Re: [council] Re: Search Committee report - personal privacy issues

["erica" <erica.roberts@bigpond.com>]

Hi Vanny,

It is clearly the right of the NC to determine the process to be used for
the selection of service providers and,  having agreed on a process, it is
the responsibility of the NC to ensure that the process was followed.
In this case, the process adopted by the NC was to delegate to the Budget
Committee's Search Committee responsibility for conducting an RFP process
and evaluating respondents.  The RFP evaluation process has now been
concluded and its outcome has been endorsed  by the NC.
I understand that you do not agree the decision of the NC, but the process
followed was open and transparent and one which protects the privacy of the
respondents.  The NC as a whole has indicated that it is satisfied with both
the process and itsoutcome.
Rather than attempting to change the process retrospectively (after a
decision has been made), I think we need to move forward and focus on
working out the contract terms as requested by the NC.  I hope you will be
available to work on this.

regards,
erica


----- Original Message -----
From: "Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales" <vany@sdnp.org.pa>
To: <council@dnso.org>
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2001 10:10 PM
Subject: Re: [council] Re: Search Committee report - personal privacy issues


> Hi Philip:
>
> YJ is member of a Board of Directors of the bussiness XYZ.   Human
Department
> Resource of XYZ interviews 7 candidates and elects 1.
> YJ, as a member of such a board has all the right to review again the 7
cvs and
> see any comment written by the Human Resource Department of XYZ about them
> since she is a member of the Board (she is not an outsider, nor another
> employee).
>
> Another example:
> YJ contributes with money to pay a service that the bussiness XYZ is
> searching.  She, because she is paying, has the right to review
> all the documentation including comments made by Human Resource Department
of
> XYZ, since she is contributing with money.
>
> But, Phillip, as I told you...I am agree that such documentation might not
be
> circulated in a public basis.  Only have to be circulated
> amongst the Names Council, by a private e-mail.  In fact, even ICANN staff
has
> the right to see all documentation, because they will be the ones who will
be
> the signataries of the final contract.
>
> I hope that this clarify the nature of the request of YJ.
>
> Best Regards
> Vany
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Philip Sheppard wrote:
>
> > YJ,
> > the RFP is of course available, what cannot be made public is the
personnel
> > related commentary.
> >
> > Think of it more directly. YJ Park applies for a job for an internet
> > company. She does not get the job. A comment on YJ Park's CV, comments
of
> > how YJ Park interviewed, evaluation on Y J Park's expertise, and why YJ
Park
> > did not get the job are then made available to the world. Is that right?
> >
> > Philip
>
> --
> Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales
> Information Technology Specialist
> Sustainable Development Networking Programme/Panama
> e-mail: vany@sdnp.org.pa
> http://www.sdnp.org.pa
>
>
>