[bestbits] Re: [governance] civil society co ordination group - call for comments
Sonigitu Ekpe
soekpe at gmail.com
Sat Jan 25 14:18:56 EST 2014
+1 to Avri's comment.
Sonigitu Ekpe
Mobile +234 805 0232 469 Office + 234 802 751 0179
"LIFE is all about love and thanksgiving"
On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 6:30 PM, avri doria <avri at ella.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I don't really know how IGC finds its way back to a cordial functionality
> in diversity that enables legitimacy. One of the many reasons I did not put
> myself forward as a candidate for anything.
>
> But being eternally hopeful, except for when I lapse into despair, I think
> it could be done by a reasonable, dedicated and devoted set of coordinators
> and a little honeymoon good will from us a all.
>
> Which makes me think, I would really like to see our candidates' answer to
> your question.
>
> avri
>
> Sent from a T-Mobile 4G LTE Device
>
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Jeanette Hofmann
> Date:01/25/2014 12:06 (GMT-05:00)
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,Avri Doria
> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] civil society co ordination group
> - call for comments
>
> 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
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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/20140125/44d5a79a/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