[] Re: [governance] civil society co ordination group - call for comments
Avri Doria
avri at acm.org
Sat Jan 25 17:30:40 EST 2014
Hi,
That's a good idea to.
Perhaps BB is the phoenix.
avri
On 25-Jan-14 17:09, Carlos A. Afonso wrote:
> 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