and I've got a great advisor and great associate chairs and members. >>HAGEN HULTZSCH: (Speaker off microphone). >>TRICIA DRAKES: No, no, fully a chairman here. But we're actually trying to deal with process points. The thing about not consulting, well, we had the chair and deputy chair into the first meeting. We've got lunch with the GNSO tomorrow, I've spoken to Chris Disspain, all the things with ALAC, the committee doing -- you know, sitting out there at the booth and doing outreach. This is -- you know, ICANN has moved on in two years in every single way. And I think for the better, which is why we're still here, at least -- I mean, maybe you can have a subgroup of a working group and all the people around this table who include hopefully some people who are putting in SOIs and hopefully we'll say we're treated respectfully in doing things around this table, too, and coming up (Speaker off microphone). >>ROBERTO GAETANO: Tricia, in the interest of time, I think we've got the point. Is there anybody who has a different view? Please, Bill. >>BILL MANNING: On the idea of a permanent, or a full-time administrative director position having served on a couple, well, now, this is my third NomCom, there is the lack or the loss of continuity because of the way the NomCom is constructed that we are supposed to effectively erase our memories when the NomCom is done and reconstitute a new one. And so no NomCom has much of a corporate history of how the NomCom works. And an administrative director might fill that role or the use of emeritus chairs might fill that role. But we do need to have some mechanism to have some continuity, some history, some memory from NomCom to NomCom which we don't have now. >>ROBERTO GAETANO: Yeah, Your comment noted. My question was about whether somebody had -- on the other hand, was not feeling necessary that we go to the complete duration. So that was the -- George? >>GEORGE SADOWSKY: I think it's worth going through an iteration but going through it fairly quickly and what I would say is, for example, with number two treat the candidates more respectfully, I would say, well, we've done that, let's go on, let's go to number three and so on. Now, there might be people who disagree with us, and that's unfortunate, but I think that, see, the community has already seen this report once. So I think to throw it away without looking to see if anything to be salvaged in it is not a good idea and in particular there are some ideas in this report that, my own personal opinion, deserve to be killed. This might be a good time to commit murder. >>ROBERTO GAETANO: Okay. Jonathan. >>JONATHAN COHEN: I basically agree, I think it would be foolish not to just go quickly through it and see what's there. But I remain of the view that this meeting should be truncated and that we should move on to a discussion of what is appropriate to do from here forward. You don't throw away what's been done, obviously it was done because it was required as a review and there's nothing wrong with that. I mean, obviously some of the things that have been done you learn from them and this is one of them. >>ROBERTO GAETANO: You might be right. But I personally see a benefit in -- since we have former and current NomCom chair, if we reasonably quickly go through the different recommendation, at least to -- to sort out what -- what we can say, okay it's done or whether, you know, it can go for implementation and what are the points that need to go to a second round of process. It gives us some base of -- somebody has to take a decision and has to say, okay, treat -- point two, treat candidates more respectfully, that's -- we don't need to discuss it over again. It's done. On the other hand, administrative director, that needs a second round of opinions. And we need to -- even I as chair of the SIC, I need to have some substance to base a decision. And any other comment on the points, on these three points? So my sense of the room is that on the first one we need to re-discuss because there's an issue about -- we have to ensure continuity, but we don't need to necessarily go to an administrative director, and that would be part of the second round. Treat candidates more respectfully is ticked off, is approved, and it's also done. And the recruit and select based on requirements. I think this -- we -- we have been moving to this, and we consider that done. >> HAGEN HULTZSCH: Yes, we have the job description and all these kinds of things, so it's done. >>ROBERTO GAETANO: Yes. Next slide. >>MARCO LORENZONI: The next slide are the three recommendation, the first is separate recruitment from selection. And making use of existing (reading) in recruitment and outreach. The second, seek candidates' info from many sources and this the working group -- a moment, please -- and this the working group remarked that the work was already done in this way by the nominating committee that they -- they observed at the time of the work of the working group. And the third recommendation, always on outreach and recruitment, was to boost awareness of ICANN and NomCom, building on the increasing visibility and reputation of the brand ICANN. >>GEORGE SADOWSKY: I must say I didn't understand this set of recommendations because it really corresponded to what we had been doing and that I know that Hagen continued to do even more. >>TRICIA DRAKES: And I also think just as I'm sitting here -- and, I'm sorry, I usually -- I try to be well behaved -- but we're also missing a trick in that rather than just saying done, done, done, because this is the position of two years ago, actually in building also, for example, some of the financial services