<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#CCCCCC">
<p dir="ltr" style="margin-top: 0pt;margin-bottom: 0pt;"
id="internal-source-marker_0.9887876352582334"><span
style="font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;">All,</span></p>
<br>
<span
style="font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;"></span>
<p dir="ltr" style="margin-top: 0pt;margin-bottom: 0pt;"><span
style="font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;">I
was delighted to see civil society's selections made for the
Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation. I don’t think 5 better
people could represent us. Not only were the civil society
choices most excellent, but the broad acceptance of the
multistakeholder governance model demonstrates positive
democratic inclinations. </span><span
style="font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;"><br>
</span></p>
<br>
<span
style="font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;"></span>
<p dir="ltr" style="margin-top: 0pt;margin-bottom: 0pt;"><span
style="font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;">But
while we’ve managed to make these selections in a basically open
and transparent manner, as compared with some other stakeholder
groups, I believe we (Civil Society) need to set the standard
for transparency and accountability: we must seek to be on the
side of the angels, above criticism, setting and following a
standard that we should encourage other stakeholder groups to
follow. </span></p>
<br>
<span
style="font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;"></span>
<p dir="ltr" style="margin-top: 0pt;margin-bottom: 0pt;"><span
style="font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;">A
90 minute IGF workshop is a step in the right direction. But a
broader plan to establish an open, transparent, and accountable
process for selecting civil society representatives in a timely,
thoughtful, and democratic process is needed. Some months ago,
while enmeshed in yet another rushed NomCom selection process, I
suggested we needed to improve our act, possibly by coordinating
our activities with other civil society players. Today I again
call for such a process and invite others to join me in
exploring ways this might be achieved. </span></p>
<br>
<span
style="font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;"></span>
<p dir="ltr" style="margin-top: 0pt;margin-bottom: 0pt;"><span
style="font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;">Best,<br>
</span></p>
<p dir="ltr" style="margin-top: 0pt;margin-bottom: 0pt;"><span
style="font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;"><br>
Thomas Lowenhaupt</span></p>
<br>
<span
style="font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;"></span>
<p dir="ltr" style="margin-top: 0pt;margin-bottom: 0pt;"><span
style="font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;">P.S.
I started a rudimentary </span><a
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multistakeholder_Governance_Model"><span
style="font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:#1155cc;background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:underline;vertical-align:baseline;">Multistakeholder
Governance Model</span></a><span
style="font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;">
page on Wikipedia. With the increasing acceptance and awareness
of MGM,
and </span><span
style="font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;">Wikipedia
increasingly the start page for new (and news) inquiries, I </span><span
style="font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;">expect
this page to become dog eared. So let’s make it “the” definitive
page for defining and presenting the Model. <br>
</span></p>
<br>
<span
style="font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;"></span>
<p dir="ltr" style="margin-top: 0pt;margin-bottom: 0pt;"><span
style="font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;">Notes
to non-Wikipedians... 1. All (or most all) of the disagreement
about the scope and definition of MGM in Wikipedia should take
place on that entry’s corresponding </span><a
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Multistakeholder_Governance_Model"><span
style="font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:#1155cc;background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:underline;vertical-align:baseline;">Talk
page</span></a><span
style="font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;">
(which is currently empty). 2. Those who have suggestions, but
don’t have the time or inclination to dirty their hands with
MediaWiki code, feel free to send me your suggestions for
contributions. I’ll either include them in the definition or
present them on the Talk page. Other editors might of course
have their own opinion.</span></p>
<br>
<hr size="2" width="100%"><br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 3/29/2013 12:12 AM, parminder wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:515514BB.1080103@itforchange.net" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<br>
<font face="Verdana">All<br>
<br>
There has been not much uptake here for a discussion on
selections procedures for civil society (CS) reps for various
multistakeholder (MS) bodies, but I would persist. This issue is
important, and a 90 min workshop at IGF is not going to solve/
address the problems/ issues involved. <br>
<br>
<br>
</font>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Wednesday 27 March 2013 01:54 PM,
parminder wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:5152ACA6.4010609@itforchange.net"
type="cite"> <snip></blockquote>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:5152ACA6.4010609@itforchange.net"
type="cite"><br>
Hi Anriette <br>
<br>
I do agree with your having accepted the role as the focal
point. For selection of reps for the WG on IGF Improvements, the
focal point was IGC. It was asked to submit 5 names all of which
were then put on the WG. I understand that CSTD may this time
have approached you since APC is the only NGO working on
information society issues that is in general consultative
status with the ECOSOC. Having being given this role, APC has
the right to take an independent decision on whether to accept
it or pass it on. It is on the other hand for the IGC to reflect
why did it lose that role, it at all it is connected to its
profile, stature, visibility or performance. I have something to
say on this matter but that separately. <br>
</blockquote>
<br>
In this email I will make some observations on the IGC selection
process, and in the next one of the focal point directed selection
process.<br>
<br>
IGC has a clearly laid out selection process. The guidelines and
principles, both coming from the charter and precedents are
basically sound, although there may be some views for a possible
rethink whether a noncom based process should be augmented by a
larger general voting process. Diplo Foundation follows such a
composite process. Right now I am relatively neutral between the
two kinds, and see advantages and disadvantages in both. But maybe
worth a discussion.<br>
<br>
However, what I was as a clear issue with the IGC selection
process that concluded recently, and also in the earlier IGC
conducted ones, is the lack of wide dissemination of call for
nominations - and actively soliciting nominations from outside
groups. Now, if we do not do it, we would obviously lose the role
a CS intermediary and focal point for CS selection. We should be
clear, if we are nominating on CS's behalf we need to reach out.
And I think that it should largely be the responsibility of
coordinators to do such an extensive outreach, while the nomcom
chair should also do it. Or a voluntary sub committee should do
it.<br>
<br>
And here I come what I see as the principal issue/ problem with
the health of IGC overall. IGC was supposed to have a dual
character of a discussion space and an active advocacy group. But
the structure of the IGC is not adequate to these twin tasks.
(There may also be deeper reasons for such a situation, but this
is something most amenable to do something about.) And for this
reason is has largely been reduced to a good - well, mostly -
discussion space, but all activties on the advoacy/ action side
have suffered. I have always thought that there should be a
members-only space for IGC where procedural, action oriented
activities can be worked out, without the din and noise of the
larger IG discussions that mostly rent the IGC elist. This has
become a classic case of overdoing openness killing effectiveness.
I can see that IGC will continue to be on the downward spiral of
action-/ advocacy-wise effectiveness, that it is on right now,
unless this and other corrective measures are taken-<br>
<br>
What is required in my view is to have a standing membership of
the IGC - and not the spontaneously occurring and dying
membership at the moment of voting. There should also be a members
only elist for procedural and core action oriented matters (at
least some stages of such matters, while most work being done on
the open list). Anyone can become a member of IGC by agreeing to
its charter. However, once there is a members only space, in
addition to the discussion space, I expect there to be a greater
sense of ownership and responsibility to the group by its members.
Connecting back to the original subject of this email, in such
circumstances; the best course for the IGC to follow around a
specific required selection process, and distribution of duties
etc for the purpose, can be accomplished in a much better manner.
<br>
<br>
parminder<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:5152ACA6.4010609@itforchange.net"
type="cite"> <br>
<blockquote type="cite"> <br>
1) I felt that the CSTD and its Chairperson, Ambassador de la
Gala, made <br>
an important gesture to move away from a 'black box' approach
by <br>
empowering stakeholder groups to made the selection
themselves. <br>
</blockquote>
<br>
This movement was made the last time itself when IGC was asked
to provide all the five names for the CS part of WG on IGF
improvements. And I agree a movement away from 'black box'
approach is good. But as you say, such an improvement must
consist in actually 'empowering the concerned stakeholder
group' - whereby the alternative process should clearly bear
all signs that it is representative, accountable, transarent etc
to the concerned stakeholder group. As I said in the set of
guidelines I proposed - 'any such role should be taken as a
responsibility on the behalf of the concerned stakeholder
group'. <br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Difficult as the task was, I did not
want to shy away from undertaking <br>
the task as this would reflect negatively on our capacity as
civil <br>
society to manage this type of process. <br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Yes, telling the chair back that he should do the final
selection was not the right way to go about it. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"> <br>
2) I personally believe it is important for us to not restrict
the <br>
identification of civil society actors for participation in IG
processes <br>
to the IGC. <br>
</blockquote>
<br>
100 percent. In fact it was from IT for Change's submission that
the WG on IGF improvements worte in its final report that
selection of stakeholder reps should not be restricted to one
body or group. True for civil society, and true for technical/
academic community and business. <br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">The IGC is important, and it has
internal processes that are <br>
clear and provide room for appeal. But the IGC cannot (in my
view) claim <br>
to represent all of civil society that have a stake in, or an
interest <br>
in, internet policy and governance. <br>
</blockquote>
<br>
IGC hasnt ever, and it doesnt make such a claim. And I agree
that anyone suggesting any such thing must be countered
appropriately. However, IGC is still perhaps the most open and
inclusive network in global IG space, while its actual
performance capacities have been ham-shackled considerably due
to a lot of reasons, but again, on that separately. <br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"> With more time I would have liked <br>
to consult on the criteria and some of the issues Nnenna
raises, e.g. <br>
rotation, and distribute the call even wider. <br>
<br>
3) I knew that once I got my head around the basic complexity
of how to <br>
go about the selection that there would be people in the CS
community <br>
whose experience and help I could rely on. <br>
<br>
These processes are not easy, and making sure they are
transparent and <br>
effective is challenging - ensuring legitimacy is even harder,
although <br>
transparency takes one a long way towards legitimacy. <br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Agree, Full transparency is the least, and should be an
incontestable aspect of all such processes. Actual process use
may sometime vary and there may be differences on them, but
there should be no two views about transparency. <br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">But what is <br>
considered legitimate among one group of active CS people such
as the <br>
IGC might not be considered legitimate by others. And even a
transparent <br>
and legitimate process cannot be guaranteed to produce the
best results. <br>
No process will be perfect. <br>
<br>
This is one of the reasons why I think that as CS we should
consider the <br>
weaknesses in our own processes when criticising those of
other groups - <br>
so discussing this is a good idea; within CS and with other
groups. <br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Yes, the better and more clearly we structure our selection and
representation processes better it is. However, I do not take
this thing about our right to talk about 'our processes' and not
of 'others'. For instance, I am quite concerned that small
developing country businesses should be represented
appropriately when business participates in global policy
bodies, and I have a right to be so concerned. It is not a
private affair of only those who do business. So, neither it is
for a set of people to decide who would be defined as 'technical
and academic community' for filling a given quota on a public
body. It is everybody's business. It is a public issue. <br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"> <br>
It would also be good to make sure that it is an open
discussion, <br>
facilitated in such a way that as many people as possible feel
safe, <br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">able to express themselves, ask
questions, and propose solutions. <br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Most important is that those who do take up a public role on
behalf of public constituencies do not begin feeling 'unsafe'
simply because some accountability and transparency questions
are asked - as was done in case of tech/acad community's
selection process recently. It is the public's right to do so.
It is even worse when some other people begin to feel unsafe on
behalf of these people with a public role - a rather strange
display of which has recently been made on this list. <br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"> Being <br>
critical and direct is important, but when a few individuals
start <br>
having a relatively aggressive interchange it can silence
others. <br>
<br>
Anriette <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 21/03/2013 05:03, Izumi AIZU wrote: <br>
<blockquote type="cite">First, many thanks Anriette for your
hard work and clear reporting of the <br>
process. <br>
Second, congratulations for the nominees and thank you for
your hard work <br>
once selected. <br>
<br>
On March 11, we have the second anniversary of the East
Japan Great <br>
earthquake <br>
and I was travelling the devastated region, recovery is way
far from it <br>
should be. <br>
That's why I have been inactive on this list for a while. <br>
<br>
And thanks Parminder for your modest discussion proposal. I
agree with you. <br>
And I also agree with Adam that the discussion be
result-oriented, hopefully <br>
drawing some principles for future selection process in
addition to <br>
reviewing <br>
the past or existing ones. <br>
<br>
best, <br>
<br>
izumi <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
2013/3/20 Adam Peake <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:ajp@glocom.ac.jp"><ajp@glocom.ac.jp></a>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">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>
<br>
Adam <br>
<br>
<br>
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Nnenna <a
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:nne75@yahoo.com"><nne75@yahoo.com></a>
wrote: <br>
<blockquote type="cite">The discussion, I think, has
starte <br>
</blockquote>
d. It might have taken off in a <br>
<blockquote type="cite">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 <br>
</blockquote>
methodology. <br>
<blockquote type="cite">We have been in this "process" for
10 years (at least for some) and we <br>
</blockquote>
still <br>
<blockquote type="cite">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, <br>
</blockquote>
but <br>
<blockquote type="cite">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 <br>
</blockquote>
document, <br>
<blockquote type="cite">that has been discussed and has
met a level of consensus here will be <br>
</blockquote>
VERY <br>
<blockquote type="cite">helpful. <br>
<br>
My thoughts are that we need to discuss methods for: <br>
<br>
Informing on and disseminating
opportunities/positions/calls. For the <br>
</blockquote>
CSTD, <br>
<blockquote type="cite">I actually had to tweet that I
have been impressed by the way Anriette <br>
</blockquote>
and <br>
<blockquote type="cite">the APC group shared the
information. I cannot say if it because I am in <br>
</blockquote>
so <br>
<blockquote type="cite">many mailing lists with APC
folks.. but I can tell you that there was a <br>
</blockquote>
"a <br>
<blockquote type="cite">clean, clear and determined
decision to disseminate information". <br>
Understanding of "developed and developing" nations. One
may be tempted <br>
</blockquote>
to <br>
<blockquote type="cite">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 <br>
</blockquote>
we <br>
<blockquote type="cite">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 <br>
</blockquote>
same <br>
<blockquote type="cite">faces (albeit with a greater tinge
of gray) all the time? How do we <br>
</blockquote>
strike <br>
<blockquote type="cite">the balance between getting
newer/younger people to follow in our paths <br>
while maintaining legacy? What orientation mechanism in
process, issues <br>
</blockquote>
and <br>
<blockquote type="cite">manners around IG issues can we
put in place to help people who will <br>
</blockquote>
arrive <br>
<blockquote type="cite">"after us" to be able to follow.
Most selection are looking for <br>
</blockquote>
"qualified" <br>
<blockquote type="cite">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 <br>
</blockquote>
opportunity <br>
<blockquote type="cite">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 <br>
</blockquote>
"we" <br>
<blockquote type="cite">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 <br>
</blockquote>
to <br>
<blockquote type="cite">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 moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net"><parminder@itforchange.net></a>
<br>
To: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">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 <br>
</blockquote>
forwarding my <br>
<blockquote type="cite">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 <br>
</blockquote>
for <br>
<blockquote type="cite">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 <br>
</blockquote>
the <br>
<blockquote type="cite">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, <br>
</blockquote>
do <br>
<blockquote type="cite">not expect the discussion - at
least the points I will like to <br>
</blockquote>
contribute - <br>
<blockquote type="cite">to have fatal intentions towards
the process that was employed. What we <br>
</blockquote>
will <br>
<blockquote type="cite">get out of a good and through
discussion on the process may just help <br>
</blockquote>
anyone <br>
<blockquote type="cite">in-charge of such processes in the
future to conduct them in an even <br>
</blockquote>
better <br>
<blockquote type="cite">way. <br>
<br>
I want right away to put out my intentions regarding
above so that I do <br>
</blockquote>
not <br>
<blockquote type="cite">appear opportunistic, or
alternatively, bitter, if I seek a discussion <br>
</blockquote>
only <br>
<blockquote type="cite">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 <br>
</blockquote>
have <br>
<blockquote type="cite">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 <br>
</blockquote>
prefer <br>
<blockquote type="cite">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 <br>
</blockquote>
chances <br>
<blockquote type="cite">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 <br>
</blockquote>
already <br>
<blockquote type="cite">been discussed by us, I do not
think it would be proper for me to <br>
</blockquote>
postpone <br>
<blockquote type="cite">raising the above issue any
further. I was waiting for the final report <br>
</blockquote>
by <br>
<blockquote type="cite">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 moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>
<br>
To be removed from the list, visit: <br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a>
<br>
<br>
For all other list information and functions, see: <br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a>
<br>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.igcaucus.org/">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a>
<br>
<br>
Translate this email: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
____________________________________________________________
<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list: <br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>
<br>
To be removed from the list, visit: <br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a>
<br>
<br>
For all other list information and functions, see: <br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a>
<br>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.igcaucus.org/">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a>
<br>
<br>
Translate this email: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
____________________________________________________________
<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list: <br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>
<br>
To be removed from the list, visit: <br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a>
<br>
<br>
For all other list information and functions, see: <br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a>
<br>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: <br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.igcaucus.org/">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a>
<br>
<br>
Translate this email: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>