[governance] A process suggestion for IGF nominations

[Ian Peter]

Very happy with the concept of Avri chairing. We have two other names in
Danny Butt and David Goldstein. If there are not enough to randomise, I
suggest the group form anyway.

Which means other people willing to serve should nominate now.

Vittorio suggested 15-20 names. Happy to settle at something like that if it
is consensus. But I want to avoid the small narrow group carefully balanced
by gender and geography. I think that is likely to result in less candidates
being selected. There is nothing to suggest that IGF will take on board all
our nominations; rather, as with WGIG, they are likely to pick and choose.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org 
> [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Wednesday, 22 March 2006 4:11 AM
> To: Internet Governance Caucus
> Subject: Re: [governance] A process suggestion for IGF nominations
> 
> 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
> 
> --
> 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