EXPLANATION ON PROCESS Re: [bestbits] Shortlists for Brazil for further consideration

[Ian Peter]

Having exposed this by mistake, for which  I am very embarrassed, I do need to perhaps explain the context -

The selection committee has four voting members – I am not one of them. The process that lead to the numbers below was that each voting member was asked to provide a list of  4-6 names against each committee they would rank most highly from the 30 odd names submitted. One member provided some alternatives against each other, which led to the rather arbitrary allocation by me of a .5 of a vote.

The purpose here was purely to get a shortlist – to narrow the range of candidates so that we could consider further in more detail. The number of votes against names here does not in any way indicate a final decision or  final preference. Its just a list of names under consideration (and even then not a final one). We all realise there are questions of overall balance involved in determining a final slate but it is helfpul to have some knowledge of other people’s suggestions in doing so.

And any comments in the posting are mine and mine alone. They reflect my initial opinions only and not any other organisations or individuals involved. They were provided by me for consideration by others as some first thoughts (I have had some others since) and I take full responsibility.  No one else is to be blame or be held responsible for anything said in my comments. 


Once again apologies for any embarrassment caused. 

Ian Peter



From: Ian Peter 
Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2014 8:02 AM
To: Ian Peter ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net 
Subject: Re: [bestbits] Shortlists for Brazil for further consideration

OMG... clearly not meant for this list and my sincere apologies to everyone. 

this was an awful mistake on my part... 



From: Ian Peter 
Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2014 7:43 AM
To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net 
Subject: [bestbits] Shortlists for Brazil for further consideration

Thanks everyone for prompt replies – below is a summary of your responses and the candidates still under consideration (although there is nothing to stop us bringing forward other names later on if we want to)

HLC

Carolina Rossini – 3.5 votes
Jovan K – 3 votes
Mark Rotenberg – 3 votes
Joana Varon 2.5 votes
Milton Mueller 2 votes
Parminder Singh 2 votes
Stephanie Perrin 1 vote
Louis Pouzin 1 vote
Marilia Maciel 1 vote

SOME COMMENTS AND ISSUES

The brief here is “This committee will set the high ­level political tone and objectives of the
conference.  Committee members will engage on a global level with stakeholders to

encourage participation in the conference and maximize its chances of success” 



Bear in mind also that (my paraphrasing) the aim of the meeting seems to be to develop a set of high level principles for Internet Governance. 



We dont know yet whether we need 3 or 4 candidates, and probably wont know till Saturday. I think our aim between now and then should be to try and narrow down our field a bit and eliminate some names if possible. But in doing so:



Carolina Rossini, Jovan K and Marc Rotenberg got the most support initially – not that we need to be bound by this. They are all impressive candidates.



If Marc was in, we probably couldn’t include Milton – 2 US males would not be a good decision politically. Milton also probably fits as an academic – but as he is likely to be running the process to select academic candidates, he may not be able to include himself. Maybe we should seek clarification here?



If Carolina was in, we probably wouldn’t include Joana or Marilia



None of our first 3 would be considered to be a strong advocate for third world issues. If we thought it was important to include someone with this perspective, the choices would be Louis Pouzin or Parminder Singh. Parminder has indicated he would step down in favour of Louis Pouzin, and we may need to consider that Parminder is a member of the CI (Community Informatics) Nomcom also considering candidates for these very same positions (but with about 6 candidates and very little chance of their nominees being accepted) . That may be perceived as a conflict of interest, or we could ignore it. But some people have already suggested to me informally that Parminder has a conflict of interest here. 



Also to just note re Stephanie Perrin – if Marc Rotenberg was in we might consider we have privacy issues well covered; but if in our final slate we wanted to include Milton and leave Marc out to not have too many male US citizens Stephanie is an option to cover privacy.  


So lots of issues.Let’s discuss and see if we can narrow down a little while we await info as to whether we need 3 or 4 names.


EC
Marilia Maciel 3.5 votes
Adam Peake 3 votes
Joana Varon 2 votes
Nadira Alaraj 1.5 votes
Carolina Rossini 1.5 votes
Stephanie Perrin 1 vote
Norbert Bollow 1 vote
Birgitta Jonsdottr .5
Parminder Singh .5

SOME COMMENTS AND ISSUES

The brief here is “This committee owns the full responsibility of organizing the event, including: defining conference purpose/agenda, managing invitations, organizing input received into a coherent set of proposals for the conferees to address, managing conference proceedings and process, and directing all communications activities pre/­during/­post conference.  This committee will include 2 civil society representatives”.



I think we need to determine HLC before finalising here. However Marilia and Adam have the strongest support at this stage. We again face the issue here of having a strong advocate for third world issues as a factor in deciding our final 2. 



Over to you all for comments, suggestions, and attempts to narrow this down further!



Ian Peter










--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________________
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:
     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/20140109/1af97e56/attachment.htm>