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

[William Drake]

Resending from my subscribed account, sorry


Begin forwarded message:

> From: William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT
> Date: November 22, 2013 at 9:07:02 AM GMT-3
> To: Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>
> Cc: "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt Best Bits" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
> 
> Hi
> 
> On Nov 21, 2013, at 5:45 AM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
> 
>> To summarise the current status of discussions as I perceive them:
>> 
>> Rather than picking and choosing between the existing civil society representatives, we should simply support the continuation of all civil society representatives who have served less than a three-year term.
> 
> I’m having a bit of trouble with mail volume due to the BA meeting etc but it does seem that most who’ve spoken to the issue have suggested the opposite.  And indeed, looking at the list of current reps Matt sent, my perception is that in the year and half I’ve been on MAG maybe half those names have been really active contributors to discussions etc; I don’t recall who did or didn't attend the meetings and open consultations, complete the massive workshop review tasks, or participate in online groups planning focus sessions.  But as it’d be inappropriate to name names, the only option would be for the SC to undertake the labor intensive approach of having a peek at the transcripts and open list archives to get a sense of things.  Alternatively,
> 
>> But if one or more spots are vacant, some affirmative support has been received for the self-nominations of Matthew Shears, Nnenna Nwakanma, Bertrand de la Chapelle to fill them.
> 
> if you’d only be suggesting three newbies (all of which I’d support), you could just just stick with that and hope the secretariat (which is undoubtedly aware of participation levels) and DESA see the opportunity.  But since their decisions also reflect other variables like overall regional balance (not just among the CS contingent) that may not work, and ill-advised premature rotations or failures to rotate have happened in the past.
> 
> Perhaps at a minimum you could stress the need the need for regular 3 year rotations and cycling out all those have been there forever...
> 
>> Self-nominations from Ana Perdigao and Imran Ahmed Shah are yet to receive affirmative support.
>> 
>> So, as our contribution, we could add a paragraph simply saying the above to the joint civil society MAG nomination letter (see below).
>> 
>> On 20 Nov 2013, at 10:42 pm, William Drake <william.drake at UZH.CH> wrote:
>> 
>>> But my questions remain.   Since others knew to respond I assume a CFP with this info was issued, but I missed it and can’t find it in the BB archives (apologies if it turns out this is simply because I’m in a crowded noisy hallway and can’t focus).   So again, could you tell when was the call for nominations, what was the deadline for submission, and what is the process from here?
>> 
>> The general nomination procedure was raised at the Bali meeting and was in development on the wiki for a while before that, but the proposal to test it out for the MAG was in the thread at http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/arc/bestbits/2013-11/msg00130.html.  Since then we've clarified that the steering committee isn't selecting anyone, just facilitating the process.
> 
> Thanks and sorry, I simply missed the message in which said you wanted names by the 20th.  If people would like, us incumbents could send along the messages we submitted to the IGC nomcom and other networks asking to be renominated, maybe that would help identify who's lights are on and who’s not home...
>> 
>>> Looking through other messages from today, I agree with Mawaki that when BB (and IGC, and anyone else) sends the secretariat nominations, this should be accompanied by a clear explanation of who’s making the nominations on what basis and the nomination procedure that’s been followed so they have context for what they’re looking at.
>> 
>> So this may mean that a joint/combined nomination with the IGC is off the table, but we can still do a joint civil society letter explaining the different processes and nominees.  That's seems fine to me - we realised that a combined nomination was ambitious, and the IGC's process is pretty self-contained.
> 
> Sounds right.
> 
> Parenthetically, I agree with those on the other thread who’ve suggested that BB not descend into circular firing squad mode, not draw odd connections between surveillance states and the steering committee, and simply report on activities and then define a process for renewing the SC in the new year.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Bill

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131122/fd9be73f/attachment.htm>