[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