<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"></head><body ><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><br><br>-------- Original message --------<br>From: Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette@wzb.eu> <br>Date:01/25/2014 12:06 (GMT-05:00) <br>To: governance@lists.igcaucus.org,Avri Doria <avri@Ella.com> <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 <nnenna75@gmail.com<br>>> <mailto:nnenna75@gmail.com>><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 <suresh@hserus.net<br>>> <mailto:suresh@hserus.net>> 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" <ian.peter@ianpeter.com<br>>> <mailto:ian.peter@ianpeter.com>> 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>>> >> governance@lists.igcaucus.org<br>>> <mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org><br>>> >> To be removed from the list, visit:<br>>> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing<br>>> >><br>>> >> For all other list information and functions, see:<br>>> >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance<br>>> >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:<br>>> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/<br>>> >><br>>> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t<br>>> ><br>>><br>>> ____________________________________________________________<br>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>>> bestbits@lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net>.<br>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:<br>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits<br>>><br>>><br>><br><br></body>