[Community-Discuss] Reform Nomcomm - was Announcement for Final Candidate Slate for Open Seat on AFRINIC Governance Committee

[Mark Tinka]

That is simple. I like simple.

A topic worth discussing.

Mark.

On 16/Jun/19 16:58, Owen DeLong wrote:
> Personally, I think that we should simply eliminate the geographic
> restrictions on board seats and have a single AfriNIC board elected
> from qualified candidates from within the region, regardless of where
> in the region they come from.
>
> Owen
>
>
>> On Jun 16, 2019, at 4:39 AM, Dewole Ajao <dewole at forum.org.ng
>> <mailto:dewole at forum.org.ng>> wrote:
>>
>> Since we are on the topic of "reforming" NomCom, I wonder why our
>> bylaws state that candidates for appointment to NomCom shall *not* be
>> domiciled in a region where an open seat is being contested. I think
>> a person resident within a region is more likely to know and have
>> access to suitably qualified candidates and we should remove this
>> restriction as we try to improve the nomination. 
>>
>> If the sole intention of this restriction was to prevent
>> favoritism/bias, I think adding transparency to the process will
>> quite easily expose such. Or is anyone aware of other justifications
>> for having that restriction in place?
>>
>> Dewole.
>>
>> On 6/16/2019 11:54 AM, John Walu wrote:
>>> On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 1:31 PM Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com
>>> <mailto:owen at delong.com>> wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> In general, I agree with you. I will, however, note that it is
>>> possible that there are situations where “why” should be redacted to
>>> protect the confidentiality and dignity of the applicant who was
>>> rejected. For example, if the nominating committee had rejected a 
>>> candidate because he is under indictment and under disciplinary
>>> review in his day job for misconduct, I don’t think that nomcom
>>> should be the ones to publicly disclose those details.
>>> >>>
>>> @Owen  
>>>
>>> Its true, we must protect the applicant's privacy.  However, we must
>>> also enhance the Nomcom's transparency.  Imagine a situation where
>>> Nomcomm disqualifies candidates because they allegedly did not
>>> respond to some email. It is quite difficult really to really prove
>>> beyond reasonable it at all such an email was ever sent.  It is even
>>> harder to prove that it was successfully delivered to the intended
>>> recipient.
>>>
>>> In such a case, Nomcom should publicly say Candidate X was
>>> disqualified because they did not respond to an email. (that in
>>> itself will discourage and expose a Nomcom that  is heavily biased
>>> towards knocking out, rather than recruiting board members;-)
>>>
>>> Perhaps a middle ground that would protect the candidate's privacy
>>> while enhancing Nomcom Transparency and accountability would be to
>>> seek consent or objection from Candidates - at the point of
>>> application - if they would object to the reasons behind their
>>> rejection being publicly reported.
>>>
>>> That way we avoid giving a blank cheque to Nomcom who may make
>>> decisions knowing very well that they need NOT explain themselves to
>>> anyone (lack of accountability). 
>>>
>>> So lets design and give Nomcomm a  Standard Reporting Template to
>>> enhance their transparency.  They will remain independent and
>>> autonomous in the functionality, but they should owe the community
>>> an understanding on how they worked hard to raise good candidates
>>> for AfriNIC.  
>>>
>>> The report from Nomcomm with respect to the PDWG election is a good
>>> start and can be refined and adapted for future Nomcomms.
>>>
>>> walu.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 1:31 PM Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com
>>> <mailto:owen at delong.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     > On Jun 4, 2019, at 11:34 PM, John Walu <walu.john at gmail.com
>>>     <mailto:walu.john at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>     >
>>>     > I believe the deeper question is WHY is there an increasingly
>>>     smaller candidate slate of those volunteering to serve on
>>>     Afrinic board, year in year out.
>>>     >
>>>     > Two possible answers:
>>>     > A) Good candidates are avoiding the perceived 'challenging'
>>>     board /management /community relationships that continue to
>>>     persist. So nomcom hands are tied and cannot manufacture candidates.
>>>     >
>>>     > OR
>>>     > B) There are actually many good candidates applying  BUT the
>>>     Nomcom 'Black-box' processes is kicking them out and reducing
>>>     them to 1 or 2 nominees.
>>>     >
>>>     > To drill down to the correct answer, I think the Nomcom
>>>     process needs to be reformed.
>>>     >
>>>     > I still do not understand the benefit of having a black box
>>>     process in the nomination committee where the community has no
>>>     clue about how many candidates applied, how many got knocked out
>>>     and why. IF national Presidential election systems are so open
>>>     about this, why is that it has to remain hidden for Afrinic?
>>>     >
>>>     > And I say this as someone who has once served on Nomcomm as
>>>     well as someone who has once been rejected by some previous
>>>     Nomcomm (I want to believe it is within my right to share
>>>     personal information/experience as this is not covered under
>>>     NDA, but I stand to be corrected ;-)
>>>     >
>>>     > At a minimum, we should request that as Nomcom publishes the
>>>     candidate slate, they should also show a tally (without the
>>>     names) of how many candidates applied, how many got kicked out,
>>>     why they were kicked out and how many successfully went thro.
>>>
>>>     In general, I agree with you. I will, however, note that it is
>>>     possible that there are situations where “why” should be
>>>     redacted to protect the confidentiality and dignity of the
>>>     applicant who was rejected. For example, if the nominating
>>>     committee had rejected a  candidate because he is under
>>>     indictment and under disciplinary review in his day job for
>>>     misconduct, I don’t think that nomcom should be the ones to
>>>     publicly disclose those details.
>>>
>>>     > I believe this information can shed some light on the deeper
>>>     question above of whether indeed we have fewer applicants or our
>>>     black-box nommcom process is simply kicking them out in order to
>>>     eventually present a single candidate.
>>>
>>>     My suspicion is that to some degree, both are occurring.
>>>
>>>     Owen
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Community-Discuss mailing list
>>> Community-Discuss at afrinic.net
>>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/community-discuss/attachments/20190616/cf94a2fe/attachment.html>