[NCUC-DISCUSS] A note from the Executive Committee - On Transparency and NomCom Selection Process

Mon Aug 7 21:27:07 CEST 2017

Hello everyone,

+1 one on Michael's comment! And also some questions:

1. Should we think of the transparency levels that is given to the EC
deliberations? Like disclosing the information with the obliterated names
of the members who decided and their comments, or to only disclose the
decision and number of votes per candidate inside the EC.

2. Do you think that the EC should publish its decisions and deliberations
in a exercise of active transparency or they should only be disclosed under
request (that being a passive transparency exercise).

Best,

2017-08-07 16:03 GMT-03:00 Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>:

> Hi,
>
> Just a quick reaction on deattribution: given how small the Executive
> Committee is, is it really possible to anonymise their comments? (I suspect
> it isn’t.)
>
> Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] A note from the Executive Committee - On
> Transparency and NomCom Selection Process
> Local Time: 7 August 2017 7:48 PM
> UTC Time: 7 August 2017 18:48
> From: mkaranicolas at gmail.com
> To: NCUC-discuss <ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>
>
> Hi all,
>
> Just to build on this discussion, I'd like to suggest a proposal for
> future processes, to see what the community thinks. As noted in the above
> email, there are two main concerns with expanding transparency in these
> processes. The first concerns the potential impact on the candour of the
> deliberative process, the second concerns whether having open discussions
> of candidates' strengths and weaknesses might deter people from running for
> positions. I think both of these are legitimate concerns. However, in
> designing transparency systems, when we see potential harms like this, we
> don't necessarily give up on trying to expand openness. Rather, we try and
> develop a solution which avoids these harms, but which nonetheless provides
> for a boost in openness.
>
> I would propose that, for future nominations processes, after
> deliberations have concluded, and the successful candidate(s) have been
> informed, the EC collate the email discussions together and de-attribute
> them - so it is not possible to determine which EC member said what, but
> that all comments are preserved. These anonymized comments can then be sent
> to all candidates - which will be helpful for them in assessing their own
> candidacy, and potential areas of improvement. The candidates will then be
> asked if they consent to the document being publicly distributed and *if
> they consent,* it can then be made public.
>
> My idea is that the de-attribution will prevent concerns that EC members
> will be held personally responsible for critical assessments of candidates,
> while the requirement for candidates' consent to disclosure will ensure
> that, in cases where people are uncomfortable with what has been said about
> them, they can keep it from being distributed.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Michael Karanicolas
>
> On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 9:09 PM, Farell Folly <farellfolly at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Indeed Farzaneh, this is a new opportunity for the members to react on
>> this document and suggests some improvments. I was very honored to work on
>> the Netiquette and Events proposal submissions procedures, and will be
>> happy to help on any question regarding those two sections of the
>> Procedures doc.
>>
>> Le mar. 1 août 2017 à 22:55, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com> a
>> écrit :
>>
>>> Dear NCUC members,
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks to everyone for having engaged in a robust discussion on this
>>> latest nomination. Since the question of transparency has been raised, we
>>> thought it best to respond regarding our thought process, and the road
>>> ahead.
>>>
>>> As many on this list have noted, transparency is of the utmost
>>> importance in these processes. The community needs to be confident that the
>>> process was fair, honest and accountable. We take this responsibility
>>> seriously. As others have also noted, there are competing considerations
>>> that need to be carefully balanced as part of these processes. These
>>> include the ability of the EC to openly and honestly express their views
>>> about candidates, discussing their weaknesses as well as their strengths.
>>> It is also worth noting that often the candidates for these positions are
>>> our respected colleagues. The process requires that EC members be able to
>>> discuss their preferences frankly, without worrying that their remarks will
>>> lead to personal animosity down the line. Another important consideration
>>> is that we want to structure the process in a way that encourages
>>> candidates to run. Having our assessments of their strengths and weaknesses
>>> made public could be an unpleasant experience for potential candidates,
>>> discouraging them from seeking positions.
>>>
>>> These considerations were much less of an issue in this case, as we were
>>> fortunate enough to have two outstanding candidates, either of whom would
>>> have made an excellent NomCom rep - but they are principles of general
>>> importance. So how should these considerations be balanced against our
>>> fundamental responsibility to execute a transparent and accountable
>>> process, and one which inspires confidence among the membership of the NCUC?
>>>
>>> Ultimately, the path forward depends on you - the community. For those
>>> who have raised calls for more transparency - your timing could not be
>>> better. We are currently in the midst of a consultation on our revised
>>> operating procedures, which includes protocols on this very issue. We agree
>>> that there needs to be more clarification on how these processes are
>>> handled next time, and we invite you all to weigh in, either here or,
>>> preferably, in the draft consultation document, available at:
>>>  https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uolqcYivX_KVOgPdjl3w
>>> B_aBkHyLcFkvzNsNU47BRQY/edit#heading=h.1x7lfonwlklh
>>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uolqcYivX_KVOgPdjl3wB_aBkHyLcFkvzNsNU47BRQY/edit#heading=h.1x7lfonwlklh>
>>>
>>> So tell us - how can we improve things?
>>>
>>>
>>> NCUC Executive Committee
>>>
>>> Renata Acquino Ribeiro
>>> David Cake
>>> Farzaneh Badii
>>> Michael Karanikolas
>>> Tatiana Tropina
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>>> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
>>> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>>>
>> --
>> Regards
>> @__f_f__
>> https://www.linkedin.com/in/farellf
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
>> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>
>

-- 
*Bruna Martins dos Santos *

+55 61 99252-6512
Skype ID: bruna.martinsantos
@boomartins
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20170807/65d69423/attachment.html>