[governance] CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation : Update
José Félix Arias Ynche
jaryn56 at gmail.com
Fri Mar 29 18:00:42 EDT 2013
Si...estoy de acuerdo... habría que ver sus pro y sus contras...
*Cordialmente: José Félix Arias Ynche*
* Investigador Social Para El Desarrollo*
2013/3/28 parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
>
> All
>
> There has been not much uptake here for a discussion on selections
> procedures for civil society (CS) reps for various multistakeholder (MS)
> bodies, but I would persist. This issue is important, and a 90 min workshop
> at IGF is not going to solve/ address the problems/ issues involved.
>
>
> On Wednesday 27 March 2013 01:54 PM, parminder wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> In this email I will make some observations on the IGC selection process,
> and in the next one of the focal point directed selection process.
>
> IGC has a clearly laid out selection process. The guidelines and
> principles, both coming from the charter and precedents are basically
> sound, although there may be some views for a possible rethink whether a
> noncom based process should be augmented by a larger general voting
> process. Diplo Foundation follows such a composite process. Right now I am
> relatively neutral between the two kinds, and see advantages and
> disadvantages in both. But maybe worth a discussion.
>
> However, what I was as a clear issue with the IGC selection process that
> concluded recently, and also in the earlier IGC conducted ones, is the lack
> of wide dissemination of call for nominations - and actively soliciting
> nominations from outside groups. Now, if we do not do it, we would
> obviously lose the role a CS intermediary and focal point for CS selection.
> We should be clear, if we are nominating on CS's behalf we need to reach
> out. And I think that it should largely be the responsibility of
> coordinators to do such an extensive outreach, while the nomcom chair
> should also do it. Or a voluntary sub committee should do it.
>
> And here I come what I see as the principal issue/ problem with the health
> of IGC overall. IGC was supposed to have a dual character of a discussion
> space and an active advocacy group. But the structure of the IGC is not
> adequate to these twin tasks. (There may also be deeper reasons for such a
> situation, but this is something most amenable to do something about.) And
> for this reason is has largely been reduced to a good - well, mostly -
> discussion space, but all activties on the advoacy/ action side have
> suffered. I have always thought that there should be a members-only space
> for IGC where procedural, action oriented activities can be worked out,
> without the din and noise of the larger IG discussions that mostly rent the
> IGC elist. This has become a classic case of overdoing openness killing
> effectiveness. I can see that IGC will continue to be on the downward
> spiral of action-/ advocacy-wise effectiveness, that it is on right now,
> unless this and other corrective measures are taken-
>
> What is required in my view is to have a standing membership of the IGC -
> and not the spontaneously occurring and dying membership at the moment of
> voting. There should also be a members only elist for procedural and core
> action oriented matters (at least some stages of such matters, while most
> work being done on the open list). Anyone can become a member of IGC by
> agreeing to its charter. However, once there is a members only space, in
> addition to the discussion space, I expect there to be a greater sense of
> ownership and responsibility to the group by its members. Connecting back
> to the original subject of this email, in such circumstances; the best
> course for the IGC to follow around a specific required selection process,
> and distribution of duties etc for the purpose, can be accomplished in a
> much better manner.
>
> parminder
>
>
>
>
> 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> <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><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> <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
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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/20130329/71ce27d7/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