[bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT

Wed Nov 20 07:09:36 EST 2013

First, I wish to clarify my understanding of BB.

Best Bits (BB) = (interim) Steering Committee (iSC) + Discussion List (DL)

There is no decision-making mechanism other than what the iSC
self-appointed members agree on among themselves.
Any decision that comes out of BB is actually the decision of
self-appointed few that make up the iSC.
There's no membership (other than the iSC membership.) Also referred to as
the main list, the DL is just that, a list for people to discuss which may
be tapped into for drafting or editing statements plus any other business
the iSC decide it is okay to handle outside its closed circle.

So far, I have just described the structure at BB, as reflected through
what has transpired so far. So if any of the above is inaccurate, please
correct me.

All people (but one that I'm not sure of) being nominated here are on the
IGC list. Some of them are already nominated there, too (the others could
have been, if they wanted to.) If you recognize that BB as a whole doesn't
yet have a proper decision-making mechanism, then I suggest to ask IGC
NomCom to merge BB nominees to theirs (I think you Jeremy have suggested
earlier that this could be an option, and I would encourage for that as a
better interim solution.) That wouldn't put on hold any BB urgent
substantive business. The membership of the IGC NomCom is already known:
are there any nominee here who feel any member of the NomCom would be
hostile against them or their candidacy? If so, I think the issue should be
raised to IGC and addressed (if necessary by replacement... there was a
pool of 25 candidates for the NomCom.)

Doing otherwise would signal that BB (i.e. its iSC)  just don't want the
IGC NomCom to meddle in the list of BB nominees, even based on clearly
defined and tested processes and criteria. And that your main purpose not
doing that is to make sure whatever IGC NomCom decides, BB candidates will
make it to the UN "black box" anyway (as you refer to it, on which
designation I do not disagree)?

If that's the case, then I suggest forwarding BB slate directly to the IGF
Secretariat, with an explanation of the nomination process, procedures,
etc. (as you also suggested.) Because I am afraid adding BB slate to IGC's
and forwarding them together to the IGF Sec may be confusing and even
misleading (I mean what's the point forwarding them together if we wanted
so badly the two processes separated, despite the un-readiness of one of
them?) If you don't want IGC to interfere in BB nomination process, or to
have a say whatsoever on it, then I personally think it would be fair to
just forward BB nominees directly and separately, like other CS groupings
may be doing... following to the end the logic BB would have adopted.

Finally, just a last comment and cautionary note. If BB were to go on like
this (without clear membership and decision-making mechanism beyond the
iSC), I am afraid it won't take long for BB to be portrayed as a
self-serving group and to be (mis-) perceived by some people as a power
grab exercise (just as some of us may have (mis-) perceived the I* orgs to
engage in such lately.) Not only this is not better (in terms of
decision-making processes, openness/inclusiveness), it is not even close to
ICANN we like to criticize. We know and can do better.
Cheers,

mawaki

On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 9:03 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>wrote:

>
> On Wednesday 20 November 2013 02:17 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>
> On 20 Nov 2013, at 4:29 pm, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
>  If separate working group lists can be made to address substantive
> issues why cant such a group also be set up to finalise processes and
> structures for BB...
>
>
>  Sure, that's a good idea.  Let's do that.  It was meant that this
> discussion and revision to the processes would be ongoing on the wiki, but
> that has been hampered by website issues, which I'm still working on.  In
> the meantime until the wiki is more usable, we could as easily create
> another working group for revision to the processes.  Whoever is interested
> to be on such a working group, in addition to the interim steering
> committee members, please let me know and we can set that up.
>
>  Obviously we will not place Best Bits into stasis in the meantime, at
> such a critical juncture.
>
>
> I see absolutely no harm made to our substantive work, that is needed at
> this critical juncture, by referring the names we have to IGC process of
> MAG nominee selection rather than do it through an unapproved process by BB
> steering committee. This is taking up of unauthorised powers by the
> steering committee , and I would  not be a party to it.
>
>   We have been listening but there has not been a chorus of approval for
> your process concerns,
>
>
> Neither a chorus of support for steering committee doing the selections ot
> reps, nominees etc on behalf of BB membership... As said it has to be
> express and not implied approval of the membership of BB...
>
>
>
>  and on the contrary many people have expressed the desire for us to
> continue in a loosely institutionalised manner.
>
>
> Which means nothing per any kind of assent by BB membership (a concept
> that you have conveniently evaporated) to processes of nominee/ rep
> selection being done by steering commitee of BB . Are you going to take the
> self decided mandate to 'keep working in loosely institutionalised process'
> to do whatever hits your or steering committee's fancy? That would be such
> a travesty!
>
>   So we will continue to iterate and improve, but we will not be
> radically changing course.
>
>
> Meaning, you are going ahead with the process of selection of MAG nominees
> by the steering committee, are you?
>
> parminder
>
>
>
>   --
>
>
>
> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the
> global campaigning voice for consumers*
> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
> Malaysia
> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
>
> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub
> |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone
>
> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org |
> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
>
> Read our email confidentiality notice<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>.
> Don't print this email unless necessary.
> *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
> recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For
> instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131120/1d77d91e/attachment.htm>