[governance] igc nomcom and other lists

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

On 29 mar 2006, at 21.42, Renate Bloem wrote:

> Hi Jeannette and Avri,
>
> As someone who is only observing this list, I was very impressed by  
> process
> so far, particularly also by Avri's well organized time frame  
> around it.

thanks

> My
> question: why should this nomcom only be an IGC nomcom and not  
> include other
> CS groupings?

As I indicated in another note any group can submit a list of  
candidates to the IGF secretariat.  Organizing a group to do this  
with any degree of legitimacy involves getting a degree of consensus  
of the process to be used.

As I am active in the IGC list, and know it best of the CS lists I am  
involved with, I decided it would be sufficiently challenging to get  
consensus on a process in this group, let alone one in which i was  
less active.  And the idea of attempting to do this in the plenary  
list would have been daunting.

I also thought it was a very appropriate action for the IGC since  
this is the group that deals most with Internet governance.  It make  
sense for this group to submit a list of names, and indeed I get the  
impression that it is almost expected to do so.

The membership criteria for the IGC is not very strict - subscribe to  
the list.  No one tracked how long someone was a member of the list  
and as it is an open list, anyone interested in Internet governance  
can join anytime.

>
> In my experience with nomcoms of all kinds, participants clearly  
> state that
> they are not looking for nomination. Should they as voluntary  
> participants
> suddenly receive great pressure to stand for being nominated, they  
> have to
> immediately resign from the nomcom.

Actually in the formulation we are using, in terms of the IGC  
candidates list, they are disqualified from the moment they are  
selected for the nomcom.  Even quitting the nomcom once selcted would  
not re-qualify them for this year's IGC candidate list.

But, as I and others have said in recent emails, other groups are  
building list of candidates, and we have no standing to make rules on  
how one behaves in regard to other lists, or how another group runs  
its process of selecting proposed candidates.  As I have also  
indicated, it is possible that someone could be suggested to the IGC  
without even being notified that they are being suggested. We in IGC  
cannot control how the rest of CS will decide to behave in this process.

thanks.
a.



>
> Best
> Renata
> ----------------------
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
> [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] De la part de Jeanette  
> Hofmann
> Envoyé : mercredi, 29. mars 2006 05:54
> À : Avri Doria
> Cc : Internet Governance Caucus
> Objet : Re: [governance] igc nomcom and other lists
>
>
>
> Avri Doria wrote:
>> hi,
>>
>> a question came up and i wanted to gather some opinions.
>>
>> -  someone is selected by the IGC nomcom and
>>     hence disqualified for the IGC's candidate list
>> -  but later is recommended by some other group for membership
>>     in the MAG.
>>
>> the questions are:
>>
>> - should that person consider themselves disqualified
>>    for participation in the MAG
>> - if they accepted such a recommendation for the MAG would it either
>>      - discredit the IGC process
>>      - or the individual.
>
> I think I agree with your first reaction. What matters is that the
> nomcom doesn't select itself or am I missing something? We should also
> welcome if caucus members are nominated by other constituencies.
> jeanette
>>
>>    [ to put this as an hypothetical example -
>>       if i were a voting member of the nomcom
>>       would it be wrong if ISOC selected me as a candidate
>>         (note this is hypothetical since i have personally
>>          disqualified myself from any consideration for the MAG
>>          due to my occasional contract with the IGF secretariat
>>          and i have no knowledge about whether the ISOC is
>>          considering its own list.)
>>     ]
>>
>> my first reaction was that the IGC nomcom rules about
>> disqualification would apply only to the IGC's list and should
>> therefore not affect the decisions of any other group.  likewise, the
>> actions of another group should not affect the IGC process and thus
>> it should not discredit our activity.
>>
>> the issue of whether a person's personal reputation would be hurt is
>> another issue and one i find more difficult to answer.  i figure that
>> reputation is most relevant within this group and thus decided that
>> the best indicator would be involve a discussion on this list.  i
>> figure people on this list can offer their opinions, and anyone who
>> finds themselves in this position would have the opinions of this
>> group to guide them in their personal decision.
>>
>> note, further possible complications are that
>>     a. someone could be suggested without their knowledge or explicit
>> permission
>>     b. someone could be selected without a specific recommendation.
>>
>> thanks
>>
>> a.
>>
>> ps. we currently have 15 volunteers, if we don't get at least 10
>> more, the question is moot.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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