[governance] Re: proposal re committee selection
Jeanette Hofmann
jeanette at wzb.eu
Wed Dec 11 02:43:42 EST 2013
Hi Marília,
One could add a nomcom I suppose. Although it would probabl double the
amount of people to be involved in the selection of candidates.
In any case, my point would be to take these conversations off the list
and to make the trust for our representatives last a bit longer.
jeanette
Am 11.12.13 02:23, schrieb Marilia Maciel:
> Thanks for this, Jeanette. That sounds like a very interesting idea. It
> increases the predictability of the process and diminishes recurrent
> tensions in the moment of choosing CS representatives. It also helps in
> the process of achieving regional and gender balance.
>
> My only suggestion would be that, instead of leaving people who are part
> of the pool "insulated" to make this choice, a NomCom could be appointed
> to select from the poll, based of thematic affinity, experience, gender
> and regional diversity, etc. And the person who is being considered
> could say if he or she would accept that particular position or not,
> although the idea of "best before" that you mentioned already indicates
> the members of the pool are willing to serve. I liked the work of this
> diverse NomCom that was just put in place, with IGC, BB, APC, etc,
> working together. Maybe a NomCom with a broader scope could be created.
>
> It is possible this particular proposal would not work for ongoing
> discussions of representatives, but it is an idea to discuss, refine and
> consider for the next selection processes in my opinion.
>
> Marília
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 3:05 PM, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu
> <mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu>> wrote:
>
>
> There seems to be a flooding of committees at the moment, and we
> have no way of knowing how important each of them will be. Moreover,
> we have no way of knowing what specific stances the people we are
> considered as representatives will take up on the issues addressed.
> Still it seems we make a lot of a fuss on procedures for nominating
> them.
>
> Here is a practical proposal for simplifying the process and
> creating more room for substantive discussion:
>
> Lets create a balanced pool of people who enjoy respect and trust on
> the various lists, balanced in terms of gender and region. With such
> a pool of people in place, we can leave the question of who
> participates in what venue, or more precisely, who is proposed to
> join a given committee, to that very pool of people. The price the
> people have to pay for being among these talented few is going again
> and again through the torture of selecting the best candidates for
> each individual job.
>
> Each request for cs representation would be forwarded to this pool.
> The pool would be given a "best before" time stamp of, say, 18 or 24
> months.
>
> jeanette
>
> Am 10.12.13 17:32, schrieb Marilia Maciel:
>
> I'm sorry, but to me this discussion does not reflect fundamental
> divergence of views with any of the names - Bill, Milton or
> Anriette -
> and it is certainly not about lack of trust. The underpinning reason
> here is not a disagreement among CS people, it is a disagreement
> with
> how the HL panel matter has been conducted.
>
> Do we need one HL panel? Many ppl think we dont, yet we have it.
> Since
> we have it, do we have space for CS? No, there is an appalling
> lack of
> CS representation. "Then give us names", they said. And we
> engaged in a
> process to do it, because we want to be constructive and to
> participate.
> Just to see that effort being disregarded without any convincing
> explanation. To my knowledge, we will not have any
> representative there
> to convey any substantial message that we wish to convey. Bill is
> invited as expert. What bothers me is the feeling that CS - and all
> organizations that participated in the NonCom process - were
> made fool
> in a way. If they wanted experts, not CS representatives, why not be
> clear about it? Sometimes a blunt no is better than a
> unfulfilled yes.
>
> With that I am not saying that I do not agree with Jeanette and
> George.
> I think we are missing the point of the most important thing, the
> substance. Then, let's unbury Andrew's thread about substance,
> answer
> the survey (deadline today) and move on with concrete stuff, as
> soon as
> we have this compilation/mapping of replies back. But this present
> thread is about "HL and CS reps". So I think it is
> understandable that
> we are talking about process. Process is all we have to talk about
> without knowing not even what the agenda is, and without having
> an idea
> of how to contribute.
>
> Anyway, reinforcing previous suggestions to communicate
> concerns, I rest
> my case about this.
>
> Marília
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 1:58 PM, George Sadowsky
> <george.sadowsky at gmail.com <mailto:george.sadowsky at gmail.com>
> <mailto:george.sadowsky at gmail.__com
> <mailto:george.sadowsky at gmail.com>>> wrote:
>
> I strongly share Jeanette's opinion.
>
> Representatives of civil society causes (RCSC) (that
> characterization typifies many of the people on the list, I
> think)
> have both positive messages and concerns. The positive
> messages are
> those that many of us automatically subscribe to when they are
> expressed at the highest level, such as 'freedom of expression.
