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

Sat Jan 25 08:58:26 EST 2014

Hi Nnenna,

as small correction, NCSG is part of the co-ordination group with BB, IGC,
Diplo and APC.

Best,

Rafik

2014/1/20 Nnenna Nwakanma <nnenna75 at gmail.com>

> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140125/558e0677/attachment.htm>