[bestbits] Input needed - criteria for CS Coordination Group

[Nnenna Nwakanma]

Hi Ian

Dunno how many of our folks are still doing mails this late in the
year.  My original understanding was that networks = organisations or
platforms that are actually a gathering of other organisations.. are
the ones to be repped in the group.  My understanding was therefore,
that there reps will help disseminate information  in those networks
and network members will take the calls further down.

There is the Web We Want  group, which has hit membership in the
hundreds, of organisations in about 2 years. They are basically
organisations that advocate for online freedoms, openness of the
Internet and certain human rights.   Does WWW qualify? Maybe yes,
maybe no, but some WWW members can easily take any "call for
nomination" and forward to the list.  Does WWW necessarily need to be
in the Coordinating group to do that? I think "No".

I'm not sure about having "substantial current involvement" but I will
definitely say  having "broad-based and historic involvement" in an
issue, where the perspectives of such an organization will provide
knowledge in areas of IG that current group reps are not very
knowledgeable about... will be welcome.

Best regards

Nnenna

On 12/30/13, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
> Sorry to initiate a  process discussion but I think it is important we move
> on on this particular issue.
>
>
>
> I’m starting this discussion to get wider input into how civil society
> people think it would be appropriate to expand the current co ordination
> group. To date, this debate has largely been about people thinking they
> should be included rather than any formal criteria to ensure that the group
> is representative while still staying at a reasonable size.
>
> The group came into existence out of a need for civil society groups to work
> together to nominate representatives for various forums; originally for 1net
> and Brazil events, but certainly with thoughts of IGF MAG as well in the
> future. Currently included (in no particular order) are the Association for
> Progressive Communications (APC), Diplo Foundation, Best Bits, the
> Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group of ICANN (NCSG), and (pending new
> coordinator elections) the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC).
>
> Remember, these are criteria for a co-ordination group concerned with
> internet governance matters. Optimal membership levels may be about 9, I
> think, but certainly well less than 20.
>
>
>
> So how do we choose?
>
>
>
> Criteria discussed so far include:
>
>
>
> 1.       Is a coalition which is globally representative - all regions
> covered?
>
>
>
> 2.       Is it non-commercial and public interest oriented (as opposed to
> business)?
>
>
> 3.  Would it more properly fit under technical community, academic, business
> or government in its categorization?
>
>
>
>
> 4.  Is a large part of this coalition's members already covered by one of
> the existing  members?
>
>
>
>
> 5. The internal governance of the coalition is adequately transparent and
> accountable to its members.
>
>
>
> Other suggestions have been discussed from time to time and I invite others
> to make up for any omissions here.
>
>
>
> An additional criteria that might be useful would be a reference to having a
> substantial current involvement in and knowledge of internet governance
> debates. That however might not be acceptable to all – but for me, the
> criteria as they stand would be open to approaches from YWCA, Medicin sans
> Frontieres, Pirate Parties International, Red Cross, Amnesty International,
> CONGO, Creative Commons, International Commission of Jurists,etc. All good
> groups, and it would be great to see them involved here, but the question is
> whether the presence of all of them would be useful for a small working
> co-ordination group on matters specific to internet governance. This along
> with other suggestions should be discussed.
>
>
>
>
>
> Interested in any thoughts relevant to refining this into a workable set of
> criteria for expanding a small co-ordination group, the members of which
> will be different coalitions of civil society organisations who will want to
> maintain their independence while working together. One thought that has
> been raised is to look at rotation of members, or perhaps a combination of
> permanent and rotating members.
>
>
>
> So I am just opening this up for conversation to see what people think.
> Please this is a discussion about criteria, not about individual groups and
> their cases to be involved.
>
>
>
>
>
> Ian Peter
>
>
>
>
>