> These are positive messages.
>
> The concerns come because such desired states are often
> weakened by
> others, typically by governments but also by certain trends
> in other
> sectors. Hence the need, often expressed by RCSCs to be
> 'at the
> table' with other sectors, comes from the possibility that
> these
> positions will be eroded, consciously or unconsciously, by
> other
> sectors. The desire to be included is a quite understandable
> reaction to that possibility.
>
> But what I don't understand is the intense internal process and
> disputes regarding who gets to represent a group that appears
> homogeneous at the top level. Is the homogeneity
> superficial? If
> so, it would be more useful to explore and understand the
> differences within the RCSC. Is the dispute based upon
> ideological
> purity of the process for selection? That seems
> counterproductive
> and generally a waste of time to me. Is the dispute based
> upon lack
> of trust among group members? Are there other reasons. Is the
> representation process an end in itself, regardless of its
> effect
> upon pursuing other CS goals. If so, then perhaps this
> should be
> reconstituted as a political science theory group.
>
> It seems to me that rather than spending so much time
> discussing and
> debating representation issues, it would be more useful to
> discuss
> why representation issues are so important, often IMO to the
> detriment of working on real civil society issues.
>
> I'm with Jeanette. Concentrate upon issues, and that means
> areas of
> agreement and disagreement with other sectors as well as
> within the
> RCSC community. Disputes about representation seem
> unproductive,
> unless they imply unaddressed issues within the community.
> If so,
> it surely seems more productive to address them directly
> rather than
> through this proxy dispute based on representation.
>
> George
>
>
> On Dec 10, 2013, at 10:29 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>
> > I fully agree with Rafik's concern. In fact, both the
> IGC and the
> > bestbits list seem to have become rather obsessed with
> filling
> positions
> > on various committtees.
> >
> > In another message from last week that probably got lost
> or still
> awaits
> > the moderator's approvement, I noticed a growing madness
> about
> committee
> > positions and other appointments which is more or less
> pushing aside
> > the debate over issues and opinions.
> >
> > Besides, I also think that a distinction should be made
> between
> > appointed experts and stakeholder representatives.
> Generally, I
> wished
> > we paid less attention to the issue of representatives and
> focused more
> > on the message we want to convey.
> >
> > jeanette
> >
> > Am 10.12.13 14:49, schrieb Rafik Dammak:
> >> Hello,dfasfd
> >>
> >> I am wondering if we are not giving too much weight to
> HLM than it
> >> should be and doing for it a free promotion!
> honestly, I was
> not in
> >> favour of the ICANN strategic panels since they are not
> bottom-up,
> >> formed by handpicked members and bypassing the usual
> process. I
> found
> >> now that we want badly to be in that high level panel
> and making it
> >> relevant and maybe even giving it a big role for Brazil
> meeting!
> hope
> >> that we wont regret such decision later.
> >>
> >> we can ask for giving inputs, openness etc but that will be
> definitely
> >> depending to the will ICANN/WEF/Anneberg Foundation and
> there
> won't be
> >> any guarantee on how they process the inputs or how it
> will be
> included
> >> in their deliverable. everything is ad-hoc there and any
> decision will
> >> depend to the will of the organisers. why shall we
> encourage
> such process?
> >>
> >> Back to the previous discussion, Bill was invited as
> expert and
> the name
> >> of panel is not "an expert group" , I don't see the
> confusion here.
> >>
> >> Rafik
> >>
> >>
> >> 2013/12/10 Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com
> <mailto:mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
> <mailto:mariliamaciel at gmail.__com
> <mailto:mariliamaciel at gmail.com>>
> >> <mailto:mariliamaciel at gmail.__com
> <mailto:mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
> <mailto:mariliamaciel at gmail.__com
> <mailto:mariliamaciel at gmail.com>>>>
> >>
> >> Milton is right about the (lack of) process. On the
> one hand,
> it is
> >> positive that we have someone we trust there. On the
> other
> hand, it
> >> does seem that they are including who they want and
> how they
> want,
> >> totally disregarding the serious process we have been
> conducting to
> >> appoint names.
