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

Tue Aug 8 11:08:45 CEST 2017

Figuring out a fair points based system keeping in view the gender and regional balance sounds like a great idea. I agree with Stephanie. And yes, publishing this in advance would make it even helpful for those are might consider applying in future rounds. 

Best, 
Zakir

      From: Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
 To: ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org 
 Sent: Tuesday, August 8, 2017 5:51 AM
 Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] A note from the Executive Committee - On Transparency and NomCom Selection Process

 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> 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/do cument/d/1uolqcYivX_KVOgPdjl3w B_aBkHyLcFkvzNsNU47BRQY/edit#h eading=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/fa rellf  

  ______________________________ _________________
   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

 _______________________________________________
Ncuc-discuss mailing list
Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
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/20170808/ff5f7478/attachment.html>