[governance] A process suggestion for IGF nominations

Danny Butt db at dannybutt.net
Tue Mar 21 15:53:22 EST 2006 

I also support Avri's process (with thanks!).

Danny


On 22/03/2006, at 8:23 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
>
> 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


On 22/03/2006, at 8:03 AM, Qusai Al-Shatti wrote:

> 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

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

More information about the Governance mailing list