<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>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. <br>
</p>
<p>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?<br>
</p>
<p>Dewole.<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 6/16/2019 11:54 AM, John Walu wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAHt2V=-mbzsQsRJ2coyQvGJuAGt-Y5UNDPnUH+XBXWuzG2Or_Q@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 1:31 PM Owen DeLong <<a
href="mailto:owen@delong.com" moz-do-not-send="true">owen@delong.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<div>>>></div>
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.<span class="gmail-im"
style="color:rgb(80,0,80)"><br>
</span>
<div>>>></div>
<div>@Owen <br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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;-)</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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). </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The report from Nomcomm with respect to the PDWG election
is a good start and can be refined and adapted for future
Nomcomms.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>walu.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 1:31
PM Owen DeLong <<a href="mailto:owen@delong.com"
moz-do-not-send="true">owen@delong.com</a>> wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><br>
<br>
> On Jun 4, 2019, at 11:34 PM, John Walu <<a
href="mailto:walu.john@gmail.com" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">walu.john@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> <br>
> 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.<br>
> <br>
> Two possible answers:<br>
> 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.<br>
> <br>
> OR<br>
> 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.<br>
> <br>
> To drill down to the correct answer, I think the Nomcom
process needs to be reformed. <br>
> <br>
> 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?<br>
> <br>
> 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 ;-)<br>
> <br>
> 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. <br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
> 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.<br>
<br>
My suspicion is that to some degree, both are occurring.<br>
<br>
Owen<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
Community-Discuss mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Community-Discuss@afrinic.net">Community-Discuss@afrinic.net</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>