<div dir="ltr">First, many thanks Anriette for your hard work and clear reporting of the process.<div>Second, congratulations for the nominees and thank you for your hard work once selected.</div><div><br></div>
<div>On March 11, we have the second anniversary of the East Japan Great earthquake</div><div>and I was travelling the devastated region, recovery is way far from it should be.</div><div>That's why I have been inactive on this list for a while.</div>
<div><br></div><div>And thanks Parminder for your modest discussion proposal. I agree with you.</div><div>And I also agree with Adam that the discussion be result-oriented, hopefully</div><div>drawing some principles for future selection process in addition to reviewing</div>
<div>the past or existing ones.</div><div><br></div><div>best,</div><div><br></div><div>izumi</div><div><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2013/3/20 Adam Peake <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ajp@glocom.ac.jp" target="_blank">ajp@glocom.ac.jp</a>></span><br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Congratulations to the nominees, good luck.<br>
<br>
Parminder, I think this is a good proposal and much needed. And<br>
Nnenna's given some great ideas.<br>
<br>
But I would much prefer it to be forward looking discussion rather<br>
than a postmortem on what was and might have been.<br>
<br>
I am *not* suggesting glossing over problems (we've had them since the<br>
first weeks of this caucus' existence) and ignoring past selections of<br>
CS nominees, (there have been many: CSTD and the almost as recent<br>
WSIS+10, to MAG, IGF speakers, etc). All were important to some,<br>
possibly professionally and perhaps materially important. So can we<br>
look at what we should do in the future, learn from the past, rather<br>
than risk people getting defensive and irritated (obviously, probably<br>
me included.)<br>
<span><font color="#888888"><br>
Adam<br>
</font></span><div><div><br>
<br>
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Nnenna <<a href="mailto:nne75@yahoo.com" target="_blank">nne75@yahoo.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> The discussion, I think, has starte<br>
d. It might have taken off in a<br>
> not-very-comfortable way, but it certainly cannot be killed off now.<br>
><br>
> In many "CS"-related issues now, my ready answer is "Thanks, but no,<br>
> thanks". And mostly because of the lack of clear principles on methodology.<br>
> We have been in this "process" for 10 years (at least for some) and we still<br>
> have not adopted principles for selection and for representation.<br>
><br>
> The time for that discussion is right. We may not get a full consensus, but<br>
> at least a partial one will help future "focal points". Were it not for<br>
> discussions, we would not have a Charter as a group.<br>
><br>
> Having been in a lot of "focal point" and representative "positions" for<br>
> Africa Civil society, I can only say that a 3, 4, or 5 principles document,<br>
> that has been discussed and has met a level of consensus here will be VERY<br>
> helpful.<br>
><br>
> My thoughts are that we need to discuss methods for:<br>
><br>
> Informing on and disseminating opportunities/positions/calls. For the CSTD,<br>
> I actually had to tweet that I have been impressed by the way Anriette and<br>
> the APC group shared the information. I cannot say if it because I am in so<br>
> many mailing lists with APC folks.. but I can tell you that there was a "a<br>
> clean, clear and determined decision to disseminate information".<br>
> Understanding of "developed and developing" nations. One may be tempted to<br>
> follow the UN categories... but in the case of Internet and IG issues..<br>
> Global Information watchdogs may want to differ. I would love to hear<br>
> others on this though<br>
> Gender mainstreaming. How do we ensure this in representations. Should we<br>
> discuss a minimum quota?<br>
> Older vs newer blood. This is perhaps the most critical dilemma that any<br>
> "xyz selection team or focal point" may face. Are we going to have the same<br>
> faces (albeit with a greater tinge of gray) all the time? How do we strike<br>
> the balance between getting newer/younger people to follow in our paths<br>
> while maintaining legacy? What orientation mechanism in process, issues and<br>
> manners around IG issues can we put in place to help people who will arrive<br>
> "after us" to be able to follow. Most selection are looking for "qualified"<br>
> people...<br>
> What will be the better choice in the cases where a choice must be made<br>
> between experience and representation, or between experience and opportunity<br>
> for growth?<br>
> Is there a certain limit (at least in the case of IG-related issues) to<br>
> which an individual can "represent civil society"? When can someone say "we"<br>
> and when does it need to be "I"? Will representation always be synonymous<br>
> with "people who can travel and be there physically"?<br>
> How does "CS" curb what is beginning to appear to me as "an extreme need to<br>
> be selected" in which I see certain names in almost anything that has<br>
> "selection, representation and travel" attached to it?<br>
> ..... many more...:)<br>
><br>
><br>
> Nnennna<br>
><br>
><br>
> ________________________________<br>
> From: parminder <<a href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net" target="_blank">parminder@itforchange.net</a>><br>
> To: <a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org" target="_blank">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2013 6:34 AM<br>
> Subject: Re: [governance] CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation : Update<br>
><br>
><br>
> 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<br>
> 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<br>
> the selection of CS nominees. I am not sure if it should be done now or<br>
> after the process is completed by the Chair, and I seek directions from the<br>
> 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<br>
> selection by the chair of CSTD. I am willing to wait because I, for one, do<br>
> not expect the discussion - at least the points I will like to contribute -<br>
> to have fatal intentions towards the process that was employed. What we will<br>
> get out of a good and through discussion on the process may just help anyone<br>
> in-charge of such processes in the future to conduct them in an even better<br>
> way.<br>
><br>
> I want right away to put out my intentions regarding above so that I do not<br>
> appear opportunistic, or alternatively, bitter, if I seek a discussion only<br>
> after the process is completed.<br>
><br>
> I do remain extremely concerned by the culture that is being promoted by<br>
> some here whereby positing questions and seeking accountability is too<br>
> easily seen as 'personal attacks'. I find this as very unfortunate, and<br>
> against the fundamental values of civil society as I understand it. We have<br>
> a basic watch dog function, on behalf of those all the people who are not<br>
> directly in these spaces. raising accountability questions regarding our<br>
> internal processes is one of the highest civil society value. I much prefer<br>
> that we overdo it rather than underdo it.<br>
><br>
> parminder<br>
><br>
> PS: Meanwhile I am conscious that I may not be doing service to the chances<br>
> of my final selection by raking up this issue up at this time, because no<br>
> one know who may be watching and word does get around and so on :)....<br>
> However, also since the processes of another group/ Focal Point have already<br>
> been discussed by us, I do not think it would be proper for me to postpone<br>
> raising the above issue any further. I was waiting for the final report by<br>
> the Focal point, and now that we have it, I think we must discuss it.<br>
><br>
><br>
> On Tuesday 19 March 2013 02:12 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:<br>
><br>
> Dear all<br>
><br>
> In my earlier message I said I would get confirmation from nominees for<br>
> this working group before I released the names of the candidates.<br>
><br>
> By the deadline that I gave them to express objections only one person<br>
> did so. I am therefore in a position to release 18 of the original 19<br>
> names.<br>
><br>
> Thank you again to all these people for their willingness to serve on<br>
> the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation and the effort they put<br>
> into the nomination process, and to the selection group for their<br>
> assistance. Thank you also to the IGC Nomcom for their work in<br>
> preselecting the IGC nominees.<br>
><br>
> The names are included in the attached document. The shortlisted<br>
> candidates that I recommended to the CSTD chair were:<br>
><br>
> (in alphabetical order with the region they are based in)<br>
><br>
> Avri Doria (N America)<br>
> Carlos Afonso (A America)<br>
> Don McClean (N America)<br>
> Grace Githaiga (Africa)<br>
> Jeremy Malcolm (Asia Pacific)<br>
> Joy Liddicoat (Asia Pacific)<br>
> Parminder Jeet Singh (Asia Pacific)<br>
> William Drake (Europe)<br>
><br>
> I was asked for 6 names (3 from developing countries and 3 from<br>
> developed countries) but I added an additional two names of people who<br>
> had scored very highly in the process and who had particular expertise<br>
> to contribute. It might also be good to have alternates in case any of<br>
> the 6 would not be able to fulfil the commitment.<br>
><br>
> Best regards<br>
><br>
> Anriette<br>
><br>
><br>
> On 13/03/2013 17:53, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:<br>
><br>
> Dear all<br>
><br>
> *Update from the CS focal point for the convening of the CSTD WG on<br>
> Enhanced Cooperation*<br>
><br>
> *Background*<br>
> I was asked by the chair of the CSTD (Ambassador Miguel Julian Palomino<br>
> de la Gala from Peru) to be the focal point for selecting civil society<br>
> participants. My task was to come up with 3 names from developing<br>
> countries, and 3 from developed countries/ From these 6 names the final<br>
> 5 would be selected by Ambassador de la Gala.<br>
><br>
> To help me with this task, and to make it more inclusive I approached 7<br>
> individuals that are active in internet-related civil society spaces<br>
> and/or organisations. We were not meant to be the perfect group or a<br>
> formal 'nomcom'. Nevertheless they are all individuals that I personally<br>
> trust and respect and whom believe are trusted by those in civil society<br>
> that know them and that have worked with them.<br>
><br>
> I tried to make the group regionally diverse by having one person each<br>
> from Asia, Africa, Europe, North America and South America. In<br>
> recognition of the IGC's role in our sector, and and because both of<br>
> them are such committed facilitators of civil society participation, I<br>
> invited two past Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) coordinators.<br>
><br>
> The composition of the selection group was as follows:<br>
><br>
> Nnenna Nwakanma, FOSSFA - Africa<br>
> Anja Kovacs, Internet Democracy - Asia<br>
> Robin Gross, IP Justice - North America<br>
> Fatima Cambronero, AGEIA DENSI - Latin America<br>
> Wolf Ludwig, Communica-CH/EuroDIG - Europe<br>
> Ginger Paque - past-IGC coordinator<br>
> Ian Peter - past-IGC coordinator<br>
> Anriette Esterhuysen, APC - CSTD appointed civil society focal point and<br>
> convenor of the group.<br>
><br>
><br>
> I was assisted by my colleague Emilar Vushe as I was travelling for much<br>
