[] 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