> >>
> >> I think that a letter signed by all organizations that
> participated
> >> in the nomination process should be sent to ICANN
> and ideally
> read
> >> during the meeting, expressing our frustration and
> adding some
> >> concrete suggestions. I come back to the points I
> made earlier:
> >> - the agenda of the HL panel meetings should be
> publicized in
> advance
> >> - channels to receive inputs (procedural or substantive)
> should be
> >> created or clarified
> >> - their meetings should be open to observers (like the
> meetings of
> >> the CSTD ECWG)
> >> - Reports of the meetings should be published. They
> could follow
> >> Chatam House rules
> >> And
> >> - CS representatives (names), who were appointed
> following an
> >> internal and legitimate process carried out by CS,
> should be
> >> immediately included in the HL panel to ensure
> minimum CS
> >> representation.
> >>
> >> Marília
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 8:35 AM, Norbert Bollow
> <nb at bollow.ch <mailto:nb at bollow.ch>
> <mailto:nb at bollow.ch <mailto:nb at bollow.ch>>
> >> <mailto:nb at bollow.ch <mailto:nb at bollow.ch>
> <mailto:nb at bollow.ch <mailto:nb at bollow.ch>>>> wrote:
> >>
> >> Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu
> <mailto:mueller at syr.edu>
> <mailto:mueller at syr.edu <mailto:mueller at syr.edu>>
> <mailto:mueller at syr.edu <mailto:mueller at syr.edu>
> <mailto:mueller at syr.edu <mailto:mueller at syr.edu>>>> wrote:
> >>
> >> > The distinction between Bill's appointment as an
> expert and
> >> the CS
> >> > groups' nomination of people to be on the
> committee is
> not so
> >> clear
> >> > to me, and we cannot assume that it is clear
> to Fadi,
> especially
> >> > since the London meeting of the group starts
> in two days.
> >> Either one
> >> > could be seen as Fadi making a concession to CS
> demands to be
> >> > included in the HLLM, and he may consider one
> to be a
> >> substitute for
> >> > the other. At this stage, I would assume that if
> there is no
> >> > appointment of another CS rep to the HL Panel
> by now, that
> >> there will
> >> > not be one at all, and Bill is all we will be
> given.
> The fact
> >> that
> >> > Bill's appointment came from a random F2F hallway
> meeting isn't
> >> > something that inspires confidence, is it?
> >>
> >> +1
> >>
> >> Especially given that there was in fact a
> coordinated
> civil society
> >> process through which names have been put forward.
> >>
> >> Greetings,
> >> Norbert
> >>
> >>
> ______________________________________________________________
> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the
> list:
> >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
> <mailto:bestbits at lists.__bestbits.net
> <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>
> <mailto:bestbits at lists.__bestbits.net
> <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
> <mailto:bestbits at lists.__bestbits.net
> <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>>.
> >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
> >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/__info/bestbits
> <http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> *Marília Maciel*
> >> Pesquisadora Gestora
> >> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio
> >>
> >> Researcher and Coordinator
> >> Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School
> >> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts
> >>
> >> DiploFoundation associate
> >> www.diplomacy.edu <http://www.diplomacy.edu>
> <http://www.diplomacy.edu>
> <http://www.diplomacy.edu>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> ______________________________________________________________
> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
> <mailto:bestbits at lists.__bestbits.net
> <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>
> <mailto:bestbits at lists.__bestbits.net
> <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
> <mailto:bestbits at lists.__bestbits.net
> <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>>.
> >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
> >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/__info/bestbits
> <http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> ______________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
> <mailto:governance at lists.__igcaucus.org
> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>
> > To be removed from the list, visit:
> > http://www.igcaucus.org/__unsubscribing
> <http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing>
> >
> > For all other list information and functions, see:
> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/__info/governance
> <http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance>
> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> > http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >
> > Translate this email:
> http://translate.google.com/__translate_t
> <http://translate.google.com/translate_t>
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
> <mailto:governance at lists.__igcaucus.org
> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>
> To be removed from the list, visit:
> http://www.igcaucus.org/__unsubscribing
> <http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing>
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
> http://lists.igcaucus.org/__info/governance
> <http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance>
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email:
> http://translate.google.com/__translate_t
> <http://translate.google.com/translate_t>
>
>
>
>
> --
> *Marília Maciel*
> Pesquisadora Gestora
> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio
>
> Researcher and Coordinator
> Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School
> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts
>
> DiploFoundation associate
> www.diplomacy.edu <http://www.diplomacy.edu>
> <http://www.diplomacy.edu>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> *Marília Maciel*
> Pesquisadora Gestora
> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio
>
> Researcher and Coordinator
> Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School
> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts
>
> DiploFoundation associate
> www.diplomacy.edu <http://www.diplomacy.edu>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
For all other list information and functions, see:
http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
http://www.igcaucus.org/
Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
More information about the Governance
mailing list