<p dir="ltr">Hi Guru,</p>
<p dir="ltr">I think there are MAG requirement already stated on the IGF website. While it's okay to have some other internal criteria aside that, I think it's important not to make them cast and stone because every individual will be at different level of experience. It will be good to always have a mix of already experienced+willing to learn folks on the MAG to allow for capacity building and good continuity.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Just as a point for clarification, RIRs don't entirely rely on voting in their processes as they operate more on consensus basis with voting being the last resort.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Cheers!</p>
<p dir="ltr">sent from Google nexus 4<br>
kindly excuse brevity and typos.</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On 13 Oct 2014 11:27, "Guru Acharya" <<a href="mailto:gurcharya@gmail.com">gurcharya@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">Just as a suggestion, is it possible to create objective criteria for future selections, which is open to review.<div><br></div><div>For example, for every previous IGF attendance, the person gets a +1 mark; for every panel the person has spoken on, he gets a +1 mark; for active participation on the coalition mailing list he gets certain marks; possibly, extra marks for being from a developing country.</div><div><br></div><div>These marks could then be totaled. There should be no privacy concerns in making such objective evaluation public.</div><div><br></div><div>I understand the limitations of objective evaluation; but I feel transparency is more important than the subjective criteria that raises privacy concerns.</div><div><br></div><div>Voting could be another option for ensuring transparency but I figure voting doesn't have legitimacy in a multi-stakeholder environment except for the RIRs and the NRO.</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 11:33 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jmalcolm@eff.org" target="_blank">jmalcolm@eff.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span>On 13/10/2014 10:57 am, Guru Acharya wrote:<br>
> The list comprises of brilliant and accomplished representatives. I<br>
> commend the CSCG Nomcom for its work.<br>
><br>
> I'm curious to know whether the deliberations of the CSCG Nomcom are<br>
> transcribed or if the CSCG Nomcom mailing list is open for review so<br>
> that people who want to nominate themselves in the future are aware of<br>
> the baseline requirements.<br>
<br>
</span>The requirements were sent around to all of the lists when we called for<br>
nominations (see thread "Call for nominations for civil society<br>
representatives for the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory group (MAG)" on 18<br>
September), but there are strong privacy reasons why we wouldn't open up<br>
the deliberations about the respective merits of individual candidates<br>
to public review.<br>
<span><font color="#888888"><br>
--<br>
Jeremy Malcolm<br>
Senior Global Policy Analyst<br>
Electronic Frontier Foundation<br>
<a href="https://eff.org" target="_blank">https://eff.org</a><br>
<a href="mailto:jmalcolm@eff.org" target="_blank">jmalcolm@eff.org</a><br>
<br>
Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161<br>
<br>
:: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::<br>
<br>
<br>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br></div>
<br>____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net">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>