<div dir="ltr"><div><div><div><div><div><div><div>First, I wish to clarify my understanding of BB.<br></div><div><br>Best Bits (BB) = (interim) Steering Committee (iSC) + Discussion List (DL)<br></div><br>
</div>There is no decision-making mechanism other than what the iSC self-appointed members agree on among themselves.<br></div><div>Any decision that comes out of BB is actually the decision of self-appointed few that make up the iSC.<br>
</div>There's no membership (other than the iSC membership.) Also referred to as the main list, the DL is just that, a list for people to discuss which may be tapped into for drafting or editing statements plus any other business the iSC decide it is okay to handle outside its closed circle.<br>
<br></div>So far, I have just described the structure at BB, as reflected through what has transpired so far. So if any of the above is inaccurate, please correct me. <br><br></div><div>All people (but one that I'm not sure of) being nominated here are on the IGC list. Some of them are already nominated there, too (the others could have been, if they wanted to.) If you recognize that BB as a whole doesn't yet have a proper decision-making mechanism, then I suggest to ask IGC NomCom to merge BB nominees to theirs (I think you Jeremy have suggested earlier that this could be an option, and I would encourage for that as a better interim solution.) That wouldn't put on hold any BB urgent substantive business. The membership of the IGC NomCom is already known: are there any nominee here who feel any member of the NomCom would be hostile against them or their candidacy? If so, I think the issue should be raised to IGC and addressed (if necessary by replacement... there was a pool of 25 candidates for the NomCom.)<br>
<br>Doing otherwise would signal that BB (i.e. its iSC) just don't want the IGC NomCom to meddle in the list of BB nominees, even based on clearly defined and tested processes and criteria. And that your main purpose not doing that is to make sure whatever IGC NomCom decides, BB candidates will make it to the UN "black box" anyway (as you refer to it, on which designation I do not disagree)?<br>
</div><div><br></div><div>If that's the case, then I suggest forwarding BB slate directly to the IGF Secretariat, with an explanation of the nomination process, procedures, etc. (as you also suggested.) Because I am afraid adding BB slate to IGC's and forwarding them together to the IGF Sec may be confusing and even misleading (I mean what's the point forwarding them together if we wanted so badly the two processes separated, despite the un-readiness of one of them?) If you don't want IGC to interfere in BB nomination process, or to have a say whatsoever on it, then I personally think it would be fair to just forward BB nominees directly and separately, like other CS groupings may be doing... following to the end the logic BB would have adopted. <br>
<br></div>Finally, just a last comment and cautionary note. If BB were to go on like this (without clear membership and decision-making mechanism beyond the iSC), I am afraid it won't take long for BB to be portrayed as a self-serving group and to be (mis-) perceived by some people as a power grab exercise (just as some of us may have (mis-) perceived the I* orgs to engage in such lately.) Not only this is not better (in terms of decision-making processes, openness/inclusiveness), it is not even close to ICANN we like to criticize. We know and can do better.<br>
</div>Cheers,<br><br></div>mawaki <br><div><div><div><div><br></div></div></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 9:03 AM, parminder <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net" target="_blank">parminder@itforchange.net</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><div>
<br>
<div>On Wednesday 20 November 2013 02:17 PM,
Jeremy Malcolm wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
On 20 Nov 2013, at 4:29 pm, parminder <<a href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net" target="_blank">parminder@itforchange.net</a>>
wrote:<br>
<div><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">If separate working
group lists can be made to address substantive issues why
cant such a group also be set up to finalise processes and
structures for BB...<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Sure, that's a good idea. Let's do that. It was meant
that this discussion and revision to the processes would be
ongoing on the wiki, but that has been hampered by website
issues, which I'm still working on. In the meantime until the
wiki is more usable, we could as easily create another working
group for revision to the processes. Whoever is interested to
be on such a working group, in addition to the interim
steering committee members, please let me know and we can set
that up.</div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Obviously we will not place Best Bits into stasis in the
meantime, at such a critical juncture. </div>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
I see absolutely no harm made to our substantive work, that is
needed at this critical juncture, by referring the names we have to
IGC process of MAG nominee selection rather than do it through an
unapproved process by BB steering committee. This is taking up of
unauthorised powers by the steering committee , and I would not be
a party to it. <br><div>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div> We have been listening but there has not been a chorus of
approval for your process concerns, </div>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
Neither a chorus of support for steering committee doing the
selections ot reps, nominees etc on behalf of BB membership... As
said it has to be express and not implied approval of the membership
of BB...<div><br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>and on the contrary many people have expressed the desire for
us to continue in a loosely institutionalised manner. </div>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
Which means nothing per any kind of assent by BB membership (a
concept that you have conveniently evaporated) to processes of
nominee/ rep selection being done by steering commitee of BB . Are
you going to take the self decided mandate to 'keep working in
loosely institutionalised process' to do whatever hits your or
steering committee's fancy? That would be such a travesty! <br><div>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div> So we will continue to iterate and improve, but we will not
be radically changing course.</div>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
Meaning, you are going ahead with the process of selection of MAG
nominees by the steering committee, are you? <br><span><font color="#888888">
<br>
parminder <br></font></span><div>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
<div>
<div style="font-variant:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text-align:-webkit-auto;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;word-wrap:break-word">
<div style="font-variant:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text-align:-webkit-auto;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;word-wrap:break-word">
<div style="font-variant:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text-align:-webkit-auto;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;word-wrap:break-word"><span style="border-collapse:separate;border-spacing:0px"><span style="font-style:normal;font-family:Helvetica;font-weight:normal">-- </span><br>
<p style="font-style:normal;font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica;font-weight:normal"><b>Dr
Jeremy Malcolm<br>
Senior Policy Officer<br>
Consumers International | the global campaigning
voice for consumers</b><br>
Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East<br>
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI,
60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia<br>
Tel: <a href="tel:%2B60%203%207726%201599" value="+60377261599" target="_blank">+60 3 7726 1599</a></p>
<p style="font-style:normal;font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica;font-weight:normal"><span>Explore our new Resource Zone - the global
consumer movement knowledge hub |</span><a href="http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone" target="_blank">http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone</a></p>
<p style="font-style:normal;font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica;font-weight:normal">@Consumers_Int
| <a href="http://www.consumersinternational.org/" target="_blank">www.consumersinternational.org</a> | <a href="http://www.facebook.com/consumersinternational" target="_blank">www.facebook.com/consumersinternational</a></p>
<p style="color:rgb(153,153,153);font-style:normal;font-size:8pt;font-family:Helvetica;font-weight:normal">Read our <a href="http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality" target="_blank">email confidentiality notice</a>.
Don't print this email unless necessary.</p>
<font color="#ff2600"><b>WARNING</b></font>: This email
has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to
enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For
instructions, see <a href="http://jere.my/l/8m" title="https://luxsci.com/blog/installing-smime-and-pgp-encryption-certificates-into-major-email-clients.html" rel="nofollow external" style="color:rgb(153,153,153);font-family:Helvetica;font-size:medium;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal" target="_blank">http://jere.my/l/8m</a>.</span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div></div>
<br>____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net" target="_blank">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a>.<br>
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:<br>
<a href="http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits" target="_blank">http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits</a><br></blockquote></div><br></div></div>