[bestbits] Re: [governance] Input needed - criteria for CS Coordination Group

[Norbert Bollow]

Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:

> 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. 

I would suggest that if there are more networks with a viable claim
that they should be included than seats in a reasonably-sized
committee, those networks should still be accepted as members of the
coordination group, and the practical problem could be addressed e.g.
by forming an “executive committee” with rotating membership.

> 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. 

All good criteria which I wholeheartedly support. With the caveat that
just looking at who is subscribed to a discussion mailing list is *not*
how “coverage” should be determined. 

> 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.

I see some danger here - we need to ensure that whatever criteria we
develop don't end up having the effect of creating a self-perpetuating
cabal which increases rather than decreases the obstacles which civil
society communities with Internet governance related interests face on
the path of becoming formally and effectively involved in Internet
governance discourses.

> 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.

I agree that there is a need for some criterion that will help focus
the coalition on member networks whose primary area of interest is
within the scope of Internet governance, as per the Tunis Agenda
working definition, broadly understood.

Greetings,
Norbert