<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">Thanks Farell, I am
really glad you are okay with those views!</font></font></p>
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">Stephanie</font></font><br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2017-07-31 17:08, Farell Folly
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CADzHdxeOkpOBp=aUfHAiZ9RgbWRSYeo4Gy=NanbWukN657mCRQ@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<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"
moz-do-not-send="true">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"
moz-do-not-send="true">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" moz-do-not-send="true">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" moz-do-not-send="true">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"
moz-do-not-send="true">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" moz-do-not-send="true">Ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org</a><br>
<a
href="http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">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" moz-do-not-send="true">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" moz-do-not-send="true">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"
moz-do-not-send="true">Ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org</a><br>
<a
href="http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/<wbr>mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss</a><br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>