[governance] Results of the IGC 2015 Coordinator Election - Welcoming the newly elected co-coordinator

Mon Jan 19 14:13:19 EST 2015

Dear All,

Rejoice, for we have a new co-coordinator! Hence, here is my last message
as a co-co to report about the election and share some final thoughts on my
way out. .

THE ELECTION PROCESS

In this month of January 2015 one co-coordinator seat became vacant and was
up for filling. The election process kick started with a call for
nominations posted to the IGC list on 18 November 2014. By the end of the
nomination period on 19 December, we received the following confirmed
nominations:

1) Analia Aspis
2) Arsene Tungali
3) Kawsar Uddin

After setting up the survey in the online system used for IGC elections, we
had to prepare the voting list by making sure all members who meet the
voting criteria are included in the list, despite potential confusion due
to the fact that the IGC website seems to re-initialize the count of
membership time span from the last time members' information (eg, email
address) has been updated. This worked rather well since for all the misses
that were reported, only one or two were confirmed after verification. The
email ballot paper sent to about a dozen voters got probably lost in their
spam folder or they simply missed it in their regular mailbox.

After the election started, we were reminded of the need to add an
abstention option for those who do want to exercise their right to vote
(and be on the record for participating in the election) without the
obligation to give their vote to one or another of the candidates standing.
After checking, it has appeared that a "No candidate" vote was in option in
the last election cycle (2014). However, we first missed that as we were
using a template from the latest election where only one coordinator was to
be elected, which was in 2013 (in 2014, the two co-coordinators were to be
replaced.) Hopefully now we will systematically have an "Abstention" or "No
candidate" option (whichever the Caucus finds more appropriate) on the
ballot next to the candidates' names.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank all three candidates for
their dedication and willingness to step forward and serve this community.
Any of them would have made a positive difference for the Caucus and bring
more diversity to its leadership.

THE ELECTION RESULTS

The results of the elections are as follows.

Total number of tokens generated and invitations sent = 488
Total number of valid votes (survey completed) = 163
Incomplete responses = 31
Total responses = 194

Votes received by the candidates:
1) Analia Aspis = 83 (42.78%)
2) Arsene Tungali = 57 (29.38%)
3) Kawsar Uddin = 22 (11.34%)
4) None of the nominees = 1 (0.52%)
5) No answer = 10 (5.15%)
6) Not completed or not displayed = 21 (10.82%)

(Please note the details of these results will be posted to the IGC web
page later and the link will be forwarded here when done.)

This makes Analia Aspis the next IGC co-coordinator. Congratulations,
Analia! With you I am delighted and confident to pass on the baton to good
hands. Welcome on board! In your nomination statement, I note and applaud
your eagerness to bring IG regional actions into IGC focus and to make this
place ever more relevant to young researchers and beyond. I wish you every
success!

THANK YOU'S

Furthermore, I would like also to seize this opportunity to thank my
"coordinatorship mate" (for lack of a better word) Deirdre Williams. During
our time together she had carried out the most thankless coordination tasks
more times than I can count (the ones that we didn't even suspect would be
on our plate when each of us decided to stand for the election.) For that
and for her patience I am grateful.

I know well too much how easier (and much less time consuming) it often is
to get things done by yourself, when you know how to do them, than to have
to instruct and explain to a novice how to get the job done. Well, I,
stubborn learner, had Jeremy take the longer path and heavier burden to
provide guidance, patiently and always swiftly replying to my inquiries and
helping me navigate through the challenges I was facing with the online
election system and the mechanics of the IGC website. Thank you, Jeremy!

Last but not least, I would like to thank each and every one of you for
your support, patience and understanding. I know we have not always been in
agreement and I am most certain I haven't met everyone's expectations, but
I felt almost all of you have each time given me the benefit of the doubt.
I appreciate that, and only wish I could have done more to put IGC at a
better place on the IG map.

SOME PENDING BUSINESS

Speaking of the place of IGC on the Internet governance map, I recall we
had an unfinished business, which I'll make sure to leave you with.
Following is the synthesis of the consultation we had a while before IGF
Istanbul regarding the way forward for IGC. It was posted to this list on
31/8/2014. I would hope to see one day some follow up action or some
conclusion given to this matter.

Between June 26 and 30, we had here a discussion running by the following
subject line:
Inquiry for a new vision into the future of IGC
Following is the summary of the main points I got from
your contributions to this discussion
 [adding my summary notes, observations/comments in square brackets].

Suggestions include:

-
H
olding a face to face workshop, accommodating remote participation, on the
topic at Istanbul IGF

[This will be taking place at IGF 2014 this
Friday, 5 September, 12.30 - 14.00 is Bilateral Room 1 (Rumeli -1 Level /
Room 9).

