[governance] nomcom's creteria - was multistakeholding - resend

[Ian Peter]

Avri wrote

>I also believe that a bit of process and procedure review after each nomcom
>is done, reported on and sent on, is also a good idea and is not a matter
>of censure but of process self-evaluation and improvement.


Yes, and I never felt this was censure, although I thought it was
occasionally very silly and tedious on both sides of the argument( the
future human rights of Japanese NGOs and Microsoft representing civil
society come to mind)

But I would add to your observation that unless some action is taken this
discussion will be forgotten and more than likely unknown to the next
Nomcom. That's the point McTim keeps making - and I would suggest that the
easiest way forward is putting in place an independent Chair now to take
some responsibility here and work with anyone interested to review all of
this. If it is left to the last moment like last time, and we trust the
random process to come up with 5 names who are fully into the process
history, the multiple obscure forgotten websites, and the email archives of
this list, and have nothing else to do for a few weeks, perhaps it will be
just fine. I doubt it.



Ian Peter
Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd
PO Box 10670 Adelaide St  Brisbane 4000
Australia
Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773
www.ianpeter.com
www.internetmark2.org
www.nethistory.info
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com]
> Sent: 08 June 2008 06:45
> To: Governance Caucus
> Subject: Re: [governance] nomcom's creteria - was multistakeholding -
> resend
> 
> Hi,
> 
> (last was accidentally sent before i finished)
> 
> Many of these things are mentioned in the nomcom procedures which are
> on the web site (http://www.igcaucus.org/nomcom-process.html which is
> called out in the charter), except for the issues of employees from
> particular sorts of employers and a discussion of ways to improve
> regional representation.
> 
> For the most part dealing with specific issues was expected to be
> dealt with by the nomcom in consultation with the caucus.  I.e the
> rule about:
> 
> 5. Criteria used by nomcom will be made public and will be reviewed by
> the caucus whenever possible before decisions are made
> 
> This was meant to allow some flexibiity - assuming the criteria would
> vary on they type of position the Nomcom was working on: e.g. Nomcoms
> fill both MAG candidate lists and appeals teams and the criteria might
> vary between them.
> 
> Perhaps the explanations are not clear enough (or maybe obviously they
> are not clear enough), but i am not sure they can be for everyone.  In
> another context I have dealt with rules for a nomcom that have
> undergone revision several times and each time, even after a year or
> more of discussing them in detail, a new gap is found after they are
> used.  It is my belief that  for a nomcom to work, there needs to be a
> minimal set of rules which are followed, a set of traditions that
> guide each new nomcom (hence the need for a chair who has done it
> before) and a report that future nomcoms can read for further
> guidance.  Oh yeah, and a fair amount of good will and flexibilty.
> 
> I also believe that a bit of process and procedure review after each
> nomcom is done, reported on and sent on, is also a good idea and is
> not a matter of censure but of process self-evaluation and improvement.
> 
> a.
> 
> 
> 
> On 7 Jun 2008, at 16:06, Ian Peter wrote:
> 
> > In case it has been forgotten in the discussion, I would like to draw
> > everyone's attention what the NomCom recommended on the matters we
> > have been
> > discussing here for the last month. Here is what we wrote in the
> > report -
> > and I do suggest that now the report should be both accepted and
> > acted on.
> >
> > BEGIN QUOTE
> >
> > There is much that can be learnt from this years NomCom process, and a
> > number of issues arose which require further discussion and
> > clarification.
> > As in many areas of CS operations, the procedures are new, untested,
> > and not
> > well communicated. We do not hold great hopes that this situation
> > will be
> > improved greatly within a year unless some specific action is taken.
> >
> > There are a number of matters in this report for the IGC list to
> > consider.
> > We cannot see this happening without someone taking responsibility to
> > address these issues well in advance of any future NomCom work.
> >
> > Therefore our principal recommendation is that an independent Chair -
> > either
> > voting or non-voting - be appointed now, and charged with a review in
> > association with the Internet Governance Caucus of all processes
> > associated
> > with future NomComs. The matters which we believe need review,
> > clarification, or further discussion, so that a next NomCom has a
> > smoother
> > operation, include
> >
> > .	Clarification and weighting of selection criteria
