<div dir="ltr">+1 to Avri's comment. </div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div dir="ltr">Sonigitu Ekpe <br><br>Mobile +234 805 0232 469 Office + 234 802 751 0179 <br> "LIFE is all about love and thanksgiving" <br>
<br></div></div>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 6:30 PM, avri doria <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:avri@ella.com" target="_blank">avri@ella.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div><div>Hi,</div><div><br></div><div>I don't really know how IGC finds its way back to a cordial functionality in diversity that enables legitimacy. One of the many reasons I did not put myself forward as a candidate for anything. </div>
<div><br></div><div>But being eternally hopeful, except for when I lapse into despair, I think it could be done by a reasonable, dedicated and devoted set of coordinators and a little honeymoon good will from us a all.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Which makes me think, I would really like to see our candidates' answer to your question.</div><div><br></div><div style="font-size:75%">avri</div><div style="font-size:75%"><br></div><div style="font-size:75%">
Sent from a T-Mobile 4G LTE Device</div><div><div class="h5"><br><br>-------- Original message --------<br>From: Jeanette Hofmann <u></u> <br>Date:01/25/2014 12:06 (GMT-05:00) <br>To: <a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org" target="_blank">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>,Avri Doria <u></u> <br>
Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] civil society co ordination group
- call for comments <br><br>Hi Avri,<br><br>given that it is unlikely for the IGC to rise like a phoenix, how would <br>you then go about the current legitimacy hole?<br><br>jeanette<br><br>Am 25.01.14 16:03, schrieb Avri Doria:<br>
> Hi,<br>><br>> (left the x-posting in since it concerned both groups)<br>><br>> As IRP is a multistakeholder group I think with have a category mismatch..<br>><br>> I still also have an issue with both BB and IGC being represented.<br>
><br>> BB - is still in formation with only a self appointed group in the<br>> leadership. Once they get their whole plan together and the group buys<br>> into it and if the differentiation becomes clear, then the combined<br>
> groups should take a look at it.<br>><br>> IGC - has been in a free fall state of crisis for the past 2 years and<br>> until it manages to right itself, it has no business in a<br>> representational role.<br>
><br>> But the people and organization, the civil society stakeholders,<br>> distributed through those 2 groups are indeed important participants in<br>> Ig. So while I dispute the legitimacy the members of BB and IGC being<br>
> twice represented at this point, I do believe it is a good idea for them<br>> to be represented by a singular BB/IGC representative that is an active<br>> participant in both groups nd who can be supported by the combined voice<br>
> of the groups.<br>><br>><br>> avri<br>><br>><br>> On 25-Jan-14 08:58, Rafik Dammak wrote:<br>>> Hi Nnenna,<br>>><br>>> as small correction, NCSG is part of the co-ordination group with BB,<br>
>> IGC, Diplo and APC.<br>>><br>>> Best,<br>>><br>>> Rafik<br>>><br>>><br>>> 2014/1/20 Nnenna Nwakanma <<a href="mailto:nnenna75@gmail.com" target="_blank">nnenna75@gmail.com</a><br>
>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:nnenna75@gmail.com" target="_blank">nnenna75@gmail.com</a>>><br>>><br>>> How about a "network nomcom"?<br>>><br>>> Having followed all teh models above, I am tending towards a kind of<br>
>> improvement of what we have now.<br>>><br>>> What do we have now? A cordination of individual representatives of<br>>> different networks: IRP, APC, Diplo, BB and IGC.<br>>><br>
>> Here is my suggestion:<br>>><br>>> 1. Extend the Coordination group to include other networks/coalitions<br>>> with the criteria above. I still prefer "extend" to "expand" :)<br>
>> 2. Have a Non-voting Chair for 1 year, renewable.<br>>> 3. Each participating coaltion/network will chose from within itself,<br>>> a person/persons to represent it in a nomcom<br>>> 4. Nomcoms will not be static but will be convened when needed<br>
>> 5. We have a nomcom Chair but nomcom members will be chosen by their<br>>> networks to form a "nomcom of networks". Networks/coalition may<br>>> decide<br>>> the method that is best suited to them to appoint qualified<br>
>> person/s<br>>> for the task at hand.<br>>><br>>> What will be the merits of a "NomCom of Networks"?:<br>>> 1. Its members are sent by their constituent network/coalition<br>
>> 2. Networks/coalitions can chose a NomCom person based on the<br>>> person's expertise on the subject for which CS reps are being called<br>>> for<br>>> 3. Networks/coalitions are free to use whatever methods they deem<br>
>> best to select their network rep on the "Nomcom of Networks"<br>>><br>>> In summary, we have a Nomcom of Networks non-voting Chair for 1 year,<br>>> and membership of nomcom is Networks/coalitions and not persons. Each<br>
>> time there is need for CS representation then each network notifies<br>>> the Chair or their rep on the NomCom<br>>><br>>><br>>> Best<br>>><br>>> Nnenna<br>>><br>
>><br>>> On 1/20/14, Suresh Ramasubramanian <<a href="mailto:suresh@hserus.net" target="_blank">suresh@hserus.net</a><br>>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:suresh@hserus.net" target="_blank">suresh@hserus.net</a>>> wrote:<br>
>> > A prequalification for either nomcom duties or being selected to<br>>> represent<br>>> > the caucus in some forum could be a history of prior engagement<br>>> with the<br>
>> > caucus and prior track record in igov. [And to increase the<br>>> inclusion, this<br>>> > could mean engagement with multiple caucus members in good<br>>> standing on other<br>
>> > civil society fora, if not necessarily this specific caucus]<br>>> ><br>>> > This prevents the sort of ballot stuffing you have noted, where<br>>> there are<br>>> > endorsements for specific individuals from random people or<br>
>> groups that have<br>>> > no prior engagement with the caucus or track record on igov<br>>> issues.<br>>> ><br>>> > --srs (iPad)<br>>> ><br>>> >> On 20-Jan-2014, at 12:27, "Ian Peter" <<a href="mailto:ian.peter@ianpeter.com" target="_blank">ian.peter@ianpeter.com</a><br>
>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:ian.peter@ianpeter.com" target="_blank">ian.peter@ianpeter.com</a>>> wrote:<br>>> >><br>>> >><br>>> >><br>>> >><br>
>> >><br>>> >> I’m posting here some thoughts recently discussed among members<br>>> of the<br>>> >> civil society co ordination group for comments and input. It<br>
>> relates to<br>>> >> some options for this group. It would be good to have comments<br>>> and input.<br>>> >><br>>> >> What we are proposing is a period of on line discussion, after<br>
>> which we<br>>> >> will probably conduct some sort of on line straw poll to get a<br>>> feeling for<br>>> >> how people think about options emerging. So please comment and<br>
>> digest, and<br>>> >> we will look forward to getting wide input.<br>>> >><br>>> >><br>>> >> But firstly- is there a need for such a group?<br>
>> >><br>>> >> There certainly was in the context of appointing<br>>> representatives for<br>>> >> Brazil and 1net, and we would argue that it is highly<br>>> advisable for<br>
>> >> functions such as MAG nominations. Perhaps there are no other<br>>> great needs<br>>> >> at this stage, but they might arise. And certainly a continuing<br>>> >> communication between groups working in the area of internet<br>
>> governance<br>>> >> might be useful.<br>>> >><br>>> >> The alternative to all of this re-organisation would be for the<br>>> group to<br>>> >> go into recess until another urgent need arises. But that choice<br>
>> would<br>>> >> simply reinforce the criticism that exists of this group (or its<br>>> >> successors) when there is a need again - or alternatively lead to<br>>> >> fragmented selection processes that hinder civil society<br>
>> representation.<br>>> >><br>>> >><br>>> >><br>>> >><br>>> >> 1. EXPANSION OF THE CO-ORDINATION GROUP<br>>> >><br>
>> >> This has been the subject of previous discussion with a number of<br>>> >> different parties and it was decided to defer further<br>>> considerations until<br>>> >> after Brazil nominations were complete. There was also some<br>
>> discussion on<br>>> >> list here immediately before Christmas about some possible<br>>> criteria for<br>>> >> involvement.<br>>> >><br>>> >> One possibility we would suggest here is we could decide to<br>
>> enlarge the<br>>> >> group to (say) 9 -12 people. The current voting members could<br>>> remain and<br>>> >> would be joined by one of the incoming IGC Co-ordinators. For<br>
>> additional<br>>> >> voting members, we suggest that we open it up to expressions of<br>>> interest –<br>>> >> but not only from organisations, but also from individuals. That<br>
>> allows<br>>> >> involvement of representatives of multistakeholder groups with a<br>>> strong<br>>> >> relationship with civil society (eg IRP). That might be a good<br>
>> step, and<br>>> >> to this we could add rotation of members.... or leave such<br>>> questions until<br>>> >> the co ordination group is fully populated.<br>>> >><br>
>> >> That’s the first issue where clarity is needed. But how to<br>>> select....<br>>> >><br>>> >><br>>> >> 2. SELECTION PROCEDURES (possibly for expanding the co<br>
>> ordination group,<br>>> >> but also for any future CS representation).<br>>> >><br>>> >> We present three different options here.<br>>> >><br>
>> >> OPTION ONE - VOTING<br>>> >><br>>> >> This works well within one organisation, but is more difficult<br>>> with<br>>> >> multi-organisational elections – who is in for voting, who is<br>
>> out? And<br>>> >> some of us remember the original ICANN at large elections, where<br>>> suddenly<br>>> >> thousands of people with no previous involvement got involved in<br>
