[bestbits] Re: [governance] civil society co ordination group - call for comments

Jeanette Hofmann jeanette at wzb.eu
Wed Jan 22 04:04:46 EST 2014


Hi Nnenna,

that depends. Nominating people on these lists has always been an 
effort. This is why I'd prefer longer terms of two years.
Perhaps it woulc best to consult the networks and coalitions as to what 
they regard as managable? We would depend on them to appoint reliable 
and qualified people who do the job.

jeanette

Am 22.01.14 09:46, schrieb Nnenna Nwakanma:
> Dear Ian, all
>
> I will say +1 in enlarging the  current group in place.
> ]Jeanette, do you think that a mandate of 1 year for the nomcom will be
> a good idea?
>
> Best
>
> Nnenna
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 10:50 PM, Sonigitu Ekpe <soekpe at gmail.com
> <mailto:soekpe at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     Thanks All for the beautiful contribution.
>     I buy into the idea of networks.
>     Since public interest is of great importance; Can we identify
>     government representative that do have passion on civil societies
>     view? The "Coordinating Nomcom of Networks" will be a good platform
>     to engineering transparency and accountability.
>
>     Best
>
>     Sonigitu Ekpe
>
>     Mobile +234 805 0232 469 <tel:%2B234%20805%200232%20469>    Office +
>     234 802 751 0179 <tel:%2B%20234%20802%20751%200179>
>       "LIFE is all about love and thanksgiving"
>
>
>
>     On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 10:33 PM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com
>     <mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com>> wrote:
>
>         Thanks everyone for comments. So far we have had some discussion
>         on Nomcom alternatives which has put up some interesting thoughts.
>
>         On other subjects -
>
>         Any thoughts on expansion and criteria - particularly whether or
>         not to have individuals as well as representatives of
>         organisations on co ordination group?
>
>         -----Original Message----- From: Nnenna Nwakanma
>         Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 8:35 PM
>         To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>         <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> ;
>         <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>
>         Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] civil society co ordination
>         group - call for comments
>
>
>         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
>         <mailto: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 <mailto: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
>                 <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>                 To be removed from the list, visit:
>                 http://www.igcaucus.org/__unsubscribing
>                 <http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing>
>
>                 For all other list information and functions, see:
>                 http://lists.igcaucus.org/__info/governance
>                 <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
>                 <http://translate.google.com/translate_t>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>         ______________________________________________________________
>         You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>         bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>         To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>         http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/__info/bestbits
>         <http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits>
>
>
>         ____________________________________________________________
>         You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>         governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto: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 <mailto: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