or some of the other outreach Hagen's been picking up with participation on getting to parts of the world that ICANN hasn't yet reached, actually if you were looking -- I don't think we should throw the report away. But I think we're missing, as one of the negative impact that I said earlier, we're missing an opportunity to actually, perhaps even make some further recommendations based on the world as it is today in March 2009, to help support and boost -- boost the work, mindful that the next review won't come until, you know, things have happened. And, yes, I think -- I mean, it's a bit of a nonsense if we're going through -- Bill made a very good point I think and it links in with something George did in terms of the continuity factor, and there are other aspects on continuity in terms of -- that we can come into play but generally it's either the admin director reporting to board and NomCom chair, completely, in my view, destroys the principle of independence, most of the other things are either done, done, done or -- and we're not, actually, as well picking up on some of the updating based on the position that's now. And even with outreach the group, as I didn't know what happened in the previous NomComs but NomCom 2009 in Cairo looked at practical ways it could do things, as I say, like the outreach that we're doing that could get fed into the review and then get fed into bear in mind the interdependencies, it makes no sense, in my view, that, actually, we're going to link some dependencies into other reviews that are out of date and don't reflect some of the things we might want to recommend. >>ROBERTO GAETANO: Just before -- one answer to George, you said you don't understand the first one. There was a complicated -- separate recruitment from selection. There was a complicated documentation in the working group by which they were proposing two phases. One is to build the pool of candidates and the other, from all the possible sources, and then the other one was to have a mechanism by which -- even by -- by draw, they were selecting the people from this pool of candidates. So that was the separation between recruitment and selection. >>GEORGE SADOWSKY: Very quickly, that's what we do, that's what we did. >>ROBERTO GAETANO: Okay. >>STEVE GOLDSTEIN: Okay. Couple things. One, I would be very happy and I think I may be reiterating, if we were to publish what we have, ask for a coordinated rejoinder, rebuttal from this existing panel of past and present NomCom chairs and add that as an addendum so we show people this is where we were, this is what's happening now, so nothing more needs to be done about this and publish the whole thing, and I would be very happy to see that, that's number one. Number two, I don't know Hagen that well, but what little I know of Hagen, I know that he's an extremely resourceful and insightful person. And if Hagen has already done this -- so I question, is having done this -- the result of one person's resourcefulness and not likely to be replicated if somebody else were to be in that position or has Hagen institutionalized it to the point that future NomComs would benefit from it? >>TRICIA DRAKES: If I can answer that because I'm the current one Hagen actually did some very good things last year as the chair, I don't know what because there's confidentiality. No doubt built on what George had done. In terms of this chair, and you don't know this chair particularly well, I do things in my style with advice from Hagen I've worked with before and we've built on and created a team spirit doing these things, and I don't think you just draw a line. I mean, perhaps some of my colleagues over here, Matias, Norbert, Alan, and Bill because I think it's important. It's not just a journey you stop, it's part of the ever-increasing improvement that -- >>STEVE GOLDSTEIN: But Tricia, here's my point, I think you're missing it: Is this either, you know, written, codified, institutionalized, to the point that when you leave the scene, future NomComs will have benefited from it and will know how to continue doing it or do they start de novo without any direction? >>HAGEN HULTZSCH: I believe that the bylaws for -- is it on? Can you hear me? For NomCom is well done. It just needed some experience and some execution. And I took a lot of experience from George, we together implemented some things, for example, separate recruitment from selection. We did it. And this year it's done again even though the nominating committee members are participating in the recruitment process, even though, overall, the recruiting is done by everybody in ICANN. Now, when we go to the second two items, the awareness, jump to the last one, of ICANN, in the outside world of ICANN, is currently still, let's say, very limited or very low. And that's why I'm very pleased to see some press coverage about the changes in the management of ICANN in the international front-page press today and yesterday. So this is a real achievement. I was discussing last year with Paul Levins how we should accomplish this coverage of ICANN issues and the interest to participate in ICANN councils and board in the outside ICANN communications. So it should not be on the ICANN magazine, it should not be only on the ICANN newsletter, it should be on the front page of the "Herald Tribune," on the "CIO" magazine of Australia and these kinds of things. So that is what still is on the way to be accomplished, but we are continuously a learning organization, that's why I'm confident that this is done, some of it is done already and seek candidates from many sources is already done in a good way. >>STEVE GOLDSTEIN: But are the lessons of