[governance] Re: [bestbits] Input needed - criteria for CS Coordination Group
Suresh Ramasubramanian
suresh at hserus.net
Mon Dec 30 16:26:50 EST 2013
Thanks Ian.
Your criterion of previous active involvement of the organization / community in general, rather than one or two specific individuals in a diverse community, is a good pre filter. As is a requirement for consensus building.
You are going to hit an expansion point beyond which the opportunity cost of identifying, reaching out to and integrating new participants is just not worth the incremental gain from bringing them in, or the time spent that could be spent on actual rather than process and membership issues. When you reach that point, and how you pace integrations, is something to ponder.
--srs (iPad)
> On 31-Dec-2013, at 1:15, "Ian Peter" <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks everyone for comments so far and some helpful suggestions.
>
> Parminder,
>
> the initial suggestions and approaches included
>
> IRP Coalition
> Privacy International
> Community Informatics
> ISOC (suggested, not an approach)
> Civicus (suggested, not an approach)
> Giganet (suggested, not an approach)
>
> I might have missed some, but I hope that helps. It is quite likely individual members of the group have been approached and I am unaware of it. But really what we are looking at is the potential for a substantial number of additional approaches, particularly if we start to expand, and a fair way to treat both current and future approaches. We can certainly think of a lot more organisations (present here and not present) who could approach us in time with valid claims, so planning ahead and getting some sensible ground rules and approaches in place is prompting out thoughts.
>
> Ian
>
> From: parminder
> Sent: Monday, December 30, 2013 10:37 PM
> To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Input needed - criteria for CS Coordination Group
>
> BTW, Ian, I had asked you earlier, how many and which networks have applied to be inside the committee, so that we can judge the nature and extent of the problem you are trying to deal with.. I understand that should be public information.
>
> parminder
>
>> On Monday 30 December 2013 10:35 AM, Ian Peter wrote:
>> Sorry to initiate a process discussion but I think it is important we move on on this particular issue.
>>
>>
>>
>> I’m starting this discussion to get wider input into how civil society people think it would be appropriate to expand the current co ordination group. To date, this debate has largely been about people thinking they should be included rather than any formal criteria to ensure that the group is representative while still staying at a reasonable size.
>>
>> The group came into existence out of a need for civil society groups to work together to nominate representatives for various forums; originally for 1net and Brazil events, but certainly with thoughts of IGF MAG as well in the future. Currently included (in no particular order) are the Association for Progressive Communications (APC), Diplo Foundation, Best Bits, the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group of ICANN (NCSG), and (pending new coordinator elections) the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC).
>>
>> Remember, these are criteria for a co-ordination group concerned with internet governance matters. Optimal membership levels may be about 9, I think, but certainly well less than 20.
>>
>>
>>
>> So how do we choose?
>>
>>
>>
>> Criteria discussed so far include:
>>
>>
>>
>> 1. Is a coalition which is globally representative - all regions covered?
>>
>> 2. Is it non-commercial and public interest oriented (as opposed to business)?
>>
>> 3. Would it more properly fit under technical community, academic, business or government in its categorization?
>>
>>
>> 4. Is a large part of this coalition's members already covered by one of the existing members?
>>
>>
>> 5. The internal governance of the coalition is adequately transparent and accountable to its members.
>>
>> Other suggestions have been discussed from time to time and I invite others to make up for any omissions here.
>>
>> An additional criteria that might be useful would be a reference to having a substantial current involvement in and knowledge of internet governance debates. That however might not be acceptable to all – but for me, the criteria as they stand would be open to approaches from YWCA, Medicin sans Frontieres, Pirate Parties International, Red Cross, Amnesty International, CONGO, Creative Commons, International Commission of Jurists,etc. All good groups, and it would be great to see them involved here, but the question is whether the presence of all of them would be useful for a small working co-ordination group on matters specific to internet governance. This along with other suggestions should be discussed.
>>
>>
>> Interested in any thoughts relevant to refining this into a workable set of criteria for expanding a small co-ordination group, the members of which will be different coalitions of civil society organisations who will want to maintain their independence while working together. One thought that has been raised is to look at rotation of members, or perhaps a combination of permanent and rotating members.
>>
>>
>> So I am just opening this up for conversation to see what people think. Please this is a discussion about criteria, not about individual groups and their cases to be involved.
>>
>>
>> Ian Peter
>>
>>
>>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20131231/01ae459b/attachment.htm>
-------------- 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