[governance] WSIS principles and conferences

Mon Mar 20 16:44:29 EST 2006

Hi all

A couple of process issues I see:

1) My understanding is that we have no delegated mandate to make the  
CS selections as Vittorio pointed out. If we put forward a group of  
15 names for 10 positions, we cannot ensure e.g. geographic or gender  
diversity anyway. I think the process for putting names forward  
should be lightweight and inclusive rather than exclusive.

2) Milton's suggestion for direct selection of participants (rather  
than a nomcom) via RFC3797 could easily exclude valuable people by  
random outcome - the idea should be that we get the best people  
possible forward. Maybe the nomcom is the only way to resolve this.

3) I accept Mawaki's point that there could be issues with an open  
process, e.g. if those moving forward are not supported by the group  
as a whole. Still, a) there is no set of principles in this caucus  
that can be "represented"  until we take up Bill's challenge - I have  
almost diametrically opposed views on basic questions of governance  
(or indeed the role of "civil society") with some active members of  
the list. How can these be resolved into effective representation? I  
feel that anyone who has made a contribution to the IGC should be  
able to be considered.

4) On the other hand, Milton's correct observation that the desires  
of group members to be on IGF-MAG members is an issue. (I share some  
of those, I was just trying to break the ice by volunteering for  
nomcom :). If there is going to be direct nomination (rather than a  
committee) I think this should be able to occur off-list/anonymously.  
Of course, the final list of nominations should be approved in some  
way by the caucus, but  we don't need the public spectacle of  
nominations and the power dynamics at play.

5) Could we agree to a set of principles that IGF should take into  
account for the appointment of CS members to IGF-MAG? E.g. geographic  
diversity (I agree with Qusai Al-Shatti), linguistic diversity,  
gender diversity, consideration of technological and process  
expertise, governance experience, etc. I think we are well placed as  
a group to propose these and we should perhaps have them for  
ourselves anyway.

6) I also agree with Qusai Al-Shatti that it would be good for one/ 
some of the people who has taken a coordinating role (e.g. our  
recently retired coordinators Jeanette and Adam, Bill, Avri, etc.)  
previously to  lead us through this appointment phase if they are  
available, without disqualifying themselves from participation in the  
IGF-MAG. I can't see how we can find effective consensus without  
this. I don't see how the larger questions of structure of the IGC  
can be resolved in time for this appointment.

Regards

Danny

>
> I do feel that the caucus do not have a process with a unanimous  
> consent on selecting a fair representation to the advisory board.  
> While I thank Avri for her attempt to build such a thing and  
> understand the concern of Milton, we should all agree fast on fair  
> manner to select our members on the advisory board and not consume  
> ourselves on these issues. In our meeting during the IGF open  
> consultation in Geneva, William Drake and Jeanette Hofman were  
> running it with the agreement of the attendees, why shouldn't we  
> make them our focal point for such a process (or let us agree on  
> someone to be our focal point). If there is a general consent that  
> RFC3797 is the most suitable process for this issue then let it be.  
> So let us agree on a mechnism for the caucs on this issue.
>
> For me, I would like to see a kind of a geographical distributed  
> representation of CS on the advisory board which can be diverse,  
> dynamic, active and effectivelly raises the conserns of CS.
>
> Thank You
>
> Qusai Al-Shatti

On 20/03/2006, at 11:49 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote:
>

>  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?

> 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