your learning being preserved for the next generation. That's all I'm trying to ask. >>TRICIA DRAKES: I think the word is "evolution," and that is happening. And I have to go back, that -- and that's why -- and, in fact, one of the really crazy recommendations we'll come to later says the immediate past chair doesn't become the advisor because part of that -- NomCom has its procedures and I'm not sure if they're on the public or if they're on our internal but they're there. The immediate past chair is the advisor to the chair. And we work very closely together, so those words of wisdom and if there are things -- so there is a process through. And I just feel that for the benefit of ICANN and the procedures and processes, yes, we can do as you suggest, and by all means, and we'll gather together and we'll put through there. But it would be from the review process which is ongoing review it would be better in my view and I think it can be done quickly too to actually update, however, Roberto and you know I have huge respect for you and also for Marco, however, we can do that so we have a start position of how we are now, and as I say, in terms of this handing ongoing part, the fact of having an immediate past chair as an advisor is part of that mechanism which actually, this report is saying you don't have. And it's just the whole loss is looking at a situation of an Internet years 20 years ago. >>ROBERTO GAETANO: Okay. We're not -- we don't have to take a decision now. I think that this is one of the questions that we have to add this. I have John and I have George. >> Alan Levin: Just referring specifically to the question here, is it institutionalized? I mean, there are many ways to institutionalize the way that the NomCom evolves. I mean, the one is to write it into the bylaws. I guess you can write it into many different documents within ICANN. I joined the NomCom this year. And I read the bylaws. I'm not sure exactly where it was that the past chair, you know, remains on the NomCom. And certainly within all the different constituencies whom are appointing candidates to the NomCom, they all recognize the need for some level of continuity. Every single one of them have recognized the need for continuity and for institutional memory. So there's no doubt in my mind that it is evolving, that it is written down. But to start writing it into the bylaws or creating permanent positions within ICANN, I think you need to guard against that, because as our whole, you know, environment evolves, you know, things are moving much, much quicker than I think the organization can necessarily even sustain, we don't want to necessarily become a major corporation where we become so stuck in our ways that we can't evolve. So one needs to have a balance between very fixed rules and an evolving NomCom. There's no doubt that the NomCom is at a mature stage now, I believe, as someone who has just entered. It's a very effective team. I'm finding the process very smooth, and there is definitely continuity involved right now. >>GEORGE SADOWSKY: Almost in summary, Steve, your institutionalization is provided for by continuity. Three sources. One, the overlap between past chair and current chair. Two, the overlap effectively of approximately half the membership between each year. That's an accident, but that's the way it is. And, third, the NomCom chair has to submit a comprehensive report at the end of each year which is made public and posted and contains recommendations and an analysis of the events of the year. >>HARTMUT GLASER: The continuity depends on probably a change in the bylaws that the term must be longer. I am a member for the fourth year probably. I am the oldest member present here. We spent a lot of time, and it is needed, to train the new members during four, five, six meetings. And for the old members, it's lost time. So my proposal last time for the 2007 report was that we change the bylaws by some procedure that I don't know the details, we maintain some members for two years. We need to renew probably half of them. I remember that I think it was George, he sent a message to all the support organizations and all the bodies represented in NomCom, if possible, to indicate, to nominate again the same member to maintain this continuity. But it's only, as he said, a consequence, not a provision in the bylaws, to maintain continuity, to maintain all the information, we need to have some people working for more than one year. And the bylaws don't have any provision for this continuity. To maintain this, we need to change the bylaws. >>ROBERTO GAETANO: I think this is something that has to go to public comment. Because the reason why there's -- there are no longer terms is to prevent capture by a set of people. If you have a certain number of people that we main for a few years, then they have potentially the possibility of renewing the whole -- half of the board over time. Yes, Norbert, may I -- Norbert has been silent. So Norbert, then Hagen. >>NORBERT KLEIN: I just want to say that this question of capture and the question of continuity obviously look at the same question from two different angles. And I fully support the former speaker that to have a short term of one year only is a very difficult situation for continuity. Now, we have the bylaws. They are on paper. But, fortunately, we have a situation where people are first-timer, second-timer, and sometimes even longer. And that helps to maintain this continuity. But I can only say it's a difficult situation, that we have, according to the bylaw, this one-year membership with a possibility maybe to be extended for a second one. But to have a little bit longer -- and I'm not talking about five years or something -- but to have just one year makes it difficult to have this continuity, which, fortunately, we have in the situation of a chair and previous chair. >>ROBERTO GAETANO: Hagen. >> Thank you, Roberto. >>MARCO LORENZONI: It's a public meeting. >>HAGEN HULTZSCH: Whatever the chairman decides. Thank you, Roberto. First of all, I am most of the time very much concurring with Hartmut. But this time not. I do not -- it's not working? I -- I'm sorry. I do not think that we need to extent the periods of the people, the key people, the chairman and so on. I myself came into responsibility to run the Nominating Committee without too much experience about the Nominating Committee ahead of that time, even though I was informed about ICANN, I learned about ICANN in my board function. And I also, Hartmut, something was wrong or maybe I misunderstood it, we did not need four meetings in order to train the Nominating Committee members. There were some experienced ones, like yourself. We got a lot of advice from George, who had experience. He actually helped me to get on steam. But since we had through the year only two meetings, one in Los Angeles and the other one in Paris, we didn't need so much training, even though when you are on the team, there are always more experienced people and less experienced people. And I assume you meant the telephone calls we had. Yes. But that is in this ICANN community, which lives from continuously having new people coming in with the approach that, globally, more and more people have to learn about ICANN in order to make the Internet effective. So in that sense, I believe it's a natural process. There's always a good mixture of experienced people with -- like you, and others coming in, learning from the experienced people. But when they are not yet, let's say, bound brain making their contribution to the decision to find the best people for the councils and the board. And I think that is essential. I would not believe that it's really helpful to have, let's say, long-term people in the Nominating Committee. In that sense, I don't feel bad about the current process of changing the chair of the Nominating Committee each year. And, Roberto, remember my reply when people were considering whether I should serve for another year? I said it's not following the rules of ICANN that we should continuously have new people thinking about what is best for ICANN. That is a platform of the spirit of this organization. That's why I do support the current structure. >>ROBERTO GAETANO: Thank you. >> I'm -- >>ROBERTO GAETANO: I think you have to have it much closer. >> I'm Sivasubramanian Muthusamy. You were talking about the risks of having a too long term of the Nominating Committee in the risk of capture. I feel that it is important for the NomCom to have a long enough period to get to know the constitution of the present board and the kind of candidates who come in to gain a clear understanding and insight into the kind of candidates who are being nominated. So only with this kind of experience can they fight against capture. So in order to deal with the threat of capture, it is important for the NomCom to have as long a term as possible. And on the question of preserving the historical knowledge of NomCom, I'm sure NomCom is in rotation, and at any point of time, there are half the people in NomCom are experienced. In addition, one thing that could be considered as the chairman -- the person who's served as chair of the NomCom continues for another two or three years as chairman emeritus. And also, ICANN could have a convention by which, for all important NomCom functions, at least for one ICANN meeting a year, all the previous NomCom chairmans are invited in an official capacity as a past chairman of the NomCom, and they are given formal respect, due respect, and ceremonially offered to take the chair or something. So that could kind of continue the knowledge of NomCom and contribute to the experience of the NomCom. Thank you. >>ROBERTO GAETANO: Okay. I propose to go to the next slide. And let's try to get at the end. From now on, if there is -- if I see that a point is controversial, it will go automatically in the second group, and part of the second round. Thank you. >>MARCO LORENZONI: Another recommendation is about the selection of all policy directors from ICANN volunteer pool and the proposal for ALAC to appoint two voting directors. And in this regard, the working group at that time did not reach any conclusive position, because the board review was pending at that time. And the working group underlined, however, that if this principle of the NomCom, nominating -- sorry, in case of acceptance, this would break the principle of NomCom nominating at least 50% of directors. Another very controversial recommendation that was disagreed by the working group was the proposal to select -- for the supporting organizations to select their council members from within the ICANN volunteer pool based on a set of qualifications needed. In other words, this supporting organization, in the mind of the independent reviewers, had to come up with a description of qualification needed for their council members. And this position had to be filled from within the pool of volunteers. The working group disagreed with this recommendation, underlined that NomCom should remain in charge of this in order to avoid capture and in the interest of objectivity of the process. The other recommendation we have on screen is about ALAC to select its committee members, and the working group considered that this recommendation was out of its remit, expectation