[governance] CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation : Update

[parminder]

Thank you, Anriette, for the detailed process and the report on it.

I am extremely grateful to you and the selection committee for 
forwarding my name to the CSTD chair for the WG on EC.

Meanwhile I would like to have a discussion here on the process employed 
for the selection of CS nominees. I am not sure if it should be done now 
or after the process is completed by the Chair, and I seek directions 
from the IGC co-coordinator, and the CS selection focal point in this 
regard.

We must have this discussion either now or immediately after the final 
selection by the chair of CSTD. I am willing to wait because I, for one, 
do not expect the discussion - at least the points I will like to 
contribute - to have fatal intentions towards the process that was 
employed. What we will get out of a good and through discussion on the 
process may just help anyone in-charge of such processes in the future 
to conduct them in an even better way.

I wantright awayto put out my intentions regarding above so that I do 
not appear opportunistic, or alternatively, bitter, if I seek a 
discussion only after the process is completed.

I do remain extremely concerned by the culture that is being promoted by 
some here whereby positing questions and seeking accountability is too 
easily seen as 'personal attacks'. I find this as very unfortunate, and 
against the fundamental values of civil society as I understand it. We 
have a basic watch dog function, on behalf of those all the people who 
are not directly in these spaces. raising accountability questions 
regarding our internal processes is one of the highest civil society 
value. I much prefer that we overdo it rather than underdo it.

parminder

PS: Meanwhile I am conscious that I may not be doing service to the 
chances of my final selection by raking up this issue up at this time, 
because no one know who may be watching and word does get around and so 
on :).... However, also since the processes of another group/ Focal 
Point have already been discussed by us, I do not think it would be 
proper for me to postpone raising the above issue any further. I was 
waiting for the final report by the Focal point, and now that we have 
it, I think we must discuss it.


On Tuesday 19 March 2013 02:12 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
> Dear all
>
> In my earlier message I said I would get confirmation from nominees for
> this working group before I released the names of the candidates.
>
> By the deadline that I gave them to express objections only one person
> did so.  I am therefore in a position to release 18 of the original 19
> names.
>
> Thank you again to all these people for their willingness to serve on
> the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation and the effort they put
> into the nomination process, and to the selection group for their
> assistance. Thank you also to the IGC Nomcom for their work in
> preselecting the IGC nominees.
>
> The names are included in the attached document. The shortlisted
> candidates that I recommended to the CSTD chair were:
>
> (in alphabetical order with the region they are based in)
>
> Avri Doria (N America)
> Carlos Afonso (A America)
> Don McClean (N America)
> Grace Githaiga (Africa)
> Jeremy Malcolm (Asia Pacific)
> Joy Liddicoat (Asia Pacific)
> Parminder Jeet Singh (Asia Pacific)
> William Drake (Europe)
>
> I was asked for 6 names (3 from developing countries and 3 from
> developed countries) but I added an additional two names of people who
> had scored very highly in the process and who had particular expertise
> to contribute. It might also be good to have alternates in case any of
> the 6 would not be able to fulfil the commitment.
>
> Best regards
>
> Anriette
>
>
> On 13/03/2013 17:53, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130320/fc51a0f1/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