[governance] A process suggestion for IGF nominations

Tue Mar 21 15:03:23 EST 2006

I support Avri on her suggested process to select CS representatives to the Advisory board and its time line. Furthermore I support Milton suggestion of having "10 or 15: 2 (or 3) from each of the five geographic regions" for the Adivsory Group.

Thanks

Qusai Al-Shatti
Kuwait Information Technology Scoeity

--- Message Header --- 

The following message was sent by "Milton Mueller" <Mueller at syr.edu> on Tue, 21 Mar 2006 14:12:55 -0500.

--- Original Message --- 

> I strongly agree with Jeanette and Vittorio that 35 names is far too many. Indeed, with that number of nominees, there is no reason for the caucus to go to the trouble of developing a process and choosing a nomcom. The same result could be obtained by simply allowing any interested party or nominator to put forward candidates directly to the IGF email. 
> 
> We need to fix on either 10 or 15: 2 (or 3) from each of the five geographic regions. 
> 
> >>> Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wz-berlin.de> 3/21/2006 6:01 AM >>>
> >I feel a bit uneasy about such a high number of nominees. 35 nominees 
> >would mean that we relinquish the power to select people almost entirely 
> >to the SG or the secretariat. Notwithstanding the fact that each cs 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
> 

--- Message Header --- 

The following message was sent by Avri Doria <avri at psg.com> on Tue, 21 Mar 2006 11:11:29 -0600.

--- Original Message --- 

> 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
> 
I strongly agree with Jeanette and Vittorio that 35 names is far too many. Indeed, with that number of nominees, there is no reason for the caucus to go to the trouble of developing a process and choosing a nomcom. The same result could be obtained by simply allowing any interested party or nominator to put forward candidates directly to the IGF email. 
> 
> We need to fix on either 10 or 15: 2 (or 3) from each of the five geographic regions. 
> 
> >>> Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wz-berlin.de> 3/21/2006 6:01 AM >>>
> >I feel a bit uneasy about such a high number of nominees. 35 nominees 
> >would mean that we relinquish the power to select people almost entirely 
> >to the SG or the secretariat. Notwithstanding the fact that each cs 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governanceI strongly agree with Jeanette and Vittorio that 35 names is far too many. Indeed, with that number of nominees, there is no reason for the caucus to go to the trouble of developing a process and choosing a nomcom. The same result could be obtained by simply allowing any interested party or nominator to put forward candidates directly to the IGF email. 
> 
> We need to fix on either 10 or 15: 2 (or 3) from each of the five geographic regions. 
> 
> >>> Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wz-berlin.de> 3/21/2006 6:01 AM >>>
> >I feel a bit uneasy about such a high number of nominees. 35 nominees 
> >would mean that we relinquish the power to select people almost entirely 
> >to the SG or the secretariat. Notwithstanding the fact that each cs 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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