[governance] nomcom's creteria - was multistakeholding - resend
Suresh Ramasubramanian
suresh at hserus.net
Sun Jun 8 08:16:56 EDT 2008
The charter amendment McTim proposed is entirely within the letter and
spirit of the charter, and in fact is simply a clarification of what the
charter already provides for
Additionally, I agree with Avri's previous email and her suggestions for a
way forward
Avri wrote:
> Yes, but as you are the coordinator responsible for the caucus following
> its rules, I thought that was the most salient point in your message.
> - have a non voting chair (#3) responsible for following the rules.
> - publish criteria to be used before using the criteria (#5)
> As I understand the 'motion' for ending this amicably was that we would
> do our best to follow our rules in the future. Though I guess if we
> cannot say that, then perhaps McTim does have enough support to call for
> a vote on amending the chartered nomcom rules.
I would simply call it a fallback mechanism to ensure that the nomcom and
nonvoting chair keep to the letter and spirit of the charter, whatever their
political views.
thanks
suresh
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net]
> Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2008 5:08 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Ian Peter'; 'Avri Doria'
> Subject: RE: [governance] nomcom's creteria - was multistakeholding -
> resend
>
>
> Ian
>
> > 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)
>
> You may know that there is a charter amendment proposed by Mctim, and
> supported by a few others that "No disqualification can be made based
> upon
> the type of employment undertaken by members", when noncoms choose IGC
> reps.
>
> Is it possible/ right not to discuss the implications of such an
> amendment,
> and the situation it may put the next nomcom into???
>
> During discussions around this proposal etc examples of gov employees
> and
> those with private sector companies with sufficient 'policy weight'
> were
> obviously discussed, as the issue becomes relevant in the above context.
> And
> many proposers of the amendments seemed to be of the view that it is
> fine to
> nominate even such persons as long as they had some undefined CS
> credentials.
>
> So, if I give Microsoft or google's example to characterize what such
> amendment can mean, I really don't see how it is silly, and I really do
> hope
> such characterizations for other people's email is used with discretion,
> if
> at all.
>
> As for tediousness, I came into these discussions only when it was
> absolutely necessary... there were people discussing a charter
> amendment,
> others proposing adopting a resolution (status of which I was not clear)
> and
> I only sent a few emails that I found absolutely necessary. And, before
> that, I went through the entire record of our discussions in Feb on the
> issue, and then the discussions before nomcom started to work. So, yes
> it is
> tedious, and I too have a good amount of other important work to do as
> well.
>
>
>
> Parminder
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com]
> > Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2008 3:04 AM
> > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Avri Doria'
> > Subject: RE: [governance] nomcom's creteria - was multistakeholding -
> > resend
> >
> > 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
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
More information about the Governance
mailing list