[governance] A process suggestion for IGF nominations

[Avri Doria]

On 22 mar 2006, at 04.21, William Drake wrote:

> Hi Avri,
>
> Quick concerns on two of your posts.
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
>> [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Avri Doria
>
>> 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.
>
> So if someone who works in the private sector submits their name  
> and nobody
> feels emboldened to ridicule them, they then become representatives  
> of civil
> society, a term normally used to refer to those in the nonprofit  
> sector?  I
> recognize that despite years of back and forth on this in the WSIS  
> context
> (it seems to be less of an issue in other policy spaces like  
> environment,
> human rights, etc) we've never reached consensus on whether being  
> CS depends
> on one's place in the socio-economic structure (the standard  
> trichotomy) or
> on a state of mind (e.g. people with government or business pay  
> checks who
> see themselves as public interest advocates), but this would seem  
> like a
> rather strange outcome to me.

I think that several things are in play:

- i generally expect most people will not abuse an open process
- i think the person you describe above is a border case.  if for  
example someone who was prominent in the business sector or an  
ambassador did volunteer, there are enough of us who are bold enough  
to publicly question.  in most cases, i think a person who was  
questioned would pull out.

but yes, it could happen.  and the IGC does probably need to figure  
out what we mean by CS, but there is no time for that now, so i see  
no alternative to the giggle test (which despite doubts you may have,  
has proven to be a effective method in several other contexts - i  
subject almost everything i write to the giggle test - could it read  
it out loud in front of a crowd of friends and enemies without  
giggling or causing them to giggle)

>
>> 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.
>
> This strikes me as setting the bar a little too high.  While there  
> are 300
> people on the list, the vast majority probably don't consider  
> themselves to
> be in the caucus.  Getting quickly to 25 might be difficult.

the randomizing doesn't really work if too few people volunteer.
and i see it as a 'voting with your feet'.  it is all well and good  
to assume consensus on the idea, but if too few people are willing to  
take a chance on committing to it then the consensus is perhaps too  
weak for the process to be valid.  i.e. people need to volunteer in  
order to validate the process - otherwise it could just be the  
manifestation of a list where everyone, except perhaps for a few  
friends, has sent all my email to a blackhole.

>
> These items notwithstanding, I too support the approach you've  
> outlined.

thanks.

a.

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