[NCUC-DISCUSS] Nomcom

Mon Jul 31 23:08:41 CEST 2017

It sounds good to me all of that. When I was saying hidden, I was actually
meaning private/secret but I can understand that some decisions should be
made in the way explained, as we place all our trust  in the hand of people
that we elected. However,  sometimes we need to ensure all the mechanisms
follow the agreed rules. In this case it seems so, everything went fine,
therefore we must must just congratulate Anriette.

This should serve as experience in the future.

Regards
@__f_f__
https://www.linkedin.com/in/farellf
________________________________
Mail sent from my mobile phone. Excuse for brievety.

Le 31 juil. 2017 8:52 PM, "Stephanie Perrin" <
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> a écrit :

> 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
> ________________________________
> 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 listNcuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.orghttp://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/20170731/0250570f/attachment-0002.html>