indications from the ALAC review. So it didn't take any position on this. >>ROBERTO GAETANO: So my personal opinion is that all those three recommendations will be part of the group that we have to further investigate. Do you think that is -- there are any of these that we can say it's already implemented or we can implement right away? Because I just base this from the fact that the working group has been not -- has not given a clear mandate. >>HAGEN HULTZSCH: Do you want to say something? I could only say that I concur with the positions of the working group. Okay? >>GEORGE SADOWSKY: I think, if I understand them, I don't. So maybe you're right, we should defer it till later. >>ROBERTO GAETANO: Can the members of the working group confirm that there was -- there was mixed feelings about this in the working group? >>JONATHAN COHEN: Yeah. >>ROBERTO GAETANO: Okay. >>JONATHAN COHEN: There were. >>ROBERTO GAETANO: Okay. Next. Next slide. >>MARCO LORENZONI: Next set of slides is about membership and leadership. And the first was about the reduction of the NomCom membership. At that time, the membership was of 21, if I am not wrong. And -- sorry, 22, 23. And the working group had a long discussion about a possible composition for the NomCom. They proposed, but without a conclusive position, seven voting members, plus four nonvoting members, plus an administrative director if the board would accept this proposal. Another very controversial recommendation was the recommendation to select NomCom members by lottery from a list of volunteers. And the working group strongly disagreed on this, underlined that there was very limited support even from the community to this proposal, and underlined that the process would not ensure skills, fairness, and representation balance. Finally, on the screen, a recommendation to focus NomCom on its core mission to seek independent, unaffiliated directors. The accent of reviewers was very much on the nonaffiliation of directors. And the working group underlined that in some cases could be very difficult to assess whether there are affiliations for individuals to be selected as directors, but that the most important issue is to focus more on the capacity to operate with independence of thought. >>ROBERTO GAETANO: George. >>GEORGE SADOWSKY: There are a whole bunch of recommendations here. First of all, I'd like to hear Hagen and Tricia on this, but I never found a large group the size of 23 was a problem. In fact, I thought it was good and that it reflected the diversity and the complexity of the ICANN structure. >>TRICIA DRAKES: Completely. >>GEORGE SADOWSKY: So I don't think that's an issue. The idea of choosing NomCom by lottery deserves to be killed. I'll let my other chairs comment on the rest of it. >>TRICIA DRAKES: It's ridiculous. >>ROBERTO GAETANO: Yeah? Is there -- is there any dissenting opinion on this? Okay. If something is clearly to be killed, I think that we can kill it right away. We don't need to wait. >>TRICIA DRAKES: But it hasn't gone to public comment. >>ROBERTO GAETANO: Yeah, yeah. >>TRICIA DRAKES: But equally, we're just missing -- I'm sorry to go on on this, because it gets worse as you go along. But we're missing the opportunity to actually do a good -- if the report were updated simply, we could actually put some good, current input into it. >>ROBERTO GAETANO: Next slide. >>MARCO LORENZONI: Next slide is the last recommendation about membership and leadership. It was in the proposal to restructure the NomCom leadership rules, providing balance of continuity and fresh perspective. And it was the issue that you discussed about the opening of the session to appoint the chair one year in advance to serve as nonvoting member of the NomCom during the year prior to becoming chair in order to ensure continuity in the function. >>TRICIA DRAKES: But equally there -- and I think also the plan wasn't to have the immediate past chair as advisor, which, actually, I think is absolutely essential. But if I take -- and I'm sure Alan won't mind -- Alan, the chair, is a person who can appoint or decide to appoint an associate chair. And if I'd have had to have looked for an associate chair who was a chair-in-waiting, that would have brought many more factors. I don't know whether Alan would have accepted to have been an associate chair. And he is already showing he's the best choice in terms of our team to be there. And I think it's -- if I were not a lady, I might use another description, but it's back to front. It just really -- it doesn't make any sense at all in that respect. >>GEORGE SADOWSKY: Tricia, I think the intent was not to abolish the associate chair position, but to, in addition, appoint a future chair one year in advance. But -- >>TRICIA DRAKES: Sorry, that's not the associate chair. And that puts an impediment. Because I think -- my understanding was that you would -- and, in fact, even there, I don't think that's right. But my understanding was that that person would be the associate chair. And it also would make it really strange. I mean, we already have three quite different but strong people helping to drive this. If you got somebody in waiting as well, you know, it's -- the whole thing's really a nonsense. >>ROBERTO GAETANO: Hagen. >>HAGEN HULTZSCH: Roberto, you know that from my joint work earlier, you know that I'm always looking from a practical point of view and pragmatic point of view into things to be considered. And from this practical and pragmatic point of view, I think it would be difficult to find somebody running the chair of the Nominating Committee one year in advance. I would have had difficulties to say "yes" a year earlier because of