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

Mon Aug 7 22:04:54 CEST 2017

It is quite easy to determine who is writing from the style of the
communication so I do not think the proposed 'anonymisation' would work.
Making the process too public may result in serious distortions.  I would
just like the evaluation matrix and weighting to be transparent. We just
need to know the criteria that were used in the decision-making. I do not
think we need to go further than that.  We should not make the burden of
office or standing for election embarrassing and uncomfortable.  I am
personally very grateful for all those who work so hard on our behalf.
best
D

On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 7:27 PM, Bruna Martins dos Santos <
bruna.mrtns at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20170807/bbba3393/attachment.html>