[NCUC-DISCUSS] Nomcom
Stephanie Perrin
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
Mon Jul 31 23:10:43 CEST 2017
Thanks Farell, I am really glad you are okay with those views!
Stephanie
On 2017-07-31 17:08, Farell Folly wrote:
> 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
> <mailto: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
>> <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 <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 <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>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20170731/7e9da330/attachment-0002.html>
More information about the Ncuc-discuss
mailing list