situations I had. And I don't know whether this would have applied to Tricia as well. And I even don't know about George. I think, from a practical point of view, the way how it works now, that about three months or so before the job's really starting, you are asked, "Can you do that? Are you willing to do that?" That is working, from my point of view, very well. So I would really be hesitant to change that. >>TRICIA DRAKES: The one thing -- sorry, just to finish, and then Roberto, you can comment on that. The one thing that would be helpful - - I mean, I was appointed NomCom chair in August. Because of the confidentiality rules that exist, I couldn't come into play to discuss anything in relation to NomCom until after the annual meeting, when the new NomCom came into play. Now, what might have been helpful, even if only informally, in the same way as when new board members are announced, they sit in in board meetings to get a feel, I think the continuity aspect, and, shall we say, the getting into the job would be helped if there was some way that from the time you're appointed, you could actually participate and see. So I think -- I think there are many things wrong. >>HAGEN HULTZSCH: (off microphone). >>ROBERTO GAETANO: Just one thing to add to what Hagen said. We had even a case in which (saying name) was appointed chair, and then for changing of circumstances, he had to -- he had to decline and George -- we reappointed George for the second year. So there are -- it's too dangerous to go one year in advance. George. >>GEORGE SADOWSKY: Well, I think they've said it. I don't feel strongly about this point, and Hagen has some good arguments. And I think Tricia's argument that she should be -- the new chair should be inserted into the process, into the previous year process as soon as they're appointed, is a very good one. >>ROBERTO GAETANO: Yes. >>SIVASUBRAMANIAN MUTHUSAMY: I would fully agree with what she has said. And the question of confidentiality in case the new chairman drops after a year of being into the process, anyway, you are choosing a NomCom chairman after due diligence, after trusting that person with such a high position, and even if the person for some reason is unable to continue to take up the position, no confidentiality is lost, because whatever confidential matters that he or she is exposed to, she's going to maintain that confidentiality with which she was elected in the first place. And in organizations like rotary, just to draw a parallel, they have a system wherein the president-elect, president is elected one year in advance, and for the first one year, he's trained or he's exposed to how the present president functions. And then after that, he takes over as president. And after he completes his term, he continues for one year as immediate past president, where he is still respected and his word is still taken. So we can gradually move to that system wherein we have a chair, we have an immediate past chair, we have an incumbent chair. So that would help preserve continuity. >>ROBERTO GAETANO: Okay. Thank you. The next (off microphone) -- the next is the last slide. And then once we have finished this, we can quickly go through where we go from this. >>MARCO LORENZONI: The last is about operations. So, to balance confidentiality and transparency, this was in the recommendation of the reviewers, maintain core confidentiality of candidates' data and eliminate secrecy everywhere else. And the working group supported this recommendation with a remark that a mechanism -- a (inaudible) mechanism has to be built into the system for known selected candidates for subsequent recruitment rounds, in other words, do not get loss of memory of the candidates that were not selected in the previous round. The second on operations is to enforce participation rules by removing nonperforming members. And there are already some rules, it was observed, by the working group. But the mechanism, the precise mechanism, was given to the majority of members. And the working group suggested instead to leave to the discretion of chair under inputs of the members of the working group the possibility to remove members that were not performing. Then we have the third and -- we have support for the recommendation to design and document the NomCom key processes. And, finally, we have a long discussion in the working group about the recommendation to audit yearly the NomCom effectiveness and to publish results. The working group observed that whether this can be agreed in principle, this needs to be defined in relation with the standard organizational review processes. In other words, they say we cannot run an organizational review process each year. So even if we have to disclose some information about the effectiveness of the activities of the NomCom, the mechanism for doing that has to be carefully selected. >>ROBERTO GAETANO: Hagen, then George. >>HAGEN HULTZSCH: Thank you, Roberto. I would like to comment on the four items, if you can move the slide up again. The first one I think is -- at least it is implemented, it is working. We in the last year -- and I think it has been done already earlier -- last year, we separated between process status -- thank you very much, Steve, team spirit. We separated between process status and confidentiality of, let's say, individual information. We communicated about the status of our process, and we did this openly, without limitations. And we did not communicate anything about the individuals' information. We, for example, communicated, we have so many SIs, but the content was always confidential. And also, the second element here, which was -- Sorry? >>MARCO LORENZONI: Possibility to remove nonperforming members. >>HAGEN HULTZSCH: Yeah. Actually, that is the thing which I -- I think is a question of the chairman. If the chairman really discovers, let's say, nonperformance, he should act on it. For example, a thing which was introduced last year, and, George, I don't know whether had you it, the minutes always showed who was not participating. And we had also statistics internally about how many people did not participate and so on. So that is, again, an easy task for the chairman. And that's why we don't have rules on that. And, again, the next one -- >>MARCO LORENZONI: It was about designing -- >>HAGEN HULTZSCH: Performance of members, that is a very difficult task. I would not follow up on it. It happened that somebody is -- that's failing to participate for illness or so, then it maybe consideration to replace him. But with 23 members -- GAC, by the way, currently does not supply one, so it's 22 -- it is not, let's say, a severe problem if one member of the Nominating Committee is not available at least for some time, since it's only a half-year task anyway. And the third -- the third one, design and document NomCom processes. I must confess that I never felt that we don't have processes which are well documented, and that I had weaknesses or, let's say, I found deficiencies that I didn't know how to act. So I believe they are existing, even though I currently, out of mind, don't know where they are documented. But I think it is. And that's why it's a recommendation -- it's -- yeah, it's -- yeah, we have it on track, but also in the bylaws and so on. The efficiency of NomCom is very well documented. Is the Nominating Committee able to have enough recruitments at the time given 15 April, last year it was? And does it fill the open jobs, the open positions with adequate candidates? I think in the last years, especially last year, it was, I think, done well. So that is the automatic audit of the organization. And in that sense, the organization has an audit committee and may just audit this as part of the overall audit. So I would wonder whether this is also a nonnecessary potential addition to ICANN's complexity. >>ROBERTO GAETANO: George? >>GEORGE SADOWSKY: I'm in substantial agreement with what Hagen said. And I think the only -- on the audit capability, I don't know what was meant. It's difficult to understand how one would audit a process in which the process is made available short of the confidential information to the community, what more could an audit provide? Maybe I'm just deficient in my own thinking here but I don't think any of these are controversial except maybe the audit and maybe that's not controversial. >>ROBERTO GAETANO: Bill? Okay. >>BILL MANNING: So the first two bullet points there are written from the perspective -- written from a certain perspective. We have had certain circumstances in previous NomComs where confidentiality was maintained by the NomCom but not by the candidate. The candidate took information about how we interacted with them and made it very public and it's not clear we can stop that other than as we document our processes and procedures we make them very public so everybody knows what we're doing and how we do it. The other one, that second one, I think what happens if we have a nonperforming chair, can the members oust the chair with that? [ Laughter ] >>TRICIA DRAKES: (Speaker off microphone) reply on that. Certainly with the committees that I'm working with at the moment, I think that they'd let me know pretty quickly if it wasn't working. But I think also, again, I don't know whether we're nontypical, but I'm sure it would be resourceful to put it up to the board who appointed the chair if you had a -- had a duff one because I think all of us take responsibility and that's the chair, the associate chair, the advisor to the chair and the members. I think we all bear the burden of the task that's been given to us, to do it diligently and properly. >>HAGEN HULTZSCH: Just a short injection, Roberto. It cannot happen that we have a nonperforming chair because a chair is appointed by the board of ICANN. And the board of ICANN doesn't make imprudent decisions so in that sense, Bill, your consideration is futile. [ Laughter ] >>STEVE GOLDSTEIN: I think you're confusing us with the Holy See. [ Laughter ] >>MATIAS ALTAMIRA: I'm Matias Altamira, a NomCom member. I didn't ask to intervene before because I was waiting for the final. For me, I agree everything about the -- the review, it's old, we have to move on. Most of the changes have been made. And the conclusion maybe is the final step, the first one because -- about the confidentiality, there was a huge issue about that, and I'm really glad about that because some of the members thought that the confidentiality starts from the very beginning. So you cannot say anything to anybody. And then we start thinking about that and working on that and the legal man from ICANN came and we asked him straightforward if we can openly recruit persons without breaching confidentiality. And they -- and he said there's no confidentiality once you have nobody there, you have no candidate yet. So that's why I thought we made a great change with this red lanyard, with the booth, with the main floor, and we have to improve that because the booth is good, but we need a bigger one. And we need to work out this kind -- and follow the -- I always say that we have to follow the huge companies. How they -- how they manage to get viewed good candidates. And they do a lot of work. And they go to the main conventions, main activities and they recruit and say you are a good one, you can come with us. We have a huge -- or a big problem, is that we don't get to borrow -- or the members that are selected, there's no compensation for them. And even if we don't get -- they don't -- they don't get paid, we demand them a lot of time. This is a very hard time for us as a NomCom -- as a NomCom, because I was talking to a new NomCom member who said, "Wow, this is very difficult," because we have to demand half of his life, and we will pay nothing. How can anybody accept that? The second point was removing a nonperforming person or a member, do you remove or replace or do you remove and that's it? >>ROBERTO GAETANO: The proposal was to remove and replace. >>MATIAS ALTAMIRA: Well, you have just one year. So if the person -- if the term of the NomCom member is just for one year, you have -- you have just two meetings to -- face-to-face meetings. And so going -- you will decide to be removed. And for the point that Bill made about the chair, maybe what an administrative person under is -- we are willing to -- the administrative director, that would be the person in charge of removing the chair of the NomCom? And my last comment about the key processes, I think that we are -- we are independent, a NomCom independent body for -- for some instances, but for others, not. If, for example, for -- for me, we have an obstacle to overcome. Is that from our last meeting, next year, next time, in Sydney, until -- this is going to be our last meeting from this 2009 NomCom. Then the 2010 NomCom will have its first meeting in Korea, I think. So during that period there's no recruiting process. Nobody we recruit anybody. And so for instance in Latin America this time of the year is a bad time to recruit persons because everybody is in holidays, in holidays. You say, okay, we start in November. But nobody's thinking about filing for a position for a year or whatever, they're trying to close out their business. And it's a key, how can we -- we need to be very independent. And we need to have our bylaws and we have to -- and how can we draft our laws once we are just for a year, and who has the more capacity and the background and experience to say this is going to be a very good law. And we are independent. And I think that, for example, this year -- last year and this year we have an example, a very good one, that we just had a proposal to retain a recruitment agency or company. And for this year, time for us again, if we are willing to continue with that, and Tricia agrees with that, but what if Tricia didn't agree with that? So we have a new process or we're moving back and forth because there's no -- we need to establish -- to get institutional decisions but how can you do it if you are just for one year. That's it, thank you. >>ROBERTO GAETANO: Okay, thank you. >>TRICIA DRAKES: We've got one correction, and it will be a quick one which, actually, it's that the committee agreed, I mean, I proposed that we continue with RMV but, actually, the committee, if you remember, we went round the table in Cairo and the committee agreed that we should continue with them. So it wasn't the chair's decision, the chair suggested but we actually went around the table and took the view of everybody. >>ROBERTO GAETANO: Okay. Can we now close the discussion on this and figure out what to do next? We are already one and a half minutes past the hour that -- >>JONATHAN COHEN: Does that work? Yes. Okay, well, clearly from the discussion, from my point of view, Tricia and others have clearly pointed out what we all know is the difficulty of ICANN and that is losing et cetera institutional history and then conducting reviews that are outdated before they ever get tabled. Okay, we all accept that. Now what do we do? My view is based on what I've listened to, the working group did what it was supposed to do, looked at the recommendations, commented. Clearly missed the boat on a number of cases. I would suggest that we now have the working group or some subset thereof meet in Sydney, meet with previous chairs and members in private to discuss these recommendations and seek suggestions, revise those recommendations accordingly with the approval of the working group that are not dependent on GNSO or board review, final decisions, institute them now after appropriate comment and approval, any changes that can be made before then, and then after the GNSO and board reviews are finally completed and instituted, give it a few months or something then reconstitute the working group to visit those subjects that can't be discussed until we know what those conclusions are and then make recommendations after appropriate consultations which we didn't do this time. >>TRICIA DRAKES: Can I make one suggestion -- >>ROBERTO GAETANO: I have Hartmut first. >>TRICIA DRAKES: Okay, Sawyer. >>HARTMUT GLASER: (Speaker off microphone). >>STEVE GOLDSTEIN: Hold your microphone. >>HARTMUT GLASER: It's a different point but I like to mention this at the end. I think she will interview. >>ROBERTO GAETANO: Go -- >>HARTMUT GLASER: Okay, let me mention very sensitive point. What happens when a candidate -- appointed candidate by the NomCom after he is appointed diligence process is okay, we discover that he has some wrong information on his column, what happens? The NomCom cannot do nothing. How we can avoid that this wrong information will continue for three or four years in any position that this person take over or in some -- >>ROBERTO GAETANO: I understand the question. >>HARTMUT GLASER: It's a delicate, very sensitive point but we need to have any solution if we appoint it say a wrong or member with false information. (Scribing concluded - meeting still in session.)