[NCUC-DISCUSS] [bestbits] Re: [governance] list of important questions to be delivered to LOC before 27th meeting

[Jeanette Hofmann]

Judging from what I see particularly on the 1net and the IGC but to some 
degree also the bestbits list, the majority of the partcipants selected 
on that basis will be male. What is more, the number of participants 
will be rather small. Proabably less than 50 or so.
Is substantive participation really a sound selection criteria?
Or are we talking about contributions elsewhere?

If that is the case, how are we going to assess substantive participation?

I think such a criteria only makes sense in combination with other ones. 
First we should try to find out how many people actually plan to go to 
Sao Paulo.

jeanette






Am 26.01.14 16:26, schrieb Norbert Bollow:
> Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Next step would be the question of selection. So far I have informally
>> tried to reach out to people and ask opinions. What I have collected
>> so far comes down to three options. But there may be more, so please
>> propose new ideas or comment on the ones below:
>>
>> - Bottom up self-selection process. Pro: more legitimacy. Con: some
>> fear the burden would be too heavy for a nom-com.
>> - First come first served. People who register would be accepted
>> until the number of participants is reached. Pro: easier to handle.
>> Con: some fear it could create distortions and lack of balance
>> - Selection by a committee (not clear by which one), based on
>> previously agreed criteria such as: balance between developind and
>> developed regions, presenting contributions to the public
>> consultation as pre-condition for on site participation, have
>> attended at least 3 IGFs, etc. Pro: Middle-terms solution if criteria
>> is agreed beforehand. Con: Not mentioned.
>>
>> Please, let me know if you have feelings or preferences about the
>> above.
>
> APC has proposed that the selection of participants should be on the
> basis of contributing substantively during the preparatory process.
>
> I support that proposal.
>
> Greetings,
> Norbert
>