<html><body><div style="color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:verdana, helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12pt"><div><span>The discussion, I think, has started. It might have taken off in a not-very-comfortable way, but it certainly cannot be killed off now.</span></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 16px; font-family: verdana,helvetica,sans-serif; background-color: transparent; font-style: normal;"><br><span></span></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 16px; font-family: verdana,helvetica,sans-serif; background-color: transparent; font-style: normal;"><span>In many "CS"-related issues now, my ready answer is "Thanks, but no, thanks". And mostly because of the lack of clear principles on methodology. We have been in this "process" for 10 years (at least for some) and we still have not adopted principles for selection and for representation.</span></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 16px;
font-family: verdana,helvetica,sans-serif; background-color: transparent; font-style: normal;"><br><span></span></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 16px; font-family: verdana,helvetica,sans-serif; background-color: transparent; font-style: normal;"><span>The time for that discussion is right. We may not get a full consensus, but at least a partial one will help future "focal points". Were it not for discussions, we would not have a Charter as a group. <br></span></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 16px; font-family: verdana,helvetica,sans-serif; background-color: transparent; font-style: normal;"><br><span></span></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 16px; font-family: verdana,helvetica,sans-serif; background-color: transparent; font-style: normal;"><span>Having been in a lot of "focal point" and representative "positions" for Africa Civil society, I can only say that a 3, 4, or 5 principles document,
that has been discussed and has met a level of consensus here will be VERY helpful. <br></span></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 16px; font-family: verdana,helvetica,sans-serif; background-color: transparent; font-style: normal;"><br><span></span></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 16px; font-family: verdana,helvetica,sans-serif; background-color: transparent; font-style: normal;"><span>My thoughts are that we need to discuss methods for:</span></div><ol><li><span>Informing on and disseminating opportunities/positions/calls. For the CSTD, I actually had to tweet that I have been impressed by the way Anriette and the APC group shared the information. I cannot say if it because I am in so many mailing lists with APC folks.. but I can tell you that there was a "a clean, clear and determined decision to disseminate information".</span></li><li><span>Understanding of "developed and developing" nations. One may be tempted
to follow the UN categories... but in the case of Internet and IG issues.. Global Information watchdogs may want to differ. I would love to hear others on this though</span></li><li><span>Gender mainstreaming. How do we ensure this in representations. Should we discuss a minimum quota? <br></span></li><li><span>Older vs newer blood. This is perhaps the most critical dilemma that any "xyz selection team or focal point" may face. Are we going to have the same faces (albeit with a greater tinge of gray) all the time? How do we strike the balance between getting newer/younger people to follow in our paths while maintaining legacy? What orientation mechanism in process, issues and manners around IG issues can we put in place to help people who will arrive "after us" to be able to follow. Most selection are looking for "qualified" people...</span></li><li><span>What will be the better choice in the cases where a choice must be made
between experience and representation, or between experience and opportunity for growth?</span></li><li><span>Is there a certain limit (at least in the case of IG-related issues) to which an individual can "represent civil society"? When can someone say "we" and when does it need to be "I"? Will representation always be synonymous with "people who can travel and be there physically"?</span></li><li><span>How does "CS" curb what is beginning to appear to me as "an extreme need to be selected" in which I see certain names in almost anything that has "selection, representation and travel" attached to it?</span></li><li><span>..... many more...:)</span></li></ol><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 16px; font-family: verdana,helvetica,sans-serif; background-color: transparent; font-style: normal;"><br></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 16px; font-family: verdana,helvetica,sans-serif; background-color: transparent; font-style:
normal;">Nnennna<br></div><div> </div><br><div style="font-family: verdana, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;"> <div style="font-family: times new roman, new york, times, serif; font-size: 12pt;"> <div dir="ltr"> <font face="Arial" size="2"> <hr size="1"> <b><span style="font-weight:bold;">From:</span></b> parminder <parminder@itforchange.net><br> <b><span style="font-weight: bold;">To:</span></b> governance@lists.igcaucus.org <br> <b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Sent:</span></b> Wednesday, March 20, 2013 6:34 AM<br> <b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Subject:</span></b> Re: [governance] CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation : Update<br> </font> </div> <br>
<div id="yiv167348915">
<div>
<br>
<font face="Verdana">Thank you, Anriette, for the detailed process
and the report on it.<br>
<br>
I am extremely grateful to you and the selection committee for
forwarding my name to the CSTD chair for the WG on EC.<br>
<br>
Meanwhile I would like to have a discussion here on the process
employed for the selection of CS nominees. I am not sure if it
should be done now or after the process is completed by the Chair,
and I seek directions from the IGC co-coordinator, and the CS
selection focal point in this regard. <br>
<br>
We must have this discussion either now or immediately after the
final selection by the chair of CSTD. I am willing to wait because
I, for one, do not expect the discussion - at least the points I
will like to contribute - to have fatal intentions towards the
process that was employed. What we will get out of a good and
through discussion on the process may just help anyone in-charge
of such processes in the future to conduct them in an even better
way. <br>
</font><br>
<font face="Verdana"><font face="Verdana">I want</font></font><font face="Verdana"><font face="Verdana"> right away</font></font><font face="Verdana"><font face="Verdana"> to put out my intentions
regarding above so that I do not appear opportunistic, or
alternatively, bitter, if I seek a discussion only after the
process is completed. <br>
<br>
I do remain extremely concerned by the culture that is being
promoted by some here whereby positing questions and seeking
accountability is too easily seen as 'personal attacks'. I find
this as very unfortunate, and against the fundamental values of
civil society as I understand it. We have a basic watch dog
function, on behalf of those all the people who are not directly
in these spaces. raising accountability questions regarding our
internal processes is one of the highest civil society value. I
much prefer that we overdo it rather than underdo it. <br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
PS:</font></font> <font face="Verdana"><font face="Verdana"><font face="Verdana"><font face="Verdana">Meanwhile I am conscious
that I may not be doing service to the chances of my final
selection by raking up this issue up at this time, because
no one know who may be watching and word does get around and
so on :).... However, also since the processes of another
group/ Focal Point have already been discussed by us, I do
not think it would be proper for me to postpone raising the
above issue any further. I was waiting for the final report
by the Focal point, and now that we have it, I think we must
discuss it.<br>
<br>
<br>
</font></font></font></font>
<div class="yiv167348915moz-cite-prefix">On Tuesday 19 March 2013 02:12 PM,
Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>Dear all
In my earlier message I said I would get confirmation from nominees for
this working group before I released the names of the candidates.
By the deadline that I gave them to express objections only one person
did so. I am therefore in a position to release 18 of the original 19
names.
Thank you again to all these people for their willingness to serve on
the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation and the effort they put
into the nomination process, and to the selection group for their
assistance. Thank you also to the IGC Nomcom for their work in
preselecting the IGC nominees.
The names are included in the attached document. The shortlisted
candidates that I recommended to the CSTD chair were:
(in alphabetical order with the region they are based in)
Avri Doria (N America)
Carlos Afonso (A America)
Don McClean (N America)
Grace Githaiga (Africa)
Jeremy Malcolm (Asia Pacific)
Joy Liddicoat (Asia Pacific)
Parminder Jeet Singh (Asia Pacific)
William Drake (Europe)
I was asked for 6 names (3 from developing countries and 3 from
developed countries) but I added an additional two names of people who
had scored very highly in the process and who had particular expertise
to contribute. It might also be good to have alternates in case any of
the 6 would not be able to fulfil the commitment.
Best regards
Anriette
On 13/03/2013 17:53, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>
Dear all
*Update from the CS focal point for the convening of the CSTD WG on
Enhanced Cooperation*
*Background*
I was asked by the chair of the CSTD (Ambassador Miguel Julian Palomino
de la Gala from Peru) to be the focal point for selecting civil society
participants. My task was to come up with 3 names from developing
countries, and 3 from developed countries/ From these 6 names the final
5 would be selected by Ambassador de la Gala.
To help me with this task, and to make it more inclusive I approached 7
individuals that are active in internet-related civil society spaces
and/or organisations. We were not meant to be the perfect group or a
formal 'nomcom'. Nevertheless they are all individuals that I personally
trust and respect and whom believe are trusted by those in civil society
that know them and that have worked with them.
I tried to make the group regionally diverse by having one person each
from Asia, Africa, Europe, North America and South America. In
recognition of the IGC's role in our sector, and and because both of
them are such committed facilitators of civil society participation, I
invited two past Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) coordinators.
The composition of the selection group was as follows:
Nnenna Nwakanma, FOSSFA - Africa
Anja Kovacs, Internet Democracy - Asia
Robin Gross, IP Justice - North America
Fatima Cambronero, AGEIA DENSI - Latin America
Wolf Ludwig, Communica-CH/EuroDIG - Europe
Ginger Paque - past-IGC coordinator
Ian Peter - past-IGC coordinator
Anriette Esterhuysen, APC - CSTD appointed civil society focal point and
convenor of the group.
I was assisted by my colleague Emilar Vushe as I was travelling for much
of the period that we had to do our work.
To avoid conflict of interest I deliberately did not invite anyone from
APC (members or staff) to be on the selection group. I also withdrew
from the internal APC process of selection of nominees, and, as a
further measure to prevent conflict of interest and to create
opportunities for others, I decided not to make myself available for
nomination for the group. I had served on the previous CSTD Working
Group on IGF Improvements and felt it was good to give others a chance.
*Nominees*
To make the call as wide as possible, within the extremely short
timeframe I posted to the several lists and encouraged people to spread
the call. In the text of my message I encouraged people from outside the
narrow internet governance community to participate. We received 20
nominations. One withdrew, leaving us with 19 to review. I am happy to
disclose the names of all the nominees but I want to check with them
first in case they have any objection to this.
*'Endorsed' or pre-selected nominations*
Some nominations were submitted by the and some by civil society
networks or organisations. Some of the nominations were also 'endorsed'
or supported by other individuals or organisations.
To recognise the effort that has gone into these pre-selection processes
and endorsements I pre-assigned a score of 1 to these candidates. I felt
that any higher number would not be fair, as it was not mentioned as a
requirement in the call for nominations.
*Scoring process*
Scoring was done using a score sheet with criteria based on my
understanding of what will be involved in the work of the working group.
The selection group assigned a score of 1 to 5 to each candidate against
each of the criteria with the lowest score being 1 and the highest 5.
The selection group was encouraged, to be as fair as possible, to score
candidates on the basis of the information in their nomination forms.
The criteria were as follows:
* Experience and expertise in public-interest oriented policy
processes.
* Experience and expertise in EC in relation to WSIS and IG
* Ablity and commitment to put in the work and travel
* Ability to work collaboratively and confidently in multi-stakeholder
processes that involves both consensus building and dealing with
conflicting interests.
*Shortlist*
Based on the initial scoring I compiled a short list of 12 people. I
then asked to selection group to review the short list, and rank them in
order of their suitability for the WG and to give consideration to
regional and gender balance.
*Submission to CSTD Chair*
After the second round of reviewing by the selection group I came up
with a list of 8 names (the required 6 -- who were the most highly
ranked by the selection group - with two more names from the top 12 whom
I felt would bring particular expertise to the group) which I submitted
to the CSTD for the Chair's final review and selection. I am not sure
yet when the composition of the WG will be announced but I know that
the CSTD will do this as quickly as possible.
Thank you to everyone who made themselves available for nomination.
There was huge interest in this Working Group, and the quality of the
candidates made selection (particularly in some regions) extremely
difficult. As I don't know the outcome of the CSTD Chair's decision, and
as I have not communicated directly with nominees, I would rather not
disclose the names of those that I recommended at this stage.
I do want to point out to all who were nominated or nominated
themselves that even if you do not make it onto the Working Group,
there will still be opportunities to participate in its work through
participating in whatever processes it establishes to get input from
the broader internet community.
My sincere thanks to the members of the selection group. Firstly, every
person I asked said yes! I was impressed and grateful.
Then they proceeded to work very hard, in a very short timeframe. They
undertook the work with the seriousness it deserves. I would not have
been able to do this without their input. In fact, this process
confirmed my belief in the value of the 'small crowd' and in civil
society's ability to deal with the complexity of such selection
processes with good judgement and as much fairness as possible.
Anriette Esterhuysen
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</div><br>____________________________________________________________<br>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br> <a ymailto="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org" href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>To be removed from the list, visit:<br> <a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a><br><br>For all other list information and functions, see:<br> <a href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a><br>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:<br> <a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br><br>Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br><br><br> </div> </div>
</div></body></html>