[governance] A process suggestion for IGF nominations

[Ian Peter]

Here's a process suggestion from here.

We have two good names for a nomcom in David and Danny. Two more that don’t
raise widespread objection, and I suggest we declare a nomcom in existence. 

Then we have to agree on their task. I suggest it is to submit a raft of no
more than 35 names to IGF process. To qualify, a nominated party should meet
some specific criteria. I would make the first one that the person can
effectively represent civil society on IGF and present the diversity of
viewpoints within civil society. Other criteria could be developed and
suggested (and have been already).

I suggest select and put forward unprioritised too many names that are
acceptable, rather than a fixed number. I also suggest that while gender and
geographic diversity are important, they should not be the primary criteria
at this stage. The final balance of the committee will surely take into
account these factors, but in doing so will also take into account the
quality of the candidates put forward by industry government and other
parties. So we stand a better chance of more representatives if we present a
wide raft of suitable candidates from a wide range of backgrounds.
 
Is this a way forward?

Ian Peter

> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org 
> [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of David 
> Goldstein
> Sent: Tuesday, 21 March 2006 4:13 PM
> To: Milton Mueller; db at dannybutt.net; governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] WSIS principles and conferences
> 
> Hi all
> 
> Given there are others on this list who are in a better 
> position to be on an Advisory Group, I am happy to nominate 
> myself to be on the Nominating Committee should others on the 
> list desire.
> 
> Cheers
> David
> --- Milton Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> 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
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> 	
> 
> 	
> 		
> ____________________________________________________
> On Yahoo!7
> Messenger - Make free PC-to-PC calls to your friends overseas. 
> http://au.messenger.yahoo.com 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
> 
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.2.6/286 - Release 
> Date: 20/03/2006
>  
> 

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.2.6/286 - Release Date: 20/03/2006
 


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