<div>Dear Renate,</div>
<div><br>You wrote : </div>
<blockquote dir="ltr" style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<div>My question: why should this nomcom only be an IGC nomcom and not include other<br>CS groupings?</div></blockquote>
<div>Just a quick rationale, not prejudging what others including Avri might say :</div>
<div>- there is no unanimous agreement yet among all CS groupings for a unified procedure or even for a nomcom procedure : some groups would like to recommend candidates on their own, and they should. As Avri stated, the procedure set up by the IGC will only recommend candidates on behalf of the IGC, which is only one stakeholders group among others in civil society;
</div>
<div>- on the other hand, the call for candidates for the MAG is open to all CS actors through the Plenary list; as we are entering a phase where substance of policy issues will be adressed in the IGF, and hopefully in the working groups (or discussion groups) it will generate, the input from thematic caucuses beyond the IGC alone is important and I suppose the nomcom will take this into account.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>In that respect, I am aware - and can still feel the burning in my flesh :-)) that, to say it mildly, not eveyone was OK with the selection process for the WGIG. I am the first to admit it was a first rough try, done hastily, certainly not perfect and lessons can be drawn from its limitations. But it established for the first time the principle that CS has a say in the selection of the members of such small gorups (task forces, advisory groups, et...) which was not the case for traditional UN processes (see the TFFM).
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Building on this first experience, this time is an opportunity to improve two dimensions at least :</div>
<div>- the transparency of the selection process for the nomcom : and I think Avri's mechanism is a very good answer on that point</div>
<div>- the criteria to be used by the nomcom for selecting recommended candidates : there, input should be given by everyone on clear, balanced and verifiable criteria that can guarantee that the diversity of viewpoints is represented.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I hope this gives some answers to your question.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Best</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Bertrand</div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div><br><br> </div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 3/29/06, <b class="gmail_sendername">Renate Bloem</b> <<a href="mailto:rbloem@ngocongo.org">rbloem@ngocongo.org</a>> wrote:</span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">Hi Jeannette and Avri,<br><br>As someone who is only observing this list, I was very impressed by process<br>
so far, particularly also by Avri's well organized time frame around it. My<br>question: why should this nomcom only be an IGC nomcom and not include other<br>CS groupings?<br><br>In my experience with nomcoms of all kinds, participants clearly state that
<br>they are not looking for nomination. Should they as voluntary participants<br>suddenly receive great pressure to stand for being nominated, they have to<br>immediately resign from the nomcom.<br><br>Best<br>Renata<br>
----------------------<br><br><br><br><br><br>-----Message d'origine-----<br>De: <a href="mailto:governance-bounces@lists.cpsr.org">governance-bounces@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>[mailto:<a href="mailto:governance-bounces@lists.cpsr.org">
governance-bounces@lists.cpsr.org</a>] De la part de Jeanette Hofmann<br>Envoyé: mercredi, 29. mars 2006 05:54<br>À: Avri Doria<br>Cc: Internet Governance Caucus<br>Objet: Re: [governance] igc nomcom and other lists<br><br>
<br><br>Avri Doria wrote:<br>> hi,<br>><br>> a question came up and i wanted to gather some opinions.<br>><br>> - someone is selected by the IGC nomcom and<br>> hence disqualified for the IGC's candidate list
<br>> - but later is recommended by some other group for membership<br>> in the MAG.<br>><br>> the questions are:<br>><br>> - should that person consider themselves disqualified<br>> for participation in the MAG
<br>> - if they accepted such a recommendation for the MAG would it either<br>> - discredit the IGC process<br>> - or the individual.<br><br>I think I agree with your first reaction. What matters is that the
<br>nomcom doesn't select itself or am I missing something? We should also<br>welcome if caucus members are nominated by other constituencies.<br>jeanette<br>><br>> [ to put this as an hypothetical example -<br>> if i were a voting member of the nomcom
<br>> would it be wrong if ISOC selected me as a candidate<br>> (note this is hypothetical since i have personally<br>> disqualified myself from any consideration for the MAG<br>> due to my occasional contract with the IGF secretariat
<br>> and i have no knowledge about whether the ISOC is<br>> considering its own list.)<br>> ]<br>><br>> my first reaction was that the IGC nomcom rules about<br>> disqualification would apply only to the IGC's list and should
<br>> therefore not affect the decisions of any other group. likewise, the<br>> actions of another group should not affect the IGC process and thus<br>> it should not discredit our activity.<br>><br>> the issue of whether a person's personal reputation would be hurt is
<br>> another issue and one i find more difficult to answer. i figure that<br>> reputation is most relevant within this group and thus decided that<br>> the best indicator would be involve a discussion on this list. i
<br>> figure people on this list can offer their opinions, and anyone who<br>> finds themselves in this position would have the opinions of this<br>> group to guide them in their personal decision.<br>><br>> note, further possible complications are that
<br>> a. someone could be suggested without their knowledge or explicit<br>> permission<br>> b. someone could be selected without a specific recommendation.<br>><br>> thanks<br>><br>> a.<br>>
<br>> ps. we currently have 15 volunteers, if we don't get at least 10<br>> more, the question is moot.<br>><br>><br>><br>><br>> _______________________________________________<br>> governance mailing list
<br>> <a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>> <a href="https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance">https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance</a><br>_______________________________________________
<br>governance mailing list<br><a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><br><a href="https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance">https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance</a><br>
<br><br><br>_______________________________________________<br>governance mailing list<br><a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><br><a href="https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance">
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance</a><br></blockquote></div><br>