[bestbits] Re: [governance] civil society co ordination group - call for comments

Mon Jan 20 04:35:15 EST 2014

How about a "network nomcom"?

Having followed all teh models above, I am tending towards a kind of
improvement of what we have now.

What do we have now? A cordination of individual representatives of
different networks: IRP, APC, Diplo, BB and IGC.

Here is my suggestion:

1. Extend the Coordination group to include other networks/coalitions
with the criteria above. I still prefer "extend" to "expand" :)
2. Have a Non-voting Chair for 1 year, renewable.
3. Each participating coaltion/network will chose from within itself,
a person/persons to  represent it in  a nomcom
4. Nomcoms will not be static but will be convened when needed
5. We have a nomcom Chair but nomcom members will be chosen by their
networks to form a "nomcom of networks". Networks/coalition may decide
 the method that is best suited to  them to appoint qualified person/s
 for the task at hand.

What will be the merits of a "NomCom of Networks"?:
1. Its members are  sent by their constituent network/coalition
2.  Networks/coalitions can chose a NomCom  person based on the
person's expertise  on the subject for which CS reps are being called
for
3. Networks/coalitions are free to  use whatever methods they deem
best to  select their network rep on the "Nomcom of Networks"

In summary, we have a Nomcom of Networks non-voting Chair for 1 year,
and membership of nomcom is Networks/coalitions and not persons. Each
time there is need for CS representation then each network notifies
the Chair or their rep on the NomCom

Best

Nnenna

On 1/20/14, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
> A prequalification for either nomcom duties or being selected to represent
> the caucus in some forum could be a history of prior engagement with the
> caucus and prior track record in igov.  [And to increase the inclusion, this
> could mean engagement with multiple caucus members in good standing on other
> civil society fora, if not necessarily this specific caucus]
>
> This prevents the sort of ballot stuffing you have noted, where there are
> endorsements for specific individuals from random people or groups that have
> no prior engagement with the caucus or track record on igov issues.
>
> --srs (iPad)
>
>> On 20-Jan-2014, at 12:27, "Ian Peter" <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I’m posting here some thoughts recently discussed among  members of the
>> civil society co ordination group for comments and input. It relates to
>> some options for this group. It would be good to have comments and input.
>>
>> What we are proposing is a period of on line discussion, after which we
>> will probably conduct some sort of on line straw poll to get a feeling for
>> how people think about options emerging. So please comment and digest, and
>> we will look forward to getting wide input.
>>
>>
>> But firstly- is there a need for such a group?
>>
>> There certainly was in the context of appointing representatives for
>> Brazil and 1net, and we would argue that it is highly advisable for
>> functions such as MAG nominations.  Perhaps there are no other great needs
>> at this stage, but they might arise. And certainly a continuing
>> communication between groups working in the area of internet governance
>> might be useful.
>>
>> The alternative to all of this re-organisation would be for the group to
>> go into recess until another urgent need arises. But that choice would
>> simply reinforce the criticism that exists of this group (or its
>> successors) when there is a need again - or alternatively lead to
>> fragmented selection processes that hinder civil society representation.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 1. EXPANSION OF THE CO-ORDINATION GROUP
>>
>> This has been the subject of previous discussion with a number of
>> different parties and it was decided to defer further considerations until
>> after Brazil nominations were complete. There was also some discussion  on
>> list here immediately before Christmas about some possible criteria for
>> involvement.
>>
>> One possibility we would suggest here is we could decide to  enlarge the
>> group to (say) 9 -12 people. The current voting members could remain and
>> would be joined by one of the incoming IGC Co-ordinators. For additional
>> voting members, we suggest that we open it up to expressions of interest –
>> but not only from organisations, but also from individuals. That allows
>> involvement of representatives of multistakeholder groups with a strong
>> relationship with civil society (eg IRP). That might be a good step, and
>> to this we could add rotation of members.... or leave such questions until
>> the co ordination group is fully populated.
>>
>> That’s the first issue where clarity is needed. But how to select....
>>
>>
>> 2. SELECTION PROCEDURES (possibly for expanding the co ordination group,
>> but also for any future CS representation).
>>
>> We present three different options here.
>>
>> OPTION ONE - VOTING
>>
>> This works well within one organisation, but is more difficult with
>> multi-organisational elections – who is in for voting, who is out? And
>> some of us remember the original ICANN at large elections, where suddenly
>> thousands of people with no previous involvement got involved in support
>> of one candidate who was elected with a large majority. The context for us
>> here is that, without a consolidated  membership list of all our
>> organisations, this is very open to capture and manipulation. And setting
>> up and maintaining a multi-organisation single voting list is a fairly
>> time consuming administrative task. (and then we need to ask which
>> organisations mailing lists and/or membership lists would be included)
>>
>> So there are a few issues to solve if we take that direction.
>>
>> OPTION TWO – RANDOM NOMCOM
>>
>> This option has been widely used in IETF and was adopted in the Charter of
>> IGC. We are not aware of anywhere else it is used but there may be some
>> other examples.
>>
>> While this form is gospel to some people, others have reservations.
>>
>> Ian Peter writes, as one critic with some experience of this
>>
>> “My personal reservations arise from involvement with perhaps 9 or so
>> random Nomcoms, with the following results:
>>
>> 2 included known trolls.
>> Only one of 9 had all members active – most worked on the basis of only
>> one or two active members.
>> One refused to work with the appointed Chair
>> One had the Chair drop out mid process and ended up with one individual
>> making decisions
>> Gender and geographic balance are purely left up to chance.”
>>
>> To this we would add issues involved with random selection when
>> factions/different organisations are involved. It is easy in this case for
>> important sections of CS to be left out entirely from deliberations
>> because they weren’t randomly selected.
>>
>> So some of us caution against use of this form in the context of a
>> multi-organisational steering group, arguing that these are important
>> matters of representation best not left to chance.
>>
>>
>> OPTION THREE – APPOINTED NOMCOM
>>
>> This is the most widely used form and is used by technical community,
>> business community, ICANN, and just about any other organisation we can
>> think of. It’s the safest way, providing that transparent, accountable and
>> inclusive processes are used to select the members of the Nomcom. That
>> would be something the coordination group mentioned above could undertake
>> when in place.
>>
>>
>> And I am sure there are other variations. But they need to be agreed to
>> and sorted out.
>>
>> CRITERIA
>>
>> We also need criteria for selection. Previously we discussed these in
>> terms of determining suitable organisations who would nominate
>> representatives. But if we are looking at individuals as well, they will
>> need to change. But for reference, the previous discussions left these
>> under consideration
>>
>> 1.       Is it 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.
>>
>>
>> 6. Does the coalition have a substantial current involvement in and
>> knowledge of internet governance issues
>>
>> Obviously if individuals are to be considered these have to change.
>>
>>
>>
>> Over to everyone for comments.
>>
>>
>> Ian Peter
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>