[NCUC-DISCUSS] A note from the Executive Committee - On Transparency and NomCom Selection Process
Stephanie Perrin
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
Tue Aug 8 02:51:28 CEST 2017
I agree with Dorothy....In my view, the important thing from a
transparency and fairness perspective, is to accurately calculate what
qualities, skills, experience, etc we need for the job, and figure out a
fair weighting of points, keeping in mind gender and regional
representation concerns. Then we publish that in advance. We have a
lot of work to do just to reach this level of maturity, in my view, as
we could see from the reception that the grid Ayden prepared for the SSC
received. In my view, assessment of what is needed and evaluation of
candidates is actually quite difficult, and I don't think we as a group
necessarily can reach agreement right now on which roles are good for
newcomers, and which demand experience, which require previous
participation on PDPs, etc.. Once we have a thorough discussion of these
factors, and agree to do the work up front on the assessment grid (a
non-trivial piece of work), then, frankly, the assessment grid does the
job for us, there is very little need to comment further on the
characteristics of the candidates, except to commend the winner on
having demonstrated x, y, and Z.
We don't have enough folks joining in the working groups and
contributing to comments, in my view. That should be our priority,
getting people onto working teams, helping mentor them along, and not
doing anything that might discourage them from trying to participate
more actively.
Stephanie Perrin.
On 2017-08-07 16:04, dorothy g wrote:
> 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
> , y,
> On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 7:27 PM, Bruna Martins dos Santos
> <bruna.mrtns at gmail.com <mailto: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
> <mailto: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 <mailto:mkaranicolas at gmail.com>
>> To: NCUC-discuss <ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
>> <mailto: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 <mailto: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
>> <mailto: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_KVOgPdjl3wB_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
>> <mailto:Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>
>> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>> <http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss>
>>
>> --
>> Regards
>> @__f_f__
>> https://www.linkedin.com/in/farellf
>> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/farellf>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
>> <mailto:Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>
>> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>> <http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org <mailto:Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>
> https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
> <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 <mailto:Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>
> https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
> <https://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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20170807/49fe2f9a/attachment.html>
More information about the Ncuc-discuss
mailing list