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

Nnenna Nwakanma nnenna75 at gmail.com
Wed Jan 22 03:46:40 EST 2014


Dear Ian, all

I will say +1 in enlarging the  current group in place.
]Jeanette, do you think that a mandate of 1 year for the nomcom will be a
good idea?

Best

Nnenna


On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 10:50 PM, Sonigitu Ekpe <soekpe at gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks All for the beautiful contribution.
> I buy into the idea of networks.
> Since public interest is of great importance; Can we identify government
> representative that do have passion on civil societies view? The
> "Coordinating Nomcom of Networks" will be a good platform to engineering
> transparency and accountability.
>
> Best
>
> Sonigitu Ekpe
>
> Mobile +234 805 0232 469    Office + 234 802 751 0179
>  "LIFE is all about love and thanksgiving"
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 10:33 PM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>wrote:
>
>> Thanks everyone for comments. So far we have had some discussion on
>> Nomcom alternatives which has put up some interesting thoughts.
>>
>> On other subjects -
>>
>> Any thoughts on expansion and criteria - particularly whether or not to
>> have individuals as well as representatives of organisations on co
>> ordination group?
>>
>> -----Original Message----- From: Nnenna Nwakanma
>> Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 8:35 PM
>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
>> Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] civil society co ordination group -
>> call for comments
>>
>>
>> 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
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140122/22e43369/attachment.htm>


More information about the Bestbits mailing list