Summary

  • ICANN's NomCom seeks community input by 15 October for its 2027 selection cycle and says submissions will be published.
  • Advice about the process is distinct from recommending a potential candidate, applying for a seat or supplying a testimonial about someone.
  • Publication makes an argument visible; it does not oblige the committee to adopt it.

A contribution to ICANN's latest leadership consultation should be written for two audiences: the committee that receives it and the public that will be able to read it. The 4 September invitation asks for views on guidance, job descriptions and priorities for the 2027 NomCom cycle. It promises publication of submissions while leaving their incorporation to the committee's discretion.

The distinction matters before any individual is assessed. A proposal to test operational judgment at interview is a process suggestion. A letter praising a named person's suitability is a different kind of communication. An open invitation for the former is not a blanket invitation for the latter.

Three routes, not one inbox

The current Operating Procedures distinguish these routes. Suggestions of potential candidates can help recruitment, but subsequent self-nomination is essential for consideration. Group endorsements and lists of signatories are not influential in selection; unsolicited third-party comments about a candidate are not accepted. Candidate communications and identifying information have their own confidentiality arrangements.

That is not a ban on community participation or on suggesting a name. It separates finding people, choosing to apply and assessing suitability. A stakeholder group can describe the experience a role needs without turning its submission into a dossier about a person.

The call concerns nine positions across the ICANN Board, ALAC, the GNSO Council and the ccNSO Council. Their requirements are not interchangeable. The job-descriptions page remains labelled for 2026: it is material on which feedback is invited, not a final list of 2027 conditions. Copying last year's vacancy details into this year's advice would blur the very distinction the consultation is meant to examine.

A public argument can survive a handover

The invitation asks contributors to identify the affected role or process, give reasons and state their name, affiliation where applicable, and stakeholder group. The deadline precedes the seating of the 2027 committee after ICANN87; review is planned during that meeting. This creates an opportunity to carry a clearly defined institutional need into the next cycle, without carrying a candidate's private material with it.

Neither publication nor discretion is newly invented. The previous cycle's invitation used both conditions. The September call should therefore not be described as a new transparency reform, a public vote or proof that the 2027 application window is open.

For now, the evidence establishes an invitation and its terms, not how comments have been handled. A published suggestion can be accepted, adapted or left unused. No conclusion about any of those outcomes follows from the announcement alone.