[NCUC-DISCUSS] Nomcom
Stephanie Perrin
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
Mon Jul 31 22:52:32 CEST 2017
Folks, I think we may be mixing up apples and oranges here. FIrst let me
say that I posted the whole call for nominations on the NCSG list, in
the interests of transparency and of keeping non-NCUC folks in the loop.
We had a long discussion with Raoul on the Johannesburg meeting Skype
channel about a month ago, on the topic of getting another seat (or
two) on the Nomcom for NCSG and for NPOC, and for those who missed that
discussion let me assure you that everybody on all sides wants better
representation at Nomcom, but our efforts to bring this up with the
Board have so far been fruitless. In the meantime, as discussed
previously, this is an NCUC seat, and an NCUC decision.
Let me try to explain what I think is the confusion.
1. My understanding is that the Nomcom decision has always been done by
the EC. It is in the Charter. IF folks think they would rather have an
election, they I guess the best way to bring that up would be prior to
the nomination period, on the list. I guess it would mean amending the
Charter.
2. When we have elections, I certainly think transparency of the
candidates and the criteria is essential. I believe I made plenty of
noise about that during the last election, in which I participated,
shared my resume, and debated any discussion folks wanted to discuss.
However, after a transparent process we then go to a /secret/ ballot.
Secret ballots are there not for the sake of secrecy itself, but to
promote honest evaluation of candidates and fearless voting.
3. If the EC of the NCUC is going to decide on candidates, there is no
way that should be a public discussion. People, we are evaluating
candidates, you cannot do that in an open forum. Have the discussion
about the SOIs, about the necessary qualifications, etc etc in an open
forum. In this instance, we had a webinar to explain the job and
qualifications. However, if you are asking people to evaluate
candidates, it has to be done in confidence. Reasons for the decision
need to be disclosed, but in such a way as not to offend any of the
candidates. Anyone who has participated in HR/Staffing decisions where
there is a process to discuss why individuals are not chosen will be
well aware that this is something that particularly the losing
candidates do not like having discussed in public. How are we going to
get people to put themselves forward to serve in these roles if we
discuss their relative strengths in public?
4. There was a lot of friction over the SSC appointments, where I made
the same arguments, need to see resumes and full statements from
candidates. We tried in that instance to develop a "rubric" of
qualifications. We still have not filled our third seat, and the policy
vice chairman, Matt Shears, was in my opinion put in a very difficult
position during that episode. Please let us not repeat this here. If
people want different processes put in place, let's have a discussion
about it in time to actually implement any potential changes in a
reasonable, consultative manner.
5. We have, in the four years I have been in the NCUC, had difficulty
getting enough people to run for office to fill the slates of
candidates. Most seats have been unopposed. I think we were all
overjoyed to have two excellent candidates for this position. We must
keep in mind that if we were to evaluate candidates on a public
scorecard with the evaluations of all concerned listed and public, we
might have a hard time finding candidates, and an even harder time
getting evaluators. Drawing up such a public scorecard is a very
difficult task, I have done it for government tenders and hiring, it is
not easy. Evaluating fairly and assigning points is also not easy. This
is not to suggest that in the absence of such a process we have an
unfair process, just that we trust our elected EC representatives to
make that decision for us. I cannot keep up with the policy work we
have here....if people have time for this, let me remind them that our
task here is not to develop administrative procedures to keep us all
busy, it is to influence DNS policy, and we could use more hands on deck
in the working groups to actually do that. Delegation is really
important, and the NCUC has delegated the task of picking the Nomcom rep
to our elected representatives. Let us be at peace with that decision.
With all best wishes
Stephanie Perrin
On 2017-07-31 14:30, Farell Folly 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 <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 <mailto: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
> <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 <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
> 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/20170731/967c437b/attachment-0002.html>
More information about the Ncuc-discuss
mailing list