> of the period that we had to do our work.<br>
><br>
> To avoid conflict of interest I deliberately did not invite anyone from<br>
> APC (members or staff) to be on the selection group. I also withdrew<br>
> from the internal APC process of selection of nominees, and, as a<br>
> further measure to prevent conflict of interest and to create<br>
> opportunities for others, I decided not to make myself available for<br>
> nomination for the group. I had served on the previous CSTD Working<br>
> Group on IGF Improvements and felt it was good to give others a chance.<br>
><br>
> *Nominees*<br>
> To make the call as wide as possible, within the extremely short<br>
> timeframe I posted to the several lists and encouraged people to spread<br>
> the call. In the text of my message I encouraged people from outside the<br>
> narrow internet governance community to participate. We received 20<br>
> nominations. One withdrew, leaving us with 19 to review. I am happy to<br>
> disclose the names of all the nominees but I want to check with them<br>
> first in case they have any objection to this.<br>
><br>
> *'Endorsed' or pre-selected nominations*<br>
> Some nominations were submitted by the and some by civil society<br>
> networks or organisations. Some of the nominations were also 'endorsed'<br>
> or supported by other individuals or organisations.<br>
><br>
> To recognise the effort that has gone into these pre-selection processes<br>
> and endorsements I pre-assigned a score of 1 to these candidates. I felt<br>
> that any higher number would not be fair, as it was not mentioned as a<br>
> requirement in the call for nominations.<br>
><br>
> *Scoring process*<br>
> Scoring was done using a score sheet with criteria based on my<br>
> understanding of what will be involved in the work of the working group.<br>
> The selection group assigned a score of 1 to 5 to each candidate against<br>
> each of the criteria with the lowest score being 1 and the highest 5.<br>
> The selection group was encouraged, to be as fair as possible, to score<br>
> candidates on the basis of the information in their nomination forms.<br>
><br>
><br>
> The criteria were as follows:<br>
><br>
><br>
> * Experience and expertise in public-interest oriented policy<br>
> processes.<br>
><br>
> * Experience and expertise in EC in relation to WSIS and IG<br>
><br>
> * Ablity and commitment to put in the work and travel<br>
><br>
> * Ability to work collaboratively and confidently in multi-stakeholder<br>
> processes that involves both consensus building and dealing with<br>
> conflicting interests.<br>
><br>
><br>
> *Shortlist*<br>
> Based on the initial scoring I compiled a short list of 12 people. I<br>
> then asked to selection group to review the short list, and rank them in<br>
> order of their suitability for the WG and to give consideration to<br>
> regional and gender balance.<br>
><br>
><br>
> *Submission to CSTD Chair*<br>
> After the second round of reviewing by the selection group I came up<br>
> with a list of 8 names (the required 6 -- who were the most highly<br>
> ranked by the selection group - with two more names from the top 12 whom<br>
> I felt would bring particular expertise to the group) which I submitted<br>
> to the CSTD for the Chair's final review and selection. I am not sure<br>
> yet when the composition of the WG will be announced but I know that<br>
> the CSTD will do this as quickly as possible.<br>
><br>
> Thank you to everyone who made themselves available for nomination.<br>
> There was huge interest in this Working Group, and the quality of the<br>
> candidates made selection (particularly in some regions) extremely<br>
> difficult. As I don't know the outcome of the CSTD Chair's decision, and<br>
> as I have not communicated directly with nominees, I would rather not<br>
> disclose the names of those that I recommended at this stage.<br>
><br>
> I do want to point out to all who were nominated or nominated<br>
> themselves that even if you do not make it onto the Working Group,<br>
> there will still be opportunities to participate in its work through<br>
> participating in whatever processes it establishes to get input from<br>
> the broader internet community.<br>
><br>
> My sincere thanks to the members of the selection group. Firstly, every<br>
> person I asked said yes! I was impressed and grateful.<br>
><br>
><br>
> Then they proceeded to work very hard, in a very short timeframe. They<br>
> undertook the work with the seriousness it deserves. I would not have<br>
> been able to do this without their input. In fact, this process<br>
> confirmed my belief in the value of the 'small crowd' and in civil<br>
> society's ability to deal with the complexity of such selection<br>
> processes with good judgement and as much fairness as possible.<br>
><br>
><br>
> Anriette Esterhuysen<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> ____________________________________________________________<br>
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
> <a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org" target="_blank">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>
><br>
> ____________________________________________________________<br>
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
> <a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org" target="_blank">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><br>____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org" target="_blank">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></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br> >> Izumi Aizu <<<br>Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo<br>Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, <br>
Japan<br><a href="http://www.anr.org" target="_blank">www.anr.org</a><br>
</div></div>