[bestbits] Re: [governance] civil society co ordination group - call for comments
Carlos A. Afonso
ca at cafonso.ca
Sat Jan 25 17:09:07 EST 2014
Better to rise like a phoenix than as a bunch of zombies. :)
I think the vision of a joint group derived from the IGC ashes and a BB
with the legitimation of a BB coordination is something we should support.
frt rgds
--c.a.
On 01/25/2014 03:06 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
> 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