[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