[governance] coordinating the IGC

[Jeanette Hofmann]

Hi Avri,

I am really glad you are willing to take over, and I offer as much 
support to your ambitious plans as you want and need.
In response to Bill's reply:

> 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.

Some months ago I proposed to keep the list as it is right now and 
restrict voting rights to those who regard themselves as members (as 
opposed to observers) and thus register as voting members. That way 
nothing would change for the majority of subscribers. Does this sound ok 
for both of you, Avri and Bill?

> 
> 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?

I am not sure about the exact difference between coordinators and 
chairs. Does it have to do with certain functions?

When we talked about the role of coordinators some time back, Avri made 
the point that the chairs/coordinators need the authority to call 
consensus on certain issues even in the absence of a 100% support. I 
agree with this. We should overcome the situation where individuals can 
excercise veto power. The coordinator/chair should have right to 
determine a rough consensus. If this authority constitutes a chair, then 
I I'd say we should get chairs rather than coordinators.
> 
> 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.

I agree with Avri that staggered terms are better because changes are 
less disruptive. The only drawback I see with staggered terms is that 
the 2 people who are chairing or coordinating the caucus might not get 
along with each other. Yet, the advantages of staggered terms outweigh 
this risk I think.
> 
> 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.

I find it crucial that we formalize the process of selecting 
coordinators/chairs. The way we used to select coordinators with a 
handful of people speaking up in favor of those under discussion is 
doesn't provide sufficient support and legitimacy. Whether an election 
or a nomcom is the better method for selection I don't know. Can 
somebody with a strong preference for one of the two methods explain why?

> 
>>-----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
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance