"bridge", was Re: VS: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG

[Carlos Afonso]

I think Avri has proposed a draft of a benchmark for an "ideal" non-gov 
portion of the MAG.

The criteria Vittorio invokes go in parallel and are quite hard to 
estimate -- mostly they are self-attributed (you all will remember in 
the beginning the self-glorification pledges some candidates sent to the 
  secretariat). The word "committed" needs a supplement: committed to 
what? To working hard and being honest, for example?

Also, there is a problem of not fitting into any rigid categorization. 
Several good candidates are just members of a single NGO (or business 
association) and this is what they do. Should they be discarded then 
because they fit nicely into a single category?

I think Vittorio is trying (and this is not wrong) to open up space for 
individuals who are not formally attached to any organization to have an 
opportunity to participate. I am sure there are good individuals in this 
capacity who could do an excellent contribution. But this is an 
additional set of criteria, of course, which must be used carefully in 
light of the very small number of non-gov posts available.

Regarding the civil society portion, and in light of what happened in 
the first MAG run, I would stress the importance of the caucus 
coordinating the nominations (do we have, or need to have, a nominating 
committee?). It is the only way to try and ensure a (nor perfectly, of 
course) balanced list of nominees.

We have a nice, big challenge! :)

frt rgds

--c.a.

Vittorio Bertola wrote:
> Avri Doria ha scritto:
>> Part of this issue, if I understand correctly, comes out out of the 
>> the numbers issue.  How many we get versus how many they get.   In 
>> terms of the numbers issue on the MAG, personally I think that of the 
>> 20 places not allocated to government choice, 10 should be people 
>> suggested by private sector players and 10 should be from those 
>> recmmened by civil society players.  I think within each of those 
>> groups there should be people with all sorts of multiple 
>> identifications: as feminist, as youth and elder advocacy, as pro 
>> private sector development, as pro public sector development, as pro 
>> PPP development, as pro government, as anarchist, as advocacy for the 
>> disabled, as South, North, East, and West, pro Foss, pro IPR ...  and 
>> of course members of the internet community and of academia and an 
>> even split between the genders.
> 
> I think that all groups should select people who are honest, are hard 
> working and committed, are willing to listen, know what they are talking 
> about from several standpoints, and have a personal and professional 
> background as broad as possible.
> 
> So the people that the IGF should be looking for are exactly the ones 
> that wouldn't fit into a rigid categorization.

____________________________________________________________
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