[governance] Results of the IGC 2015 Coordinator Election - Welcoming the newly elected co-coordinator
José Félix Arias Ynche
jaryn56 at gmail.com
Tue Jan 20 12:55:44 EST 2015
Saludos Analia Aspis...
Cordialmente: José Félix Arias Ynche
Investigador Social Para El Desarrollo
2015-01-20 12:23 GMT-05:00 Analia Aspis <analia.aspis at gmail.com>:
> Dear all,
>
> Thanks a lot for your kind messages :) I am very excited to work with you
> and contribute with IGC mission. Thanks again Mawaki for your your help and
> patience.
>
> Best,
> Analía
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 4:13 PM, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> 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
>> Twitter: @digilexis & @prodigilexis
>> Mob. +225 57 55 57 53 | +225 44 48 77 64
>> Skype: digilexis
>> =====================================
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
-------------- 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