> > .	Clarification of IG Caucus position on publication of candidates
> > details
> > .	Clarification of IG Caucus position on candidates who are paid
> > employees of internet governance organisations
> > .	An examination of ways to ensure regional representation or input on
> > NomComs
> > .	Clear publication on the Caucus website of a list of procedures for
> > future NomComs.
> >
> > If these matters are left until a month or so before the next NomCom
> > is
> > appointed, they will not be adequately discussed or resolved.
> >
> > END QUOTE
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Ian Peter
> > Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd
> > PO Box 10670 Adelaide St  Brisbane 4000
> > Australia
> > Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773
> > www.ianpeter.com
> > www.internetmark2.org
> > www.nethistory.info
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Michael Gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com]
> >> Sent: 08 June 2008 12:38
> >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Parminder'
> >> Subject: RE: [governance] nomcom's creteria - was multistakeholding
> >>
> >>
> >> Parminder and all,
> >>
> >> Just to clarify, my intent with my "motion" was not to "censure" the
> >> NomCom
> >> rather it was to bring to an end what seemed to be a fractitious
> >> discussion
> >> that appeared to have no easy resolution and moreover one which (to
> >> my
> >> mind
> >> at least) was as much based on inter/personal issues as it was on
> >> principle.
> >>
> >> I could see no immediate resolution to the debate which to my mind
> >> was
> >> becoming increasingly repetitious, personal and obscurantist
> >> (requiring
> >> for
> >> participation IMHO way more time and attention on my part (at
> >> least) than
> >> I
> >> consider to be its inherent value...
> >>
> >> As in a f2f meeting when such discussions occur the usual practice
> >> for
> >> resolving (apart from several members storming out in a huff) is to
> >> call
> >> for
> >> the question and move on... Hoping that cooler heads would prevail
> >> in the
> >> clear light of dawn... Which was my sincere intent here.
> >>
> >> MG
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net]
> >> Sent: June 6, 2008 11:12 PM
> >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> >> Subject: [governance] nomcom's creteria - was multistakeholding
> >>
> >>
> >>>>> if not I move that we move on and that there be no further
> >>>>> discussion on the MAG nominations along with a simple declaration
> >>>>> that the next NomCom undertake to only make substantive decisions
> >>>>> concerning
> >>>>> the criteria for selection after broad consultation with the
> >>>>> group.
> >>>> i can certainly support this statement.
> >>>
> >>> I second the motion.  Learn from the experience, agree that future
> >>> nomcoms should consult on procedural matters and charter compliance,
> >>> and move on.
> >>
> >> I could have given my views on this statement if I knew what it
> >> meant.
> >>
> >> (I recognize that most members just want to close this discussion and
> >> thats
> >> why this statement is proposed by some, but I think we would not be
> >> doing
> >> the group and its processes any good by adopting it, and rather be
> >> harming
> >> it, for reasons stated below)
> >>
> >> The intent of this statement is already there in the nomcom
> >> guidelines.
> >> Re-asserting it, especially on the top of a proposal for charter
> >> amendment
> >> proposed by someone who spoke of 'shame on the nomcom', looks to me a
> >> clear
> >> censure of the nomcon, and I want to be clear about what are we
> >> censuring.
> >>
> >> I also have to especially do so because the chair of the nomcon
> >> said in an
> >> email sometime back that he is not going to respond on the behalf
> >> of the
> >> nomcom anymore on this issue.
> >>
> >> Yes, the earlier nomcom gave out some criteria before the process
> >> which
> >> this
> >> nomcom did not. This could have been done and that is accepted.
> >> However,
> >> this is the not the reason behind the above censure. Also this
> >> nomcom did
> >> follow all criteria that were 'laid down' by the earlier nomcom.
> >>
> >> There are always some implied criteria - for instance as were implied
> >> within
> >> the previous nomcom's stated criterion that the nominated person
> >> should be
> >> civil society - that nomcoms use without coming to the group every
> >> time. I
> >> am quite sure that any nomcom will have rejected the chief of telecom
> >> division in Indian government, and the google's chief of public
> >> policy,
> >> without going to the bigger group. (or we not far from the
> >> situation when
> >> Nitin will announce during the opening ceremony of an IGF that 'next,
> >> Microsoft's chief of strategic partnerships will speak on the
> >> behalf of
> >> civil society'.)
> >>
> >> Still, on issue of persons centrally associated with Internet
> >> governance
> >> institutions (IGIs) the nomcom had the clearest advice from the IGC
> >> as
> >> could
> >> ever happen, coming from a consensual statement adopted only a few
> >> weeks
> >> back, after a very detailed discussion. (Remember when we call for
> >> consulting with the group, unless we really go for consensus
> >> process on
> >> each
> >> and every referral we are only speaking of a general discussion and
> >> the
> >> group picking up the sense of the group).
> >>
> >>
> >> When the group agreed that -- " .	Civil society has been under
> >> represented in the multi-stakeholder advisory groups appointed in
> >> 2006 and
> >> 2007, this anomaly should be corrected in this round of
> >> rotation"... it
> >> was
> >> clear that we were not including MAG members closely associated
> >> with IGIs
> >> in
> >> describing our under-representation.
> >>
> >> And if further clarification was at all needed, it is provided most
> >> clearly
> >> by the statement
> >>
> >> "We agree that the organizations having an important role in Internet
> >> administration and the development of Internet-related technical
> >> standards
> >> should continue to be represented in the MAG. However, their
> >> representation
> >> should not be at the expense of civil society participation".
> >>
> >> What clearer advice can a nomcom get from the IGC that people
> >> centrally
> >> associated with IGIs are not supposed to be considered in IGC's
> >> slate of
> >> CS
> >> nominees for the MAG. Can we be asking UN SG to not represent IGIs
> >> at the
> >> expense of CS participation, and ourselves forwarding IGI rep names
> >> on our
> >> CS slate of nominees.... that would be ludicrous.
> >>
> >> What gratefulness are we showing to this nomcom, and what message
> >> are we
> >> giving to the future ones, by chastising it for doing what the group
> >> clearly
> >> meant it to do... In light of above, I cant support this statement.
> >>
> >> We are asking for nomcoms to always clearly clarify its criteria
> >> with IGC,
> >> when many of us mostly run away from clarifying the main issue that
> >> comes
> >> up. Can those closely associated with IGIs be considered CS for IGC's
> >> purposes? So, either we leave things as they are, or give group's
> >> clear
> >> views (if we feel the need to amend those given in Feb) on the above
> >> specific point. There is no use in shadow boxing. While the
> >> ostensible
> >> intent of the above statement that is proposed to be adopted is to
> >> give
> >> some
> >> clarity, it does nothing other than add a great amount of further
> >> obfuscation on the issue.
> >>
> >> So if anything is to be done at all lets no more avoid the real
> >> issue -
> >> and
> >> it will come up very soon again for selecting IGF speaking. So
> >> instead of
> >> chastising a nomcom for not seeking the groups direction on the
> >> only issue
> >> that we know is relevant in the present situation - why don't we
> >> just give
> >> the 'groups directions' on this issue for future nomcoms (this is
> >> only for
> >> those who think such 'directions' are not clear in our Feb
> >> statement).
> >>
> >> I must also mention that McTim etc closely participated in the
> >> drafting of
> >> feb statement. It amuses me no end that the same people who will
> >> argue
> >> strongly for having IGIs as a clear separate stakeholder group at
> >> one time
> >> (feb statement), will at other time fight to get them also
> >> nominated from
> >> the CS group....  I really will like to see some sense put into all
> >> this.
> >>
> >>
> >> Parminder
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ____________________________________________________________
> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
> >> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >>    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >>
> >> For all list information and functions, see:
> >>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> >>
> >> ____________________________________________________________
> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
> >> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >>    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >>
> >> For all list information and functions, see:
> >>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> >> No virus found in this incoming message.
> >> Checked by AVG.
> >> Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 270.0.0/1489 - Release Date:
> >> 6/7/2008
> >> 11:17 AM
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >    governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >
> > For all list information and functions, see:
> >    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> >
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG.
> Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 270.0.0/1489 - Release Date: 6/7/2008
> 11:17 AM

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance