[governance] A process suggestion for IGF nominations

[Avri Doria]

hi,


On 21 mar 2006, at 05.01, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:

> Since Avri has a lot of organizational experience in the area of  
> nomcom
> structures, I would like to nominate her as chair of the nomcom  
> (perhaps
> as non-voting chair so that process issues won't be mixed up with
> selecting candidates).

since i have no intention of putting myself forward for a MAG slot, i  
am willing to serve as a non-voting chair of a nomcom if that is what  
the IGC 'wants'.

i have a few suggestions about how we could go about this:

i would suggest that we have 5 voting members and that all of us on  
the nomcom - both voting and non voting be disqualified from serving  
on this year's MAG.

i would also suggest that for selection of 5 names to be random, we  
must have at least 5-10 times as many volunteers (25-50) for the pool  
as we want members.  but there are enough people on this list that  
getting that many names should not be a problem as long as people  
volunteer.  i would also suggest that volunteering for the pool does  
_not_ disqualify one from selection for the MAG, only serving on the  
nomcom does.  the more people who volunteer the better chance we have  
to get a representative selection in the nomcom.  and i would go so  
far as to say that even people who might be willing to serve on the  
MAG _should_ volunteer for the nomcom pool and trust that fate, or  
chance, will put you in the job can you do the most good in.

i also would suggest that if it is agreeable that i organize such a  
nomcom process, people who want to volunteer could send me a private  
message volunteering and giving me a phone number (better still a  
Skype contact to keep things inexpensive).  before running the random  
selection process, i would publish the ordered list of names of the  
volunteers so that people could see that their name was on the list,  
or not, as they intended.

i also suggest that it is up to the IGC at large, as well as the  
plenary and any other groups who wish to participate in this process  
to set the number, qualities, and level of diversity etc, that the  
candidates should represent.  the nomcom should then use these  
criteria to make their selections.  if i organize the process, i am  
willing to send a message to the plenary explaining the process we  
are following and inviting input.

the question becomes, how does this group decide they:

a - want such a nomcom process to pick MAG candidates
b - want me to serve as the non voting chair

i suggest that anyone who objects says so publicly on the list by the  
end of Thursday (AnyTZ).  if anyone objects after 2 days of  
discussion, then the group needs to find another path.  I.e. i am  
suggesting we need full consensus (signified by lack of dissent in  
the next 2 days) to start this.

if there is agreement (lack of disagreement), then i will send out  
other email after Thursday covering more on how to organize the  
nomcom, including the random seeds that i would use to run the  
RFC3797 algorithm.  i would also send out the message to plenary  
explaining the process.  i suggest the schedule would look something  
like (working backwards):

Recommendation ready to be sent to IGF secretariat - 16 April (18  
april is IGF deadline)
Deadline for candidate name submission -             10 April
Nomcom Selection complete -                           4 April - this  
gives nomcom 2 weeks
IGC completes discussion of criteria for candidate selection - 3 April
Publish of Nomcom volunteers -                       31 March
Deadline for volunteering for Nomcom -          Noon 30 March AnyTZ
Seeds picked and published for RFC3797 selection -   27 March
Procedures published on IGC and Plenary list -       27 March
Reach consensus decision on using Nomcom selection process - 23 March  
AnyTZ

i also suggest that if we don't get at least 25 volunteers for the 5  
person nomcom, then the process is aborted, i.e.  we interpret the  
lack of volunteers as a lack of consensus in the process.

so if you think this is a bad idea or i am not the person to handle  
it, please speak up.

a.







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