[NCSG-PC] SSC process and my status in NCSG PC

Fri Apr 7 06:50:36 EEST 2017

Hi,

As an observer from the outside, I do not believe the process was
flawed, what was flawed was the lack of trust and the behavior of some
individuals.  And no process is going to account for that.  If ICANN has
taught me anything is that any process can be worked around or warped if
the intent to do so is there.  That is why we have appeals mechanisms
and and an ombuds function.

If you really want to understand what went on, request an ombudsman
investigation to truly air all the dirty laundry so that you can start
process building with a clean slate and understanding of the fault lines. 

You can also send the results of any process to the EC for confirmation,
as they are oversight for the PC and the  NCSG charter allows for the
membership to challenge any EC decision. We have a set of accountability
mechanisms that should be used before jumping into process design.

Having said that, I wish you all the best in developing a process that
cannot be thwarted by ill will and mistrust.

avri

On 06-Apr-17 15:54, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>
> This is not a case of washing dirty laundry in my view.  It is of
> resolving how we fix what was clearly a breakdown in process.  I am
> concerned that we learn from this experience, set in place better
> procedures, and establish trust again.  If I thought simply accepting
> Ed's withdrawal from the process and simply naming Rafik would
> effectuate a change in our collective behaviour, I would certainly opt
> for that, because like everyone else, I have a rather full agenda at
> the moment and this has taken an inordinate amount of time. However,
> as Ayden has indicated, I think it leaves Rafik as a lame duck in the
> position.  And as Matthew indicated in his post this morning:
>
>     Over the past two weeks, and increasingly over the past week, the
>     legitimacy of the selection process has been questioned, the
>     effort undermined and my integrity and the integrity of those I
>     have worked with in this process has been denigrated.  The
>     backtalk, rumors, unpleasant lobbying and influencing, etc., go
>     far beyond what is acceptable and reinforce the difficulties that
>     I and my colleagues are operating under.
>
>     As such, I can no longer manage this selection process nor can I
>     recommend that it continue to pick the third remaining SSC
>     member.   I do not believe the process should go forward as is; it
>     should be restarted with much clearer parameters and procedural
>     rules and policies.  
>
> You recused yourself from this process Tapani, you have not been
> subject to the chaos that ensued.  I think it is inappropriate for you
> to accuse me of "washing dirty laundry", when all I am trying to do is
> respond to what I think are thoughtful concerns raised by some of the
> unfortunate few who have had to live through this experience.  Perhaps
> we should just wait for a week or two until things calm down a bit to
> investigate how we can select our third member of the committee.
>
> Kind regards, Stephanie
>
> On 2017-04-06 15:10, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
>> Ayden and Stephanie,
>>
>> I take it you two are objecting to appointing Rafik without washing
>> the dirty laundry in public first.
>>
>> As I indicated I don't see the need or use of that - not all hasty
>> words need to be avenged, victories don't need to include shaming
>> losers, not everything needs to be said out loud. And the real issue
>> at hand is not really all that big: sky would not fall regardless of
>> who we appoint to the SSC. But if we don't have a consensus then we
>> don't.
>>
>> So, unless I've misunderstood you, I guess we'll have to start the
>> process over.
>>
>> Perhaps we should first elect a new Vice Chair to take care of it.
>>
>> Tapani
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 09:49:43AM -0400, Stephanie Perrin (stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca) wrote:
>>
>>> I agree with Ayden that this mess needs to be resolved; he has stated the
>>> issues well.
>>>
>>> Stephanie
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2017-04-06 06:17, Ayden Férdeline wrote:
>>>> I do not have an objection to Rafik serving on the SSC, just as I did
>>>> not have an objection to Ed serving. I had not assessed either candidate
>>>> and was reserving judgement until our scheduled call for this evening,
>>>> when I was going to compare CVs against the publicly-developed scoring
>>>> rubric. However, if I am interpreting correctly the previous emails
>>>> which have been sent to this list today, some of us have just been
>>>> accused of being biased and partial towards a certain candidate, and
>>>> “this whole process is a mess and should be started over with clear
>>>> requirements and standards approved by the PC.” Then an hour later, we
>>>> should abandon process altogether, “There is an old tradition in my
>>>> culture, well I just made it up, that all new jobs go to the newlywed
>>>> man.” So which is it? Should we be starting over, putting out a new call
>>>> for candidates with a clearly defined process for how applications will
>>>> be evaluated — or is there actually a tacit acknowledgement that the
>>>> process we were following was appropriate, but there was a fear the
>>>> ‘wrong’ person was going to be chosen? I hate to dwell on this, as I’d
>>>> like us to move on as well, but I think this is important. If Rafik is
>>>> appointed because Ed has withdrawn, I do not want his appointment to be
>>>> seen by any as illegitimate.
>>>>
>>>> Ayden Férdeline
>>>> linkedin.com/in/ferdeline <http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] SSC process and my status in NCSG PC
>>>>> Local Time: 6 April 2017 11:02 AM
>>>>> UTC Time: 6 April 2017 10:02
>>>>> From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info
>>>>> To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>
>>>>> As Ed has now withdrawn and the group of PC members reviewing
>>>>> candidates earlier placed Kris Seeburn on the last place,
>>>>> it would seem appointing Rafik now is an easy choice.
>>>>>
>>>>> So let's do that.
>>>>>
>>>>> As Matt earlier set deadline for the appointment tomorrow, I would
>>>>> suggest we wait for 24 hours for any objections from PC members, and
>>>>> if there are none by then, notify the SSC of our selection.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would also like to suggest we forego further discussion of the
>>>>> process for time being, it isn't likely to be useful until things
>>>>> have calmed down a bit. But let's put it on the task list of the PC to
>>>>> develop processes for handling this kind of situations in the future
>>>>> more gracefully.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tapani
>> _______________________________________________
>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus