[bestbits] Re: [governance] civil society co ordination group - call for comments
Jeanette Hofmann
jeanette at wzb.eu
Sat Jan 25 12:06:12 EST 2014
Hi Avri,
given that it is unlikely for the IGC to rise like a phoenix, how would
you then go about the current legitimacy hole?
jeanette
Am 25.01.14 16:03, schrieb Avri Doria:
> Hi,
>
> (left the x-posting in since it concerned both groups)
>
> As IRP is a multistakeholder group I think with have a category mismatch..
>
> I still also have an issue with both BB and IGC being represented.
>
> BB - is still in formation with only a self appointed group in the
> leadership. Once they get their whole plan together and the group buys
> into it and if the differentiation becomes clear, then the combined
> groups should take a look at it.
>
> IGC - has been in a free fall state of crisis for the past 2 years and
> until it manages to right itself, it has no business in a
> representational role.
>
> But the people and organization, the civil society stakeholders,
> distributed through those 2 groups are indeed important participants in
> Ig. So while I dispute the legitimacy the members of BB and IGC being
> twice represented at this point, I do believe it is a good idea for them
> to be represented by a singular BB/IGC representative that is an active
> participant in both groups nd who can be supported by the combined voice
> of the groups.
>
>
> avri
>
>
> On 25-Jan-14 08:58, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>> Hi Nnenna,
>>
>> as small correction, NCSG is part of the co-ordination group with BB,
>> IGC, Diplo and APC.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>>
>> 2014/1/20 Nnenna Nwakanma <nnenna75 at gmail.com
>> <mailto:nnenna75 at gmail.com>>
>>
>> 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
>> >>
>> >> 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:
>> 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
>>
>>
>
-------------- 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