[governance] coordinating the IGC

[Paul Wilson]

Hi Avri

I also welcome and support your offer to act as chair/coordinator for the 
IGC.  I do not see any problems at present with respect to your other 
activities, and I am confident that any future conflict of interest 
situations (if any) can be handled easily enough.

Regarding staggered 2-year terms, I support this proposal, both for 
continuity of knowledge and logistics, and because I think an annual 
election process is a useful thing (and conversely because having an 
election every 2 years is too infrequent).

Can I ask you to confirm whether the terms "chair" and "coordinator" refer 
to the same role?  This is not entirely clear in your proposal.

Thanks!

Paul.



--On Saturday, 22 April 2006 1:42 AM +0200 William Drake 
<drake at hei.unige.ch> wrote:

>
> Hi Avri,
>
> As one of those who have so suggested, I'm happy to see you take the
> plunge.  And I don't see any problem with respect to your work for
> Markus, role in the GNSO, etc.  A couple of quick thoughts on your other
> points:
>
> 1.  Charter.  I've supported this before and still do.  However, I would
> still go beyond it, and suggest that we can't have properly functioning
> consensus building/voting on anything procedural or substantive, or
> indeed democratic legitimacy and accountability, if we don't have any
> idea who the electorate/constituency is.   Hence, once a charter has been
> assembled, I would like to see people opt in and publicly become listed
> members of the caucus, in the same manner as the Human Rights Caucus, so
> we finally know who actually considers themselves to be a member (a large
> chunk of the 300 people on the list probably do not), who we are talking
> to on caucus matters.
>
> 2.  Co-Coordinators.  I agree that there should be two people.  But I am
> not sure though how you're visualizing the roles, since you also refer to
> one person being a "Chair."  Could you clarify?
>
> 3.  Terms.  It's less obvious to me why we would need to do a one year
> thing with you and then two year positions for others etc.  Why not just
> elect two people now, for one or two years, whichever?  I don't see the
> problem with non-staggered terms, personally.
>
> 4.  Nomcom.  I at least would oppose having a nomcom process to decide on
> coordinators.  It was fine for the MAG where we had this huge pool of
> people and tight time frame etc, but for two slots with few probable
> candidates and less urgency, I would think an open, transparent,
> democratic election for the coordinators is preferable.  Having a small
> group privately making our big decisions just doesn't seem right to me.
>
> Quick thoughts, must return to the A2K conference.  Thanks again for
> throwing your hat in the ring...
>
> Bill
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
>> [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Avri Doria
>> Sent: Friday, April 21, 2006 6:34 PM
>> To: Internet Governance Caucus
>> Subject: [governance] coordinating the IGC
>>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>> Several people, both publicly and privately, have suggested that I
>> volunteer myself for the task of coordinating the IGC.  And by and
>> large I have kept quiet, or argued why it was impossible, wherever
>> such recommendations were made.  At this point I figure I owe some
>> sort of public response.
>>
>> My first reaction is to be thankful that some of the participants in
>> this caucus view me with that kind of trust.  I appreciate it, even
>> if the task being discussed is somewhat daunting.   I have thought
>> about this a lot and have concluded that I am willing to take the
>> chance and try to do the job, though I believe following in the
>> footsteps of Adam and Jeanette would be a challenge.
>>
>> Before taking on this task, though, I wanted to make some things
>> clear and discuss some of the organizational ideas I have for the
>> IGC.   And I want to make sure that no one in the caucus objects to
>> my taking the role or objects to my approach.  I.e. I am looking for
>> consensus before proceeding.
>>
>> 1. Possible caveats
>>
>> - As I have indicated before on this list, I occasionally do some
>> paid consulting for the IGF secretariat.  Since this consulting is
>> one of my paying jobs, I am not eager to give this up.  I have
>> checked with the secretariat and since the IGC chair is a voluntary
>> position they don't see a problem as long as everything is done
>> transparently.  But you the participants in the IGC have to decide
>> whether these periodic contracts are a problem.
>>
>> - As I have also indicated, I have a seat on the GSNO council.  While
>> that is not in conflict with the role of IGC coordinator, it might
>> have an affect of some participant's view of my eligibility for the
>> role.  Again as participants in the IGC you have to decide whether
>> this is an issue.
>>
>> - I am a dues paying, card carrying (well at least i have the cards,
>> i think) member of ISOC, CPSR, ACLU and Amnesty International.
>> Something in that list for most everyone to disapprove of.
>>
>> 2. Possible Plans:
>>
>> - I tend to think that we, the IGC, need to regroup and do a certain
>> amount of reorganization to finish the transition from a WSIS
>> oriented group to an IGF+ oriented group. (Note: eventually I think
>> this caucus has a role with any Internet governance organization, but
>> at this point I think we need to focus on the founding of the IGF)
>>
>> - One of the things I would like to do if chosen/accepted is work
>> with the caucus to write a charter for the IGC going forward.  I
>> don't expect that we can come up with a closed, buttoned up document,
>> but it should be possible for us to put together a statement of
>> principles, basic action areas and basic practices.
>>
>> - In terms of my term length, while doing it until Athens is long
>> enough, I would like to suggest a term of a year. I will explain more
>> below.  I do see it as a reorganization period appointment.
>>
>> - I think the IGC should have co-cooridnators.  Mostly to share the
>> work, but also to make sure there is someone who can handle issues
>> when a possible conflict of interest occurs.   Or is available if
>> someone takes a vacation.
>>
>> - I think that each of co-coordinator should have a two year term
>> except for my initial one year term during the reorganization
>> process, with staggered terms (i.e one term 06-08, one 07-09).  I
>> think it is good to have rotation of people in the chair role, but we
>> should try to avoid getting in the situation again where we lose both
>> chairs at the same time.  I.e. we should have a well formed method
>> for continuity.
>>
>> - My suggestion would be to put together a nomcom after the charter
>> is created to pick a co-coordinator for a two year term (the even
>> year term).  I would hope we could have the basic working charter in
>> about a month and a co-coordinator within about 2 months - this way
>> we would be in good shape for the work needed to prepare for the
>> Athens meeting by mid June or the beginning of July.
>>
>> - Before my one year term ends, someone new could be chosen for the
>> next two year term (the odd year term).  While this could be done in
>> Athens, I would not recommend it:
>>    - not enough people go to any single meeting
>>    - we will probably be too busy dealing with substance at that point.
>>    - i believe the best time to think about what to do next in terms
>> of picking the next co-coordinator would be after the Athens
>> meeting.  But with meeting burn out and holidays, I would be
>> surprised if it got done before the beginning of 2007.  So I suggest
>> we plan it that way.
>>
>> - Someone suggested that we have a nomcom in position for a long term
>> period to make all the choices for that period, for example a year.
>> While this idea has some merit, I think this needs to be considered
>> with caution.  Partly becasue one would be excluded from other roles
>> for as long as they were on the nomcom, and partly because picking a
>> nomcom for a specific purpose is not all that difficult.  I certainly
>> do _not_ think that the current nomcom should be pressed into service
>> since they only volunteered for a single choice.  Also we need to
>> review the experience of the nomcom and deal with any pending issues
>> and decide whether this is the way we want to proceed in the future.
>> There may be other suggestions that would be worth considering.
>>
>> - Another thing I would like to do during a term is experiment with
>> new collaborative working methods and decision methods to see if we
>> could find an easier way to come to closure on proposals and comments/
>> contributions.  This has often been one of the flash points in the
>> caucus and needs to be resolved if the IGC going to be a fully
>> functional contributor to the IGF and other governance efforts into
>> the future.  I believe that if we have a good organizational process
>> and can come up with consensus documents, we can have a decent effect
>> on the IGF.
>>
>> So, as I said at the beginning of this note, I am willing, but only
>> if no one objects.  And I am certainly willing to discuss any of the
>> things in this note - I know that I sometimes write in a manner that
>> is not clear to all readers. Or that what I wrote may be completely
>> wrong headed.  But, if there is general support of this proposal and
>> there are no major objections to me taking the role, then i would be
>> honored to take on the task for a year starting in May.  I figure we
>> can use the rest of this month to discuss it and find out if there
>> are objections.
>>
>> thanks
>>
>> a.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> governance mailing list
>> governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>



________________________________________________________________________
Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC                      <dg at apnic.net>
http://www.apnic.net                            ph/fx +61 7 3858 3100/99
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance