[bestbits] Input needed - criteria for CS Coordination Group

[parminder]

BTW, Ian, I had asked you earlier, how many and which networks have 
applied to be inside the committee, so that we can judge the nature and 
extent of the problem you are trying to deal with.. I understand that 
should be public information.

parminder

On Monday 30 December 2013 10:35 AM, Ian Peter 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
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131230/f33b7cd3/attachment.htm>