[governance] IGC nominees for MAG

[Adam Peake]

>Hi Adam,
>
>Adam Peake wrote:
>
>>  Rotation of a third means a couple of people
>
>So re: Vittorio's question earlier today about whether the 1/3 
>shouldn't be annual retroactively, meaning 2/3 this time, the 
>expectation is that no, it'll only be 1/3 going forward,


Correct, a third going forward.


>presumably because of the specialized skill sets needed to select 
>main session speakers, ascertain that workshop proposals are 
>multistakeholder, etc, which require years of experience to develop? 
>So some people will be on the MAG for a minimum of four years,


Hopefully longer, job for life. Highly skilled, highly paid, highly 
respected :-)


>perhaps more if the rule is that one must volunteer to leave?


There is no rule about volunteering to leave.  A third will rotate 
out (I doubt people will be cut into pieces to make this 
mathematically possible, so the third should be understood to be 
approximate.)


>  Just trying to understand...
>
>>The criteria the IGC NomCom used were originally discussed on the 
>>Internet Governance caucus list and then discussed by the NomCom 
>>before making their selections.
>>
>>The basic criteria established before the first choices were made include:
>>
>>     * Must be active civil society participants
>>     * Should be at least 2 from each of the 5 geographical regions 
>>if possible
>>     * Should attempt to achieve gender balance
>>     * Should include as much diversity as possible; e.g. for skill 
>>and knowledge set, age, disability, etc.
>>     * Should include people who have shown commitment to keeping CS 
>>updated on developments
>>     * Should be people who have shown ability to lobby governments 
>>in order to help achieve CS positions
>
>To these one might add:
>
>*On the first point, active in IG processes per se, preferably in 
>the caucus.  People not active in the caucus seem rather unlikely to 
>feel a responsibilitz to keep the caucus updated on developments, 
>and can and probably will be nominated by other entitites.


OK (noting the caucus does not represent all of civil society, 
shouldn't be too upset if its recommendations are ignored.)


>*Ability and commitment to actually showing up for MAG meetings and 
>participating on the list--empty chairs, physical or virtual, don't 
>do a lot of good, particularly given the underrepresentation.


OK. Hopefully there will be funding for developing nation members, 
but this is only rumor. Doubt there would be any support for civil 
society members from developing countries, but people do participate 
remotely.



>*Never having vocally advocated any positions that might have been 
>perceived to be 'controversial' in some unstated manner by some 
>unnamed group deemded to be more important, since such offenders 
>probably wouldn't be selected even with assurances of role/shape 
>shifting capacities (a CS-specific rule).


That's a bit mean (Parminder, I'm still not irritated... )


>These criteria, if followed, would suggest that we cannot take the 
>path of least resistence and simply resubmit the names previously 
>agreed but that were not selected last time.  So we just need to 
>identify 2-3 new, active, diverse, travel-enabled saints from the 
>IGC.  Piece of cake!


I'm sure we'll manage.

Adam


>Cheers,
>
>Bill

____________________________________________________________
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