[governance] A process suggestion for IGF nominations

[Avri Doria]

On 21 mar 2006, at 13.50, Milton Mueller wrote:

> Avri:
> Thank you for a well thought-out proposal and for your willingness  
> to volunteer to chair the committee.
>
> Given the openness of the IGC list and the random selection  
> procedure, I have some concerns, however. Will there be any  
> qualification process for volunteers? e.g., do they have to be  
> civil society, and how do we define that?

good question.  i had not thought of it.

i suggest the a self aware giggle/outrage test.

more specifically: since we do not have a membership criteria for who  
is CS and we have many definitions of how we judge that, i suggest  
that those who volunteer should judge for themselves whether their  
names on the volunteer list, which will be published, would produce  
ridicule (giggles) or outrage based on them not being CS when made  
public.  and since the list will be published for a day or so before  
the selection is made, if anyone does cause outrage hey will have the  
incentive to drop out.

other then that, and given the criteria, i don't see anyway to reject  
people.  i can certainly question it when someone i have doubt about  
volunteers, but do not see that i, or anyone, would have the right to  
adjudicate someone being a bona fide member of CS.


> A lot of these concerns would go away if I/others knew that at  
> least one and possibly two well-known, experienced people were  
> voting members of the committee; e.g., you, and/or one of the two  
> former co-chairs.

i don't think the chair should be a voter.  makes it easier to come  
up with procedures and to be pushy if you are not conflicted by also  
having the duty to vote.

as for experienced volunteers, please encourage people to volunteer.   
i have another view on these types of group.  there are lots of  
people on this list that just listen and watch.  they are probably  
failry expereinced at knowing who is who and who is liable to be a  
good candidate.  in my experience i have found that often the non  
vocal members of a list are some of the best at judging those of us  
who are vocal and active.

i have also suggested that i think many people should volunteer,  
including the experienced who might be good MAG members, this would  
help make it possible for some of the more visible members of the  
group to be nomcom members.


>
> One minor procedural glitch: you ask for a minumum number of  
> volunteers  (25) but also ask volunteers to send a private email to  
> you. This means we won't know how close we are to the limit. I'd  
> suggest that you retain the private nature of the volunteering but  
> then release a list of who has volunteered, or at least the number  
> of volunteers, every second day.

good idea.  i planned to list the names of all volunteers before  
running the selection process, there is not reason to not publish the  
names sooner.  the only thing i want to keep private is their contact  
information, not their names.

>
> One could also raise issues about how the random selection is done,  
> and who audits it (sigh), kinda b.s. I know, but may be a concern  
> to some...
>

rfc3797 is a reproducible procedure.  once i announce what the seeds  
are, having preannounced where they will be chosen from, and give the  
ordered list of volunteers, anyone who wants to can compile the code  
and reproduce the results.  and i am sure some one will.

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