<div dir="auto">It sounds good to me all of that. When I was saying hidden, I was actually meaning private/secret but I can understand that some decisions should be made in the way explained, as we place all our trust in the hand of people that we elected. However, sometimes we need to ensure all the mechanisms follow the agreed rules. In this case it seems so, everything went fine, therefore we must must just congratulate Anriette.<div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">This should serve as experience in the future.<div data-smartmail="gmail_signature" dir="auto"><br>Regards<br>@__f_f__<br><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/farellf">https://www.linkedin.com/in/farellf</a><br>________________________________<br>Mail sent from my mobile phone. Excuse for brievety.</div></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">Le 31 juil. 2017 8:52 PM, "Stephanie Perrin" <<a href="mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca">stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca</a>> a écrit :<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">Folks, I think we may
be mixing up apples and oranges here. FIrst let me say that I
posted the whole call for nominations on the NCSG list, in the
interests of transparency and of keeping non-NCUC folks in the
loop. We had a long discussion with Raoul on the Johannesburg
meeting Skype channel about a month ago, on the topic of
getting another seat (or two) on the Nomcom for NCSG and for
NPOC, and for those who missed that discussion let me assure
you that everybody on all sides wants better representation at
Nomcom, but our efforts to bring this up with the Board have
so far been fruitless. In the meantime, as discussed
previously, this is an NCUC seat, and an NCUC decision.</font></font></p>
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">Let me try to explain
what I think is the confusion.</font></font></p>
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">1. My understanding
is that the Nomcom decision has always been done by the EC.
It is in the Charter. IF folks think they would rather have
an election, they I guess the best way to bring that up would
be prior to the nomination period, on the list. I guess it
would mean amending the Charter. <br>
</font></font></p>
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">2. When we have
elections, I certainly think transparency of the candidates
and the criteria is essential. I believe I made plenty of
noise about that during the last election, in which I
participated, shared my resume, and debated any discussion
folks wanted to discuss. However, after a transparent process
we then go to a <i>secret</i> ballot. Secret ballots are
there not for the sake of secrecy itself, but to promote
honest evaluation of candidates and fearless voting.<br>
</font></font></p>
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">3. If the EC of the
NCUC is going to decide on candidates, there is no way that
should be a public discussion. People, we are evaluating
candidates, you cannot do that in an open forum. Have the
discussion about the SOIs, about the necessary qualifications,
etc etc in an open forum. </font></font><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande"><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida
Grande">In this instance, we had a webinar to explain the
job and qualifications. However, </font></font>if you
are asking people to evaluate candidates, it has to be done in
confidence. Reasons for the decision need to be disclosed,
but in such a way as not to offend any of the candidates.
Anyone who has participated in HR/Staffing decisions where
there is a process to discuss why individuals are not chosen
will be well aware that this is something that particularly
the losing candidates do not like having discussed in public.
How are we going to get people to put themselves forward to
serve in these roles if we discuss their relative strengths in
public?</font></font></p>
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">4. There was a </font></font><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">lot of friction over the
SSC appointments, where I made the same arguments, need to see
resumes and full statements from candidates. We tried in that
instance to develop a "rubric" of qualifications. We still
have not filled our third seat, and the policy vice chairman,
Matt Shears, was in my opinion put in a very difficult
position during that episode. Please let us not repeat this
here. If people want different processes put in place, let's
have a discussion about it in time to actually implement any
potential changes in a reasonable, consultative manner. <br>
</font></font></p>
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">5. We have, in the
four years I have been in the NCUC, had difficulty getting
enough people to run for office to fill the slates of
candidates. Most seats have been unopposed. I think we were
all overjoyed to have two excellent candidates for this
position. We must keep in mind that if we were to evaluate candidates
on a public scorecard with the evaluations of all concerned listed
and public, we might have a hard time finding candidates, and
an even harder time getting evaluators. Drawing up such a
public scorecard is a very difficult task, I have done it for
government tenders and hiring, it is not easy. Evaluating
fairly and assigning points is also not easy. This is not to
suggest that in the absence of such a process we have an unfair
process, just that we trust our elected EC representatives to
make that decision for us. I cannot keep up with the policy
work we have here....if people have time for this, let me
remind them that our task here is not to develop
administrative procedures to keep us all busy, it is to influence
DNS policy, and we could use more hands on deck in the working
groups to actually do that. Delegation is really important,
and the NCUC has delegated the task of picking the Nomcom rep
to our elected representatives. Let us be at peace with that
decision.<br>
</font></font></p>
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">With all best wishes</font></font></p>
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">Stephanie Perrin<br>
</font></font></p>
<br>
<div class="m_-3912063552630810055moz-cite-prefix">On 2017-07-31 14:30, Farell Folly
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="auto">I agree with Tapani on this point. There is no
need to hide such kind of decision to the rest of the group. If
we (the group) had voted before to conduct it this way, that is
fine, otherwise it is not fair for the candidates or to the
members to discover some rules or criteria once the results are
announced.
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">If we cannot afford for such kind of
transparency at our level we can't ask ICANN to be more
transparent on its high level decision either. </div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Personally I think, if everyone knows the
selections criteria and what vote/note/grade/mark was given by
who (from EC) to who (candidate) the results would more
straightforward and not subject to too much discussion.
<div data-smartmail="gmail_signature" dir="auto"><br>
Regards<br>
@__f_f__<br>
<a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/farellf" target="_blank">https://www.linkedin.com/in/fa<wbr>rellf</a><br>
______________________________<wbr>__<br>
Mail sent from my mobile phone. Excuse for brievety.</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">Le 31 juil. 2017 9:47 AM, "Tapani
Tarvainen" <<a href="mailto:ncuc@tapani.tarvainen.info" target="_blank">ncuc@tapani.tarvainen.info</a>>
a écrit :<br type="attribution">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Dear all,<br>
<br>
While I'm happy to see two great candidates and good
discussion<br>
about NomCom, there's one side issue I find disconcerting,
namely<br>
how NCUC EC plans to make its decision.<br>
<br>
I may have misunderstood something, but looking at<br>
<br>
<a href="http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-ec/2017-July/004061.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermai<wbr>l/ncuc-ec/2017-July/004061.<wbr>html</a><br>
<br>
it seems they plan to discuss this in private emails.<br>
<br>
Transparency is one of our core values, moving EC
deliberations to<br>
private emails is something that should not be done lightly
if at all,<br>
certainly not without some extraordinary justification. I
would very<br>
much hate to see it become normal, routine procedure
whenever EC or<br>
the Chair feel like it.<br>
<br>
There may well be circumstances where confidential
discussions are<br>
needed, but they should be rare, explicitly justified and
documented,<br>
and even then they should still be recorded and records kept
somewhere<br>
where they can be accessed, e.g., by the Ombudsman if need
be.<br>
<br>
--<br>
Tapani Tarvainen<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Ncuc-discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org" target="_blank">Ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/<wbr>mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="m_-3912063552630810055mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre>______________________________<wbr>_________________
Ncuc-discuss mailing list
<a class="m_-3912063552630810055moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org" target="_blank">Ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org</a>
<a class="m_-3912063552630810055moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss" target="_blank">http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/<wbr>mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Ncuc-discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org">Ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/<wbr>mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div></div>