[NCUC-DISCUSS] Nomcom

[Sonigitu Ekpe]

Dear All,

Tapani is on point.

Any way its not time to elaborate issues. Its best that ours words are
thought deeply, before letting lose.

Farzaneh, you are aware you hold public office, try to control emotions and
always exhibit high level of tolerance.

All said, hugs are great for peaceful coexistence.

Warm regards.


Sonigitu Ekpe


On 31 Jul, 2017 12:21, "Tapani Tarvainen" <ncuc at tapani.tarvainen.info>
wrote:

Dear Dorothy,

I am certainly not arguing that all managerial decisions should always
be conducted in public. I do, however, argue that we should be
consistent about it, have clear, well-understood and agreed-on policy
about what should and what should not be public.

If we normally discuss something like appointments in public (like we
in fact have done), making an exception to it should have a specific
reason. Otherwise there's always danger that suspicions about foul
play will linger (we've had experiences with this in the past).

To be sure, I have no reason to suspect anything foul in the present
case, but despite or indeed because of that I fear it will set
a precedent and change practices without proper discussion.

Tapani

On Jul 31 10:42, dorothy g (dgdorothydg at gmail.com) wrote:
>
> There is no need to swipe jabs at each other. Peace , love etc.
> The fact is that it is NOT good management practice to have total
> transparency in this kind of decision making. As Farzaneh correctly points
> out NOT ALL managerial decisions need to be conducted in public. To do so
> would be absurd. We choose our leaders because we trust them to make the
> right decisions on our behalf.
> We just need the process to be transparent and well understood. As I
> mentioned before sharing the criteria that will be used to decide will be
> helpful.
> I am pleased that we are engaging around the topic but we need to stay
> realistic.
> hugs to all!
>
> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 10:21 AM, 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20170731/e5854565/attachment-0002.html>