[NCUC-DISCUSS] Nomcom

[Tapani Tarvainen]

Dear Farzaneh,

I was not insinuating anything about the past. On the contrary,
I brought this up because it seems a deviation from past practices -
in the past NCUC EC as well as NCSG EC and NCSG PC have been
doing all kinds of appointments and discussed applicants
qualifications without any need for making such discussions secret.

If we are going to adopt a policy that such appointments are to be
discussed in secret, it should at the very least be discussed
thoroughly amongst the membership, defined clearly when it should be
done and written down in the operating procedures (I didn't see any
mention of this in the current version).

As for you allegations of my practices, I will ignore them
unless you choose to substantiate them with concrete examples.

-- 
Tapani Tarvainen



On Jul 31 06:21, farzaneh badii (farzaneh.badii at gmail.com) wrote:
> 
> Tapani,
> 
> Transparency is about public accountability. It does not mean that all
> managerial decisions must be carried out in public. In appointments, the
> selection committee will be discussing candidate skills and qualifications.
> This is a sensitive area, and it is typical both inside and outside of
> ICANN that these conversations take place within a cone of silence to
> protect the dignity of candidates. We have taken our decision now, and I
> was preparing to email both candidates privately to provide them with
> feedback on their applications. If the candidates consent, we can make
> these emails public, but it would be understandable if they preferred
> otherwise. I will, however, email this list in due course to announce the
> selected candidate and the reasons why the selection committee felt like
> they were best placed to represent the NCUC on the Nominating Committee.
> 
> During the time that I have been the Chair of NCUC, I have worked fiercely
> to bring greater transparency to our community regarding available
> resources, the rationale for our selections and appointments, and called
> upon the expertise of Michael Karanikolas when drafting our operating
> procedures to ensure we have given transparency issues appropriate
> consideration. I find it, frankly, insulting that you would insinuate we
> have been anything but transparent here given our track record — a track
> record, I note reluctantly, that you as Chair of the NCSG have not yourself
> practiced.
> 
> Best
> 
> Farzaneh
> 
> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 5:47 AM, Tapani Tarvainen <
> ncuc at tapani.tarvainen.info> wrote:
> 
> > Dear all,
> >
> > While I'm happy to see two great candidates and good discussion
> > about NomCom, there's one side issue I find disconcerting, namely
> > how NCUC EC plans to make its decision.
> >
> > I may have misunderstood something, but looking at
> >
> > http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-ec/2017-July/004061.html
> >
> > it seems they plan to discuss this in private emails.
> >
> > Transparency is one of our core values, moving EC deliberations to
> > private emails is something that should not be done lightly if at all,
> > certainly not without some extraordinary justification. I would very
> > much hate to see it become normal, routine procedure whenever EC or
> > the Chair feel like it.
> >
> > There may well be circumstances where confidential discussions are
> > needed, but they should be rare, explicitly justified and documented,
> > and even then they should still be recorded and records kept somewhere
> > where they can be accessed, e.g., by the Ombudsman if need be.
> >
> > --
> > Tapani Tarvainen
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ncuc-discuss mailing list
> > Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> > http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
> >