[governance] Idea of an IGC/BestBits fusion (was Re: civil society co ordination group...)
Norbert Bollow
nb at bollow.ch
Sun Jan 26 06:10:09 EST 2014
Dear all
I would be willing to accept BB as “IGC v2.0” if some basic democratic
structures were added. At the very least I would suggest that there
should be some kind of reasonable process of elections for the steering
committee, and that there needs to be an appeals team and a reasonable
process to appoint it.
However, at the BestBits meeting in Bali the question of adding some
kinds of more formal structures than BestBits has had so far was
briefly discussed, and the idea did not get a lot of support.
That led me to think that an “IGC v2.0” would need to be chartered
independently of BestBits.
But I like the suggestion of Carlos to create “a joint group derived
from the IGC ashes and [BestBits]”.
Let's just make sure that we don't lose what has been achieved at IGC
in terms of fundamental democratic structure.
Greetings,
Norbert
Am Sat, 25 Jan 2014 17:30:40 -0500
schrieb Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>:
> 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