[governance] CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation : Update

Thu Mar 14 06:12:05 EDT 2013

Thanks for this Anriette and I'm wondering when we can expect a similar
exposition of procedures from the focal point for the Technical and Academic
(T/A) stakeholder group?

I'm also declaring an interest here in that I submitted my name for possible
nomination through the T/A group.  By explanation, while I have been active
within the CS component of both the IGF and the WSIS processes, my "day
job"/professional activities are within the area of Community Informatics
(and previously Information Systems) and specifically I have been concerned
as an academic and researcher/practitioner with extending the benefits of
Internet access and use to the widest range of potential users -- in
marginalized areas of Canada, among Indigenous Peoples and within LDC's.

On that basis it was my feeling and those of my Community Informatics
colleagues that my most appropriate designation in areas concerned with such
matters as "Enhanced Cooperation" should be through my professional and
academic knowledge and experience rather than through my normative positions
as would be the case in seeking nomination through the Civil Society
stakeholder group.

I have thus submitted my name as above to the T/A group. However, I
understand that I have not been recommended for this role by them, not
because of a lack of qualification but rather because it was felt that I
didn't fall within the defining "criteria" of the T/A group which initially
was presented as 
- Gender and geographic balance
- Familiarity with the WSIS process
- Ability to travel (no funding available)
- Willingness and ability to dedicate some time to the working group
- Representing the technical and academic communities

Having indicated how I could be deemed suitable under each of the above
categories I was then told that I did not meet the criteria of "having
contributed to the building of the Internet".  

Some 20+ of my colleagues including computer scientists, International
officials, academics, researchers most from LDC's provided written
confirmation and support from the 1500 members of the Community Informatics
Research Networks, indicated how in their opinion I had in fact, through my
some 20 years of work making the Internet accessible and usable by the
widest range of possible users, "contributed to building the Internet" (if
we understand the Internet to include the "users" as well as the "wires").

At that point the criteria was further redefined as an "interpretation
(where) the technical and academic community includes individuals who have
technically built the Internet".

Subject of course to correction, my understanding is that there is no such
formal available definition of the composition of the T/A stakeholder
group. 

I fully recognize that the selection of the composition of the CSTD WG on
Enhanced Cooperation is at the complete discretion of the Chair, in
consultation with others within the CSTD and associated UN officials (as I'm
presuming also is the formal definition of the composition of the T/A
stakeholder group).

However, I would ask the CSTD Chair and others to recognize that in the
current state of relative maturity of the Internet perhaps recognition
should be given to the constituent element and contribution that end users
contribute to "building the Internet"; the very great significance that the
Internet has in the daily lives of all and the penalties imposed on those
unable to access and use the Internet; and thus to give formal recognition
to the participation of that element of the academic and research community
concerned with building the Internet by and with end users and end uses as
part of the T/A stakeholder group in matters so clearly impacting on the
future provision of the Internet as a public good for all.

Sincerely,

M

Michael Gurstein, Ph.D.
Executive Director: Centre for Community Informatics Research, Development
and Training (CCIRDT)
Vancouver, BC CANADA

Adjunct Professor: School of Library, Archival and Information Studies
University of British Columbia

Editor in Chief: Journal of Community Informatics
web: http://ci-journal.net

Research Fellow: Institute of Advanced Systems
Russian Academy of Sciences

Honorary Fellow: Institute of Social Informatics and Technological
Innovations
University of Malaysia, Kuching

Focal point: BRICS Research Collaborative on Digital Inclusion -- (Brazil,
China, India, Russia, South Africa)

Lead Consultant: Community Informatics and Policy Development: NEPAD/African
Union

tel/fax: +1-604-602-0624
email: gurstein at gmail.com
web: http://communityinformatics.net
blog: http://gurstein.wordpress.com
twitter: #michaelgurstein 

-----Original Message-----
From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
[mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Anriette
Esterhuysen
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 8:53 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: [governance] CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation : Update

Dear all

*Update from the CS focal point for the convening of the CSTD WG on Enhanced
Cooperation*

*Background*
I was asked by the chair of the CSTD (Ambassador Miguel Julian Palomino de
la Gala from Peru) to be the focal point for selecting civil society
participants. My task was to come up with 3 names from developing countries,
and 3 from developed countries/ From these 6 names the final
5 would be selected by Ambassador de la Gala.