-
C
ontemplating the possibility of national or regional chapters for IGC
[Make sure this not be confused with IGFs at the base. One thing for sure
is that IGC is meant to embody the CS component while IGF for all
stakeholders.]

-
N
eed for mutual respect between participants
[D
 ifferences in positions should be aired with the predicate that no matter
how strong
 we feel
 about being right, contradicting positions may still be
 both
 valid under
different
 circumstances or with different assumptions than our
 own
 (and sure we all have assumptions!)
]

-
A
 minimum level of decorum or "netiquette" to ensure it is safe for
everybody to participate
[It's critical to make it comfortable for people to participate
whatever their level of familiarity
(or unfamiliarity)
with the issues,
their level of
knowledge or

self-confidence
(or lack thereof)
as regards the relevance of their contribution.
 ]

-
E
nabling and fostering trust
[M
aybe a number of basic principles
and ideas
should be spelled out here (
including for possible
charter
 revision
 ?)
as to how to achieve that and
ensure a
 baseline in expectations with regard to
our respective and mutual commitments. This might be the place to consider
the question of 'conflict of interests' policy for those in leadership
position, if relevant.]

-  IGC still provides a space to aggregate many of the differing views that
"civil society" holds about Internet governance.

-
IGC should engage in Social
C
apacity building
in
 I
G and
 related activism

"
People need to be educated through any extensive
[as well as extension]
program in various level of literacy and knowledge regarding their
vulnerability
" in the face of the d
evelopment
 of the cyber-environment
.
"
People needs to be educated and know how to participate in procedure of
governance and how to share their concerns. I believe, it would be great,
if IGC opens a chapter for educating people in this area.
 "

-
IGC should engage in (enabling)
 Customer protection
based on
 Human rights, multilingualism
, regional/
 cultural diversity
: Seek best practices in the field of customer protection and help empower
end-users.
-
W
e absolutely need a credible broadly accepted civil society coordination
entity

[This is being taken care of through the newly set up Civil Society
Coordination Group, CSCG]

-
 R
eform is needed to enable
such entity

with
 reasonable and reasonably fast decision-making
with
 regard to all the decisions that need to be made in the context of a civil
society coordination function

[In process with the CSCG]

- Criticism or fear was raised with the notion that the CSCG might be
exclusionary or the fact that it is so far perceived by some as such.
[This might be addressed through the operating procedures to be developed
by the CSCG]

- "
The alternative
 [to CSCG in coordinating CS appointments]
 would be IGC. However that would require a few changes so that IGC could
respond more promptly, and also for the role and processes of IGC in doing
this to be acceptable to the myriad parties who in the past few years have
forwarded their own civil society MAG nominations. Quite clearly some
substantial groups within IGC have not been happy for IGC to do this on
their behalf in the past few years, thus leading to them making their own
nominations.
 "

[Please note that the CSCG is not meant to develop policies or submit
policy positions on behalf of its members' constituents. So the question
remains: How can we as IGC get there from here?]

- "a
s regards the broader question of policy statements and policy co
ordination - I do not think CSCG is a good vehicle for this.  IGC is
potentially, but there has been difficulty in getting consensus positions
here in the past, which led to the creation of Best Bits (where sign on
statements not acceptable to 100% of civil society became a useful tool)
and later to Just Net Coalition. Where there is potentially a broader
consensus, I think IGC can play a very useful role, providing it continues
to enjoy strong support from all groups.
 "

- In the discussion it was also noted that "
IGC is the big tent for Internet governance geeks of all persuasions
 ...
who will never agree on much
."

Now questions:
- How do we get there from here?
- Is there any remedy to this (the fact that IGC cab "never agree on much")
beyond the above points for improvements? Or are these points sufficient?
- How can we detect and handle cases where there is a potential for broader
consensus?
- Where there is not such potential how do we deal with the coordination of
policy positions and making policy statements? Shall we create some sort of
internal Dynamic Coalitions mechanism? Can these find some level of
compromise after they develop their baseline positions, and if not how will
those positions relate to IGC as a whole as they may be contradicting?
----

Right here ends my term as IGC co-coordinator. I am delighted to yield the
floor (or rather the stage) to two remarkable women and leaders, both
hailing from Latin America and the Caribbean.
Take it away, ladies!

With my very best wishes,

Mawaki

=====================================
Mawaki Chango, PhD
Founder
& CEO

DIGILEXIS
Consulting
http://www.digilexis.com
m.chango at digilexis.com | *kichango at gmail.com <kichango at gmail.com>*
Twitter: @digilexis & @prodigilexis
Mob. +225 57 55 57 53 | +225 44 48 77 64
Skype: digilexis
=====================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150119/0f6d23ae/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