[governance] Civic Society Membership on MAG -Toward a Joint-Board

[Ian Peter]

On the nominations question below – I think it has to be one or the other of the Nomcom processes, and that decision is for the Coordinator(s) (subject of course to normal appeal processes if there is support to activate these)



From: Thomas Lowenhaupt 
Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 7:19 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Norbert Bollow 
Cc: Avri Doria 
Subject: Re: [governance] Civic Society Membership on MAG -Toward a Joint-Board

Norbert,

I agree that the joint-board concept is not appropriate for now. Considering the timing - 14 days, it is massively impractical. 

That leaves these options:

1. Create a new NomCom.

2. Refurbish the old NomCom.

3. Use the normal "list consensus" process (see Avri below)

4. Do nothing.

5. An as yet unspecified option.

Best,

Tom Lowenhaupt





On 1/7/2013 2:45 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote:

In any case, if there is going to be a list of nominees from the IGC
for this round of MAG appointments, according to our present charter
and also for practical reasons of shortness of time it will need to be
done by a nomcom (for which at least the process is well-understood)
rather than by some "joint-board" process (which even if everyone
wanted it would still need to be defined precisely, and at least I
would be very reluctant to endorse the idea before having specific
information on how it would work).

Greetings,
Norbert

Avri Doria mailto:avri at acm.org wrote:

On 7 Jan 2013, at 12:15, Thomas Lowenhaupt wrote:

Is there a mechanism for endorsing another list or lists of
nominees? And what about starting on that joint-board?
Well.

While the charter <http://igcaucus.org/charter> says:

"
All nominations to external bodies, e.g., the IGF multistakholder
advisory group, will be made using a randomly selected nomcom process
as defined here. "

and while the process for how a proper nomcom is done is also defined
in <http://igcaucus.org/nomcom-process>

One can question whether endorsing a list produced by some other
means is a Nomination to the IGF MAG.

If it is isn't then I would think the normal list consensus process
would be within charter.

On the joint-board issue, that is an interesting idea and worth
discussing with the participants of other Civil society
recommendation producers.  I think that originally the IGC tried to
be that aggregator, but I agree, it is obviously no longer is, if it
ever was.  


cheers
avri






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________________
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/20130108/c82ee87b/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