>> support<br>>> >> of one candidate who was elected with a large majority. The<br>>> context for us<br>>> >> here is that, without a consolidated membership list of all our<br>
>> >> organisations, this is very open to capture and manipulation.<br>>> And setting<br>>> >> up and maintaining a multi-organisation single voting list is a<br>>> fairly<br>
>> >> time consuming administrative task. (and then we need to ask<br>>> which<br>>> >> organisations mailing lists and/or membership lists would be<br>>> included)<br>>> >><br>
>> >> So there are a few issues to solve if we take that direction.<br>>> >><br>>> >> OPTION TWO – RANDOM NOMCOM<br>>> >><br>>> >> This option has been widely used in IETF and was adopted in the<br>
>> Charter of<br>>> >> IGC. We are not aware of anywhere else it is used but there may<br>>> be some<br>>> >> other examples.<br>>> >><br>>> >> While this form is gospel to some people, others have<br>
>> reservations.<br>>> >><br>>> >> Ian Peter writes, as one critic with some experience of this<br>>> >><br>>> >> “My personal reservations arise from involvement with perhaps 9<br>
>> or so<br>>> >> random Nomcoms, with the following results:<br>>> >><br>>> >> 2 included known trolls.<br>>> >> Only one of 9 had all members active – most worked on the basis<br>
>> of only<br>>> >> one or two active members.<br>>> >> One refused to work with the appointed Chair<br>>> >> One had the Chair drop out mid process and ended up with one<br>
>> individual<br>>> >> making decisions<br>>> >> Gender and geographic balance are purely left up to chance.”<br>>> >><br>>> >> To this we would add issues involved with random selection when<br>
>> >> factions/different organisations are involved. It is easy in<br>>> this case for<br>>> >> important sections of CS to be left out entirely from<br>>> deliberations<br>
>> >> because they weren’t randomly selected.<br>>> >><br>>> >> So some of us caution against use of this form in the context<br>>> of a<br>>> >> multi-organisational steering group, arguing that these are<br>
>> important<br>>> >> matters of representation best not left to chance.<br>>> >><br>>> >><br>>> >> OPTION THREE – APPOINTED NOMCOM<br>>> >><br>
>> >> This is the most widely used form and is used by technical<br>>> community,<br>>> >> business community, ICANN, and just about any other organisation<br>>> we can<br>
>> >> think of. It’s the safest way, providing that transparent,<br>>> accountable and<br>>> >> inclusive processes are used to select the members of the<br>>> Nomcom. That<br>
>> >> would be something the coordination group mentioned above could<br>>> undertake<br>>> >> when in place.<br>>> >><br>>> >><br>>> >> And I am sure there are other variations. But they need to be<br>
>> agreed to<br>>> >> and sorted out.<br>>> >><br>>> >> CRITERIA<br>>> >><br>>> >> We also need criteria for selection. Previously we discussed<br>
>> these in<br>>> >> terms of determining suitable organisations who would nominate<br>>> >> representatives. But if we are looking at individuals as well,<br>>> they will<br>
>> >> need to change. But for reference, the previous discussions left<br>>> these<br>>> >> under consideration<br>>> >><br>>> >> 1. Is it a coalition which is globally representative -<br>
>> all regions<br>>> >> covered?<br>>> >><br>>> >> 2. Is it non-commercial and public interest oriented (as<br>>> opposed to<br>>> >> business)?<br>
>> >><br>>> >> 3. Would it more properly fit under technical community,<br>>> academic,<br>>> >> business or government in its categorization?<br>>> >><br>
>> >> 4. Is a large part of this coalition's members already covered<br>>> by one of<br>>> >> the existing members?<br>>> >><br>>> >><br>
>> >> 5. The internal governance of the coalition is adequately<br>>> transparent and<br>>> >> accountable to its members.<br>>> >><br>>> >><br>
>> >> 6. Does the coalition have a substantial current involvement<br>>> in and<br>>> >> knowledge of internet governance issues<br>>> >><br>>> >> Obviously if individuals are to be considered these have to<br>
>> change.<br>>> >><br>>> >><br>>> >><br>>> >> Over to everyone for comments.<br>>> >><br>>> >><br>>> >> Ian Peter<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>>> <mailto:<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>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>>> <a href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net" target="_blank">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net" target="_blank">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a>>.<br>
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:<br>>> <a href="http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits" target="_blank">http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits</a><br>>><br>>><br>
><br><br></div></div></div><br>____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a 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></blockquote></div><br></div>