[governance] WSIS principles and conferences

Danny Butt db at dannybutt.net
Mon Mar 20 06:01:46 EST 2006


Thanks Milton. I figured my commitments to lot of things other than  
Internet Governance is usually a disadvantage, but here was an  
opportunity to turn ambivalence into a positive :). Or maybe I'm just  
more interested in the governance of Internet Governance.

I agree with Milton that a nomcom step might be superfluous, despite  
having volunteered. Wolfgang initially suggested that there would be  
10 (?) seats available, and suggested making a list of 15.  If we're  
not making the final decision anyway, why don't we put forward  
profiles for everyone who wants to be included, and let those in  
charge make the decision? Have we been specifically told to shake  
ourselves down to a certain number?

Someone with experience here can set me right, but my hiring  
philosophy is that I want to see everyone who might be good rather  
than a subset, so if I was choosing CS participants for the IGF-MAG I  
would want to see 40 people rather than 15 to choose from. It would  
be good to get a lead here on what the IGF want from us if just  
putting through everyone who's interested isn't what they're after.

Regards,

Danny


On 20/03/2006, at 4:59 PM, Milton Mueller wrote:

> Congratulations, Danny. I was feeling pretty sure that Avri's  
> proposed method would fail because...well, because all of the  
> active people on this list want to be on the Advisory Group (yes,  
> that includes me), so I thought no one would volunteer for the  
> Nominating Committee. But you proved me wrong. So that's one down,  
> 4 to go. ;-)
>
> I also am concerned about the fact that we have no coordinators and  
> no established procedure for making decisions, and now we are faced  
> with a need for fairly quick action.
>
> We have no real means of authoritatively choosing a Nominating  
> Committee, except via some form of consensus or passive  
> acquiescence on the list. But if we can choose 5 nomcom members  
> that way, why can't we select 10 IGF-MAG nominees that way also,  
> and eliminate a (potentially time consuming) step?
>
> --MM
>
>>>> Danny Butt <db at dannybutt.net> 3/17/2006 7:29:41 PM >>>
> Could someone clarify the likely role of the IGF advisory group?
>
> If the advisory group will be establishing a process for the forum,
> then our initial role in that should probably be finding CS members
> with process expertise to put forward. I think that WGIG members
> might be precisely the most useful people for that advisory process.
> This might be different than the kind of representation we would want
> for this caucus as a mechanism for CS participation in the IGF itself
> - where particular areas of domain expertise would be useful, and
> where broader outreach will be valuable.
>
> I support Avri's suggestion of a nominating committee that excludes
> IGF-MAG participants, and also the use of the process in RFC3797.
>
> We currently have no way of gauging consensus, but if the nomcom idea
> is agreed to, I am happy to volunteer for the nominating committee.
>
> I can also work on a charter for the group, but I think this is going
> to take a bit longer, can it can come after we get through the IGF-
> MAG process? But I agree with Bill that there is a good opportunity
> here and it should be taken.
>
> Regards,
>
> Danny
>
>
> On 18/03/2006, at 6:12 AM, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
>
>>
>> Personally, I will be happy to work on a charter for the group, with
>> whoever else wants to join. We haven't decided what we want the
>> group to
>> be - procedure only or also substance related, for example - but I
>> guess
>> we can follow the proactivity rule: those who really care will work
>> out
>> the details, and others will follow as long as they make good  
>> choices.
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Danny Butt
> db at dannybutt.net | http://www.dannybutt.net
> Suma Media Consulting | http://www.sumamedia.com
> Private Bag MBE P145, Auckland, Aotearoa New Zealand
> Ph: +64 21 456 379 | Fx: +64 21 291 0200
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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



More information about the Governance mailing list