[governance] civil society co ordination group - call for comments
Suresh Ramasubramanian
suresh at hserus.net
Mon Jan 20 04:40:39 EST 2014
This might actually work given a few fixes .. such as the nomination of alternates.
Thank you for proposing this model, Nnenna. Now it remains to be seen - which networks, just these or any more?
--srs (iPad)
> On 20-Jan-2014, at 15:05, Nnenna Nwakanma <nnenna75 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> How about a "network nomcom"?
>
> Having followed all teh models above, I am tending towards a kind of
> improvement of what we have now.
>
> What do we have now? A cordination of individual representatives of
> different networks: IRP, APC, Diplo, BB and IGC.
>
> Here is my suggestion:
>
> 1. Extend the Coordination group to include other networks/coalitions
> with the criteria above. I still prefer "extend" to "expand" :)
> 2. Have a Non-voting Chair for 1 year, renewable.
> 3. Each participating coaltion/network will chose from within itself,
> a person/persons to represent it in a nomcom
> 4. Nomcoms will not be static but will be convened when needed
> 5. We have a nomcom Chair but nomcom members will be chosen by their
> networks to form a "nomcom of networks". Networks/coalition may decide
> the method that is best suited to them to appoint qualified person/s
> for the task at hand.
>
> What will be the merits of a "NomCom of Networks"?:
> 1. Its members are sent by their constituent network/coalition
> 2. Networks/coalitions can chose a NomCom person based on the
> person's expertise on the subject for which CS reps are being called
> for
> 3. Networks/coalitions are free to use whatever methods they deem
> best to select their network rep on the "Nomcom of Networks"
>
> In summary, we have a Nomcom of Networks non-voting Chair for 1 year,
> and membership of nomcom is Networks/coalitions and not persons. Each
> time there is need for CS representation then each network notifies
> the Chair or their rep on the NomCom
>
>
> Best
>
> Nnenna
>
>
>> On 1/20/14, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
>> A prequalification for either nomcom duties or being selected to represent
>> the caucus in some forum could be a history of prior engagement with the
>> caucus and prior track record in igov. [And to increase the inclusion, this
>> could mean engagement with multiple caucus members in good standing on other
>> civil society fora, if not necessarily this specific caucus]
>>
>> This prevents the sort of ballot stuffing you have noted, where there are
>> endorsements for specific individuals from random people or groups that have
>> no prior engagement with the caucus or track record on igov issues.
>>
>> --srs (iPad)
>>
>>> On 20-Jan-2014, at 12:27, "Ian Peter" <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I’m posting here some thoughts recently discussed among members of the
>>> civil society co ordination group for comments and input. It relates to
>>> some options for this group. It would be good to have comments and input.
>>>
>>> What we are proposing is a period of on line discussion, after which we
>>> will probably conduct some sort of on line straw poll to get a feeling for
>>> how people think about options emerging. So please comment and digest, and
>>> we will look forward to getting wide input.
>>>
>>>
>>> But firstly- is there a need for such a group?
>>>
>>> There certainly was in the context of appointing representatives for
>>> Brazil and 1net, and we would argue that it is highly advisable for
>>> functions such as MAG nominations. Perhaps there are no other great needs
>>> at this stage, but they might arise. And certainly a continuing
>>> communication between groups working in the area of internet governance
>>> might be useful.
>>>
>>> The alternative to all of this re-organisation would be for the group to
>>> go into recess until another urgent need arises. But that choice would
>>> simply reinforce the criticism that exists of this group (or its
>>> successors) when there is a need again - or alternatively lead to
>>> fragmented selection processes that hinder civil society representation.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 1. EXPANSION OF THE CO-ORDINATION GROUP
>>>
>>> This has been the subject of previous discussion with a number of
>>> different parties and it was decided to defer further considerations until
>>> after Brazil nominations were complete. There was also some discussion on
>>> list here immediately before Christmas about some possible criteria for
>>> involvement.
>>>
>>> One possibility we would suggest here is we could decide to enlarge the
>>> group to (say) 9 -12 people. The current voting members could remain and
>>> would be joined by one of the incoming IGC Co-ordinators. For additional
>>> voting members, we suggest that we open it up to expressions of interest –
>>> but not only from organisations, but also from individuals. That allows
>>> involvement of representatives of multistakeholder groups with a strong
>>> relationship with civil society (eg IRP). That might be a good step, and
>>> to this we could add rotation of members.... or leave such questions until
>>> the co ordination group is fully populated.
>>>
>>> That’s the first issue where clarity is needed. But how to select....
>>>
>>>
>>> 2. SELECTION PROCEDURES (possibly for expanding the co ordination group,
>>> but also for any future CS representation).
>>>
>>> We present three different options here.
>>>
>>> OPTION ONE - VOTING
>>>
>>> This works well within one organisation, but is more difficult with
>>> multi-organisational elections – who is in for voting, who is out? And
>>> some of us remember the original ICANN at large elections, where suddenly
>>> thousands of people with no previous involvement got involved in support
>>> of one candidate who was elected with a large majority. The context for us
>>> here is that, without a consolidated membership list of all our
>>> organisations, this is very open to capture and manipulation. And setting
>>> up and maintaining a multi-organisation single voting list is a fairly
>>> time consuming administrative task. (and then we need to ask which
>>> organisations mailing lists and/or membership lists would be included)
>>>
>>> So there are a few issues to solve if we take that direction.
>>>
>>> OPTION TWO – RANDOM NOMCOM
>>>
>>> This option has been widely used in IETF and was adopted in the Charter of
>>> IGC. We are not aware of anywhere else it is used but there may be some
>>> other examples.
>>>
>>> While this form is gospel to some people, others have reservations.
>>>
>>> Ian Peter writes, as one critic with some experience of this
>>>
>>> “My personal reservations arise from involvement with perhaps 9 or so
>>> random Nomcoms, with the following results:
>>>
>>> 2 included known trolls.
>>> Only one of 9 had all members active – most worked on the basis of only
>>> one or two active members.
>>> One refused to work with the appointed Chair
>>> One had the Chair drop out mid process and ended up with one individual
>>> making decisions
>>> Gender and geographic balance are purely left up to chance.”
>>>
>>> To this we would add issues involved with random selection when
>>> factions/different organisations are involved. It is easy in this case for
>>> important sections of CS to be left out entirely from deliberations
>>> because they weren’t randomly selected.
>>>
>>> So some of us caution against use of this form in the context of a
>>> multi-organisational steering group, arguing that these are important
>>> matters of representation best not left to chance.
>>>
>>>
>>> OPTION THREE – APPOINTED NOMCOM
>>>
>>> This is the most widely used form and is used by technical community,
>>> business community, ICANN, and just about any other organisation we can
>>> think of. It’s the safest way, providing that transparent, accountable and
>>> inclusive processes are used to select the members of the Nomcom. That
>>> would be something the coordination group mentioned above could undertake
>>> when in place.
>>>
>>>
>>> And I am sure there are other variations. But they need to be agreed to
>>> and sorted out.
>>>
>>> CRITERIA
>>>
>>> We also need criteria for selection. Previously we discussed these in
>>> terms of determining suitable organisations who would nominate
>>> representatives. But if we are looking at individuals as well, they will
>>> need to change. But for reference, the previous discussions left these
>>> under consideration
>>>
>>> 1. Is it a coalition which is globally representative - all regions
>>> covered?
>>>
>>> 2. Is it non-commercial and public interest oriented (as opposed to
>>> business)?
>>>
>>> 3. Would it more properly fit under technical community, academic,
>>> business or government in its categorization?
>>>
>>> 4. Is a large part of this coalition's members already covered by one of
>>> the existing members?
>>>
>>>
>>> 5. The internal governance of the coalition is adequately transparent and
>>> accountable to its members.
>>>
>>>
>>> 6. Does the coalition have a substantial current involvement in and
>>> knowledge of internet governance issues
>>>
>>> Obviously if individuals are to be considered these have to change.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Over to everyone for comments.
>>>
>>>
>>> Ian Peter
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> 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
More information about the Governance
mailing list