[governance] CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation : Update

[parminder]

On Tuesday 26 March 2013 08:44 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
> Dear all
>
> I have been offline for a few days as I was in a rural area with poor
> connectivity. Apologies for delay in responding.
>
> Parminder, this is definitely a good discussion to have, and Nnenna has
> already outlined many of the questions that were in my mind as well.
>
> There were three reasons for my decision to accept the role of focal
> point that I would like to share at this point:

Hi Anriette

I do agree with your having accepted the role as the focal point. For 
selection of reps for the WG on IGF Improvements, the focal point was 
IGC. It was asked to submit 5 names all of which were then put on the 
WG. I understand that CSTD may this time have approached you since APC 
is the only NGO working on information society issues that is in general 
consultative status with the ECOSOC.  Having being given this role, APC 
has the right to take an independent decision on whether to accept it or 
pass it on. It is on the other hand for the IGC to reflect why did it 
lose that role, it at all it is connected to its profile, stature, 
visibility or performance. I have something to say on this matter but 
that separately.

>
> 1) I felt that the CSTD and its Chairperson, Ambassador de la Gala, made
> an important gesture to move away from a 'black box' approach by
> empowering stakeholder groups to made the selection themselves.

This movement was made the last time itself when IGC was asked to 
provide all the five names for the CS part of WG on IGF improvements. 
And I agree a movement away from 'black box' approach is good. But as 
you say, such an improvement must consist in actually 'empowering the 
concerned stakeholder group'  - whereby the alternative process should 
clearly bear all signs that it is representative, accountable, 
transarent etc to the concerned stakeholder group. As I said in the set 
of guidelines I proposed - 'any such role should be taken as a 
responsibility on the behalf of the concerned stakeholder group'.

> Difficult as the task was, I did not want to shy away from undertaking
> the task as this would reflect negatively on our capacity as civil
> society to manage this type of process.

Yes, telling the chair back that he should do the final selection was 
not the right way to go about it.
>
> 2) I personally believe it is important for us to not restrict the
> identification of civil society actors for participation in IG processes
> to the IGC.

100 percent. In fact it was from IT for Change's submission that the WG 
on IGF improvements worte in its final report that selection of 
stakeholder reps should not be restricted to one  body or group. True 
for civil society, and true for technical/ academic community and business.

> The IGC is important, and it has internal processes that are
> clear and provide room for appeal. But the IGC cannot (in my view) claim
> to represent all of civil society that have a stake in, or an interest
> in, internet policy and governance.

IGC hasnt ever, and it doesnt make such a claim. And I agree that anyone 
suggesting any such thing must be countered appropriately. However, IGC 
is still perhaps the most open and inclusive network in global IG space, 
while its actual performance capacities have been ham-shackled 
considerably due to a lot of reasons, but again, on that separately.

>   With more time I would have liked
> to consult on the criteria and some of the issues Nnenna raises, e.g.
> rotation, and distribute the call even wider.
>
> 3) I knew that once I got my head around the basic complexity of how to
> go about the selection that there would be people in the CS community
> whose experience and help I could rely on.
>
> These processes are not easy, and making sure they are transparent and
> effective is challenging - ensuring legitimacy is even harder, although
> transparency takes one a long way towards legitimacy.

Agree, Full transparency is the least, and should be an incontestable 
aspect of all such processes. Actual process use may sometime vary and 
there may be differences on them, but there should be no two views about 
transparency.

> But what is
> considered legitimate among one group of active CS people such as the
> IGC might not be considered legitimate by others. And even a transparent
> and legitimate process cannot be guaranteed to produce the best results.
> No process will be perfect.
>
> This is one of the reasons why I think that as CS we should consider the
> weaknesses in our own processes when criticising those of other groups -
> so discussing this is a good idea; within CS and with other groups.

Yes, the better and more clearly we structure our selection and 
representation processes better it is. However, I do not take this thing 
about our right to talk about 'our processes' and not of 'others'. For 
instance, I am quite concerned that small developing country businesses 
should be represented appropriately when business participates in global 
policy bodies, and I have a right to be so concerned. It is not a 
private affair of only those who do business. So, neither it is for a 
set of people to decide who would be defined as 'technical and academic 
community' for filling a given quota on a public body. It is everybody's 
business. It is a public issue.

>
> It would also be good to make sure that it is an open discussion,
> facilitated in such a way that as many people as possible feel safe,



> able to express themselves, ask questions, and propose solutions.

Most important is that those who do take up a public role on behalf of 
public constituencies do not begin feeling 'unsafe' simply because some 
accountability and transparency questions are asked - as was done in 
case of tech/acad community's selection process recently. It is the 
public's right to do so. It is even worse when some other people begin 
to feel unsafe on behalf of these people with a public role - a rather 
strange display of which has recently been made on this list.

parminder


>   Being
> critical and direct is important, but when a few individuals start
> having a relatively aggressive interchange it can silence others.
>
> Anriette
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 21/03/2013 05:03, Izumi AIZU wrote:
>> First, many thanks Anriette for your hard work and clear reporting of the
>> process.
>> Second, congratulations for the nominees and thank you for your hard work
>> once selected.
>>
>> On March 11, we have the second anniversary of the East Japan Great
>> earthquake
>> and I was travelling the devastated region, recovery is way far from it
>> should be.
>> That's why I have been inactive on this list for a while.
>>
>> And thanks Parminder for your modest discussion proposal. I agree with you.
>> And I also agree with Adam that the discussion be result-oriented, hopefully
>> drawing some principles for future selection process in addition to
>> reviewing
>> the past or existing ones.
>>
>> best,
>>
>> izumi
>>
>>
>>
>> 2013/3/20 Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp>
>>
>>> Congratulations to the nominees, good luck.
>>>
>>> Parminder, I think this is a good proposal and much needed.  And
>>> Nnenna's given some great ideas.
>>>
>>> But I would much prefer it to be forward looking discussion rather
>>> than a postmortem on what was and might have been.
>>>
>>> I am *not* suggesting glossing over problems (we've had them since the
>>> first weeks of this caucus' existence) and ignoring past selections of
>>> CS nominees, (there have been many: CSTD and the almost as recent
>>> WSIS+10, to MAG, IGF speakers, etc).  All were important to some,
>>> possibly professionally and perhaps materially important.  So can we
>>> look at what we should do in the future, learn from the past, rather
>>> than risk people getting defensive and irritated (obviously, probably
>>> me included.)
>>>
>>> Adam
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Nnenna <nne75 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> The discussion, I think, has starte
>>> d. It might have taken off in a
>>>> not-very-comfortable way, but it certainly cannot be killed off now.
>>>>
>>>> In many "CS"-related issues now, my ready answer is "Thanks, but no,
>>>> thanks". And mostly because of  the lack of clear principles on
>>> methodology.
>>>> We have been in this "process" for 10 years (at least for some) and we
>>> still
>>>> have not adopted principles for selection and for representation.
>>>>
>>>> The time for that discussion is right.  We may not get a full consensus,
>>> but
>>>> at least a partial one will help future "focal points".  Were it not for
>>>> discussions, we would not have a Charter as a group.
>>>>
>>>> Having been in a lot of "focal point" and representative "positions" for
>>>> Africa Civil society, I can only say that a 3, 4, or 5 principles
>>> document,
>>>> that has been discussed and has met a level of consensus here will be
>>> VERY
>>>> helpful.
>>>>
>>>> My thoughts are that we need to discuss methods for:
>>>>
>>>> Informing on and disseminating opportunities/positions/calls. For the
>>> CSTD,
>>>> I actually had to tweet that I have been impressed by the way Anriette
>>> and
>>>> the APC group shared the information. I cannot say if it because I am in
>>> so
>>>> many mailing lists with APC folks.. but I can tell you that there was a
>>> "a
>>>> clean, clear and determined decision to disseminate information".
>>>> Understanding of "developed and developing" nations. One may be tempted
>>> to
>>>> follow the UN categories... but in the case of Internet and IG issues..
>>>> Global Information watchdogs may want to differ.  I would love to hear
>>>> others on this though
>>>> Gender mainstreaming. How do we ensure this in representations.  Should
>>> we
>>>> discuss a minimum quota?
>>>> Older vs newer blood. This is perhaps the most critical dilemma that any
>>>> "xyz selection team or focal point" may face. Are we going to have the
>>> same
>>>> faces (albeit with a greater tinge of gray) all the time? How do we
>>> strike
>>>> the balance between getting newer/younger people to follow in our paths
>>>> while maintaining legacy? What orientation mechanism in process, issues
>>> and
>>>> manners  around IG issues can we put in place to help people who will
>>> arrive
>>>> "after us" to be able to follow. Most selection are looking for
>>> "qualified"
>>>> people...
>>>> What will be the better  choice in the cases where a choice must be made
>>>> between experience and representation, or between experience and
>>> opportunity
>>>> for growth?
>>>> Is there a certain limit (at least in the case of IG-related issues) to
>>>> which an individual can "represent civil society"? When can someone say
>>> "we"
>>>> and when does it need to be "I"? Will representation always be synonymous
>>>> with "people who can travel and be there physically"?
>>>> How does "CS" curb what is beginning to appear to me as "an extreme need
>>> to
>>>> be selected" in which I see certain names in almost anything that has
>>>> "selection, representation and travel" attached to it?
>>>> ..... many more...:)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nnennna
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________
>>>> From: parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
>>>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2013 6:34 AM
>>>> Subject: Re: [governance] CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation : Update
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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 want right away to 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> 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 --------------
____________________________________________________________
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