[NCSG-PC] Fwd: [Epdp-dt] Candidate Confidentiality

[Ayden Férdeline]

My gut reaction is that I agree on leaving this with Council leadership, but it's a hard argument to make. The SSC's charter does sound like it is whom we should be deferring to. How would you counter such an argument, Rafik?

Best wishes, Ayden

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On 1 July 2018 7:47 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I am concerned with moving selection to SSC. While it worked fine for other appointments, I dont think it can do deliberation in such short time. I would be in both options (and I will do my best): leadership or SSC but former seems more quicker.
> Names of candidates and statements are also made public , in particular for review teams appointments.
>
> Best.
>
> Rafik
>
> On Sun, Jul 1, 2018, 1:07 PM Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:
>
>> Secrecy of the candidate statements is a non-starter.  This is a global public policy issue of great public interest and it deserves appropriate public scrutiny.  Too often people forget that we are engaging in global governance at ICANN, and ICANN’s commitment to transparency in its bylaws cannot be ignored or lowered out of concerns about being in the public eye.  Accountability demands transparency in the formulation of this critical global policy.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Robin
>>
>>> On Jun 30, 2018, at 8:50 PM, dorothy g <dgdorothydg at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> It should be made clear to candidates upfront that these statements will be in public domain. These are positions affect the community and the community has the right to know.
>>> best
>>>
>>> On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 3:17 PM, Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> There should be transparency here. I actually think candidate statements (and especially conflict of interest statements) should be made public. The claim of being "sensitive to privacy" is one I am finding difficult to understand.
>>>>
>>>> Ayden
>>>>
>>>> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 20:19, Martin Pablo Silva Valent <mpsilvavalent at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Any strong opinions here? This proposal changes the general understanding of, yesterday.
>>>>>
>>>>> Martin
>>>>>
>>>>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul at gutierrez.se>
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Epdp-dt] Candidate Confidentiality
>>>>>> Date: 29 June 2018 at 08:22:22 EST
>>>>>> To: epdp-dt at icann.org, Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I support Donna's position, particularly as the expectation on neutrality (perceived or real) may depend on the eye of the beholder.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As Michelle expressed during one of the meetings, who has no vested interest in the results of this PDP?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> safe travels to all
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
>>>>>> carlosraul at gutierrez.se
>>>>>> +506 8837 7176
>>>>>> Aparatado 1571-1000
>>>>>> COSTA RICA
>>>>>>
>>>>>> El 2018-06-29 07:34, Austin, Donna via Epdp-dt escribió:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Apologies for missing this discussion yesterday. I want to express my reservations about the agreement that the EPDP Chair candidate names be made public. I believe they should be confidential or, at a minimum, the candidates should at least have the option to decide whether they wish to have their candidacy made public. Given the subject matter of this PDP, I thought we might be a bit more sensitive to privacy.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm also disappointed that the selection task falls to the leadership team. We established a standing selection committee for this purpose. I understand the concerns about being able to undertake the task quickly, but this same pressure will be on the leadership team as well.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If the candidate names are public this also puts considerable pressure on the leadership team in terms of lobbying and claims of bias in selection etc. We may also have potential conflicts of interest arise and as there is only three of us this would leave the job to two. The SSC is more representative of the GNSO and has a methodology in place for selections as a result of the processes they've undertaken to date.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Donna
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>								100
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Epdp-dt mailing list
>>>>>>> Epdp-dt at icann.org
>>>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Epdp-dt mailing list
>>>>>> Epdp-dt at icann.org
>>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180701/a2e24659/attachment.htm>