[governance] WSIS principles and conferences

[Mawaki Chango]

Danny,

Obviously many people would disagree with you here (am I part of
those???). People who think they are the best, or people most of the
Caucus think they are the best (which may not be the same), no matter
if they are right or wrong, are likely to say: why take the risk (by
loading the list of nominees) to be represented by a "weaker" person
at the expenses of a "stronger" one? I.e., for some, at the expenses
of the IGC's views to be strongly defended, which in turn brings the
question: are the IGF-AG members going to _represent_ their base, or
be appointed /speak only on their personal capacity?

Mawaki

--- Danny Butt <db at dannybutt.net> wrote:

> 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
> 

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