<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#CCCCCC" text="#000000">
As the former chair of a MAG NomCom, I read with delight the
detailed description of the ideal candidate:<br>
<br>
<font style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt">1. Regular contributor to civil
society networks including the IGC<br>
2. Consultative style with members of civil society networks
including the IGC<br>
3. Knowledge of/ previous experience with IGF, including remote
participation<br>
4. Knowledge of the UN system<br>
5. Able to communicate the diverse range of issues, views and
perspectives <br>
held by civil society.<br>
</font><font style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt">6.Able to devote the time,
resources and effort necessary to contribute constructively to MAG
deliberations<br>
7. Willing and able to report and update civil society networks
including the IGC on issues and progress</font><br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
My only addition would be that the NomCom also be cognizant of
gender and geographic balance.<br>
<br>
More broadly, commenting on the most enlightening Mawaki / Suresh
conversation, I'd suggest that the more we highlight and detail
the sophisticated criteria and vetting process carried on by the
IGC's NomCom, the more likely IGC nominees are to be accepted.<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
<br>
Tom Lowenhaupt<br>
<br>
On 11/19/2013 8:24 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:606F2065-4798-4537-86D7-61DF76EAE32F@hserus.net"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div>You raise some of the most interesting questions I have seen
on this specific topic for a long, long time.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I would say that a middle path is that we pick someone who is
policy focused, able and professional NGO type, so able to work
on the issue practically full time, get funding to go to a
series of conferences .. however, that individual must not have
a political ax to grind or a set worldview shaped by that ax. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>We need a consensus builder and good communicator in the
role, who morever has a background in UN and other
intergovernmental and cross stakeholder group activities on
cybersecurity.<br>
<br>
--srs (iPad)</div>
<div><br>
On 19-Nov-2013, at 18:47, Mawaki Chango <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:kichango@gmail.com">kichango@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 11:39 AM,
Suresh Ramasubramanian <span dir="ltr"><<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:suresh@hserus.net" target="_blank">suresh@hserus.net</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px
0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">It is absolutely
certain that other civil society organizations will
definitely propose their own nominees (whether or not
they're members of that organization) who they feel
will best represent civil society.<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Not only that, but even if this space was the only
one submitting a slate of nominees, not all of them
will necessarily make it to the end as I understand UN
at whatever level has the final say. So, on that at
least, we should chill (unless there is a campaign I'm
not aware of being waged to the attention of the IGF
Secretariat.) <br>
<br>
</div>
<div>Now, regarding the practices of other
constituencies such as business, one needs to
understand the difference there is between us.
Business stakeholders have always operated that way,
not just with the MAG but with other bodies such as
ICANN and particularly the GNSO council, the same
individual advocating for commercial interests for at
least 10 years (if not more in the broader ICANN).
Businesses have trade associations and even
professional lobbyists they are willing to fund to do
this kind of job for them. They don't care much about
pluralism and representation *per se* as as much as
they want to make sure their interests are taken care
of by an able, well-connected, experienced, skillful
individual who can get that done. It's like when they
recruit for a job. If they find that individual
available --among the handful number of people in
their ranks who could fit the profile for the job--
they are happy to keep him or her for life, especially
if there is only one spot to fill (otherwise there'd
be room for some variations on the edges.)<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>That's the model, as I see it. I'm not ruling
anything out or in by saying this. If that's the model
we want for CS, it is a conversation we may have, I
think, either before people being nominated or after
the selection process. My understanding so far has
been that CS is so diverse and pluralistic that we are
bit more touchy than business on representation and
legitimacy (only heaven knows how many lines have been
written here in contention about those two notions!)
So my assumption would have been --and has been-- that
a robust and diverse competition always is a good
thing for the legitimacy (and political capital, so to
speak) of whomever will come out of the process in the
end as our selected candidates and be appointed on the
MAG or wherever. So that a variety of people stepping
forward and willing to expose themselves in the
process, reinforcing its legitimacy by demonstrating
its continuous openness and pluralism, would be a good
thing to welcome and even to encourage. Instead what I
have been seeing or reading sounds like a willingness
to bully people out of the nomination list, suggesting
that they would not be up to the task and therefore
they shouldn't be nominated. I know nobody actually
said that, but those are plausible implications and if
only for that, I still find it regrettable.<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>The models above are two startlingly different
models. I get it that CS also needs to be effective,
impactful. Is the businessfication of CS the only
answer we've got? No mention of mentoring, no
experience-sharing, or capacity-building (since we
like that one so much)? Or capacity-building only
works so well as to get people behind us professional
CS, or when there are donors who want us to tell
people what they want them to tell their governments
to do? As I suggested, there might be ways to get the
best of both worlds without presuming or suggesting
that there are only about half-dozen people or so in
this Caucus who can speak out in a context such as the
MAG and can speak to TA para. 72.<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>Cheers,<br>
</div>
<div>mawaki <br>
</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px
0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<br>
What, who, why is not as material, Fouad - if we
object to certain people being on the MAG, then we
invite counter objections to other long standing civ
soc members staying on the MAG which would rather not
be raised, I hope<br>
<br>
--srs (iPad)<br>
<div>
<div><br>
> On 18-Nov-2013, at 16:53, Fouad Bajwa <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:fouadbajwa@gmail.com"
target="_blank">fouadbajwa@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
><br>
> Btw, even if all these people apply on their
own from their<br>
> organizations, they are equally valid and IGC
comes in the equal<br>
> balance of all civil society. For example,
IGC can propose 20 people<br>
> and 200 other CS orgs can also propose 20
people or more on their own<br>
> an will be equally evaluated......so doesn't
matter much does<br>
> it....there is no template...nor was one
created.<br>
><br>
>> On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 3:51 PM, Fouad
Bajwa <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:fouadbajwa@gmail.com"
target="_blank">fouadbajwa@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
>> I guess you might be unaware of who,
what, when, why.......<br>
>><br>
>> On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Suresh
Ramasubramanian<br>
>> <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:suresh@hserus.net" target="_blank">suresh@hserus.net</a>>
wrote:<br>
>>> Fouad Bajwa [18/11/13 15:01 +0430]:<br>
>>><br>
>>>> It is critical that some of our
MAG colleagues are kept in there and<br>
>>>> not rotated. I don't know if we
noted it or not but there are private<br>
>>>> sector MAG members continuously
on the MAG and have never been rotated<br>
>>>> off. This is one of the
objections that should be raised loudly.<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> Sorry but why? If civil society MAG
people should be kept on and not<br>
>>> rotated, why should private sector
MAG members be treated differently?<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> --<br>
>> Regards.<br>
>> --------------------------<br>
>> Fouad Bajwa<br>
>> ICT4D and Internet Governance Advisor<br>
>> My Blog: Internet's Governance: <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/"
target="_blank">http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/</a><br>
>> Follow my Tweets: <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa"
target="_blank">http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa</a><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> --<br>
> Regards.<br>
> --------------------------<br>
> Fouad Bajwa<br>
> ICT4D and Internet Governance Advisor<br>
> My Blog: Internet's Governance: <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/"
target="_blank">http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/</a><br>
> Follow my Tweets: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa"
target="_blank">http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa</a><br>
><br>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>>
____________________________________________________________<br>
> You received this message as a subscriber on
the list:<br>
> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org"
target="_blank">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>
> To be removed from the list, visit:<br>
> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.igcaucus.org/" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br>
><br>
> Translate this email: <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t"
target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org"
target="_blank">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>
To be removed from the list, visit:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.igcaucus.org/" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br>
<br>
Translate this email: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t"
target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>