[Epdp-dt] Candidate Confidentiality

[Stephanie Perrin]

I agree that this should be a public process.  I think we should try as 
much as possible to encourage candidates to have a public statement 
about why they believe they can be a neutral and effective chair.  In 
this respect, I would consider the parameters of the decision to 
resemble an election more than a hiring decision.

Lobbying will be inevitable, there are very few folks with no skin in 
the game, so it would be better to have more transparency.

Stephanie

On 2018-06-30 11:28, Susan Kawaguchi wrote:
> Hi Donna,
>
> If the council would like to rethink the use of the SSC for this 
> selection I am open to it but would think the Leadership team should 
> be very involved.
>
> I disagree on the need for confidentiality of the candidates names.  
> We did discuss not disclosing any details of the candidates beyond the 
> SOI which is required of all of us.
>
> Although, GDPR concerns privacy ICANN operates best with transparency.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Susan
>
> On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 7:34 AM, Austin, Donna via Epdp-dt 
> <epdp-dt at icann.org <mailto:epdp-dt at icann.org>> wrote:
>
>     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 <mailto:Epdp-dt at icann.org>
>     https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt
>     <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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/epdp-dt/attachments/20180630/b47f296f/attachment.html>