[NCUC-DISCUSS] Nomcom

[Wisdom Donkor]

I dont think there was any decision that was taken or hidden from any of
the group.   What i see in this case is purely administrative processes.  I
also dont think there was lack of transparency. Two person got nominated
and the two will have to go through vetting in other for the best candidate
to be  selected.

What in my thinking mislead the whole process in my opinion was the +1's
and all the supports thinking the candidates will have to go through voting.

So, to say the was a hidden decision and lack of transparency in the
process is here nor there.


Cheers




*WISDOM DONKOR (S/N Eng.)*
E-government and Open Government Data Platforms Specialist
ICANN Fellow / Member, UN IGF MAG Member, ISOC Member,
Freedom Online Coalition (FOC) Member, Diplo Foundation Member,
OGP Open Data WG Member, GODAN Memember, ITAG Member
Email: wisdom.dk at gmail.com
Skype: wisdom_dk
facebook: facebook at wisdom_dk
Website: www.data.gov.gh
www.isoc.gh / www.itag.org.gh

On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 6:30 PM, Farell Folly <farellfolly at gmail.com> wrote:

> I agree with Tapani on this point. There is no need to hide such kind of
> decision to the rest of the group. If we (the group) had voted before to
> conduct it  this way, that is fine, otherwise it is not fair for the
> candidates or to the members to discover some rules or criteria once the
> results are announced.
>
> If we cannot afford for  such kind of transparency  at our level we can't
>  ask ICANN to be more transparent  on its high level decision  either.
>
> Personally  I think, if  everyone knows the selections criteria and what
> vote/note/grade/mark was given by who (from EC) to who (candidate) the
> results would more straightforward and not subject to too much discussion.
>
> Regards
> @__f_f__
> https://www.linkedin.com/in/farellf
> ________________________________
> Mail sent from my mobile phone. Excuse for brievety.
>
> Le 31 juil. 2017 9:47 AM, "Tapani Tarvainen" <ncuc at tapani.tarvainen.info>
> a écrit :
>
>> 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
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/a3902554/attachment-0002.html>