To help me with this task, and to make it more inclusive I approached 7
individuals that are active in internet-related civil society spaces and/or
organisations. We were not meant to be the perfect group or a formal
'nomcom'. Nevertheless they are all individuals that I personally trust and
respect and whom believe are trusted by those in civil society that know
them and that have worked with them.

I tried to make the group regionally diverse by having one person each from
Asia, Africa, Europe, North America and South America. In recognition of the
IGC's role in our sector, and and because both of them are such committed
facilitators of civil society participation, I invited two past Internet
Governance Caucus (IGC) coordinators.

The composition of the selection group was as follows:

Nnenna Nwakanma, FOSSFA - Africa
Anja Kovacs, Internet Democracy - Asia
Robin Gross, IP Justice - North America
Fatima Cambronero,  AGEIA DENSI - Latin America Wolf Ludwig,
Communica-CH/EuroDIG - Europe Ginger Paque - past-IGC coordinator Ian Peter
- past-IGC coordinator Anriette Esterhuysen, APC - CSTD appointed civil
society focal point and convenor of the group.

I was assisted by my colleague Emilar Vushe as I was travelling for much of
the period that we had to do our work.

To avoid conflict of interest I deliberately did not invite anyone from APC
(members or staff) to be on the selection group. I also withdrew from the
internal APC process of selection of nominees, and, as a further measure to
prevent conflict of interest and to create opportunities for others, I
decided not to make myself available for nomination for the group. I had
served on the previous CSTD Working Group on IGF Improvements and felt it
was good to give others a chance.

*Nominees*
To make the call as wide as possible, within the extremely short timeframe I
posted to the several lists and encouraged people to spread the call. In the
text of my message I encouraged people from outside the narrow internet
governance community to participate. We received 20 nominations. One
withdrew, leaving us with 19 to review. I am happy to disclose the names of
all the nominees but I want to check with them first in case they have any
objection to this.

*'Endorsed' or pre-selected nominations* Some nominations were submitted by
the and some by civil society networks or organisations. Some of the
nominations were also 'endorsed'
or supported by other individuals or organisations.

To recognise the effort that has gone into these pre-selection processes and
endorsements I pre-assigned a score of 1 to these candidates. I felt that
any higher number would not be fair, as it was not mentioned as a
requirement in the call for nominations.

*Scoring process*
Scoring was done using a score sheet with criteria based on my understanding
of what will be involved in the work of the working group.
The selection group assigned a score of 1 to 5 to each candidate against
each of the criteria with the lowest score being 1 and the highest 5.
The selection group was encouraged, to be as fair as possible, to score
candidates on the basis of the information in their nomination forms.

The criteria were as follows:

   * Experience and expertise in public-interest oriented policy processes.

   * Experience and expertise in EC in relation to WSIS and IG

   * Ablity and commitment to put in the work and travel

   * Ability to work collaboratively and confidently in multi-stakeholder
     processes that involves both consensus building and dealing with
     conflicting interests.

*Shortlist*
Based on the initial scoring I compiled a short list of 12 people. I then
asked to selection group to review the short list, and rank them in order of
their suitability for the WG and to give consideration to regional and
gender balance.

*Submission to CSTD Chair*
After the second round of reviewing by the selection group I came up with a
list of 8 names (the required 6 -- who were the most highly ranked by the
selection group - with two more names from the top 12 whom I felt would
bring particular expertise to the group) which I submitted to the CSTD for
the Chair's final review and selection. I am not sure yet when the
composition of the WG will be announced but I know that the CSTD will do
this as quickly as possible.

Thank you to everyone who made themselves available for nomination.
There was huge interest in this Working Group, and the quality of the
candidates made selection (particularly in some regions) extremely
difficult. As I don't know the outcome of the CSTD Chair's decision, and as
I have not communicated directly with nominees, I would rather not disclose
the names of those that I recommended at this stage.

I do want to point out to all who were nominated or nominated themselves
that even if you do not make it onto the Working Group, there will still be
opportunities to participate in its work through participating in whatever
processes it establishes to get input from the broader internet community.

My sincere thanks to the members of the selection group. Firstly, every
person I asked said yes! I was impressed and grateful.

Then they proceeded to work very hard, in a very short timeframe. They
undertook the work with the seriousness it deserves. I would not have been
able to do this without their input. In fact, this process confirmed my
belief in the value of the 'small crowd' and in civil society's ability to
deal with the complexity of such selection processes with good judgement and
as much fairness as possible.

Anriette Esterhuysen

--
------------------------------------------------------
anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org
po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692

-------------- 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