[Lac] [Fwd: Re: [Wsis-pct] [Fwd: Re: [governance] names for the Working Group - some news]]

Mon Sep 6 15:59:21 BST 2004

Beatriz yo no quiero defender a nadie, solamente recordar que hubo una 
convocatoria en la lista de plenaria creo yo, o en la de C&T, yo me 
acuerdo incluso que ellos estaban buscando nombres de mujeres para 
nuestra región dado que hay. Noe stoy segura pero me iamgino que han 
sido seleccionados entre los que se aputnaron ya que hubo convocatoria.

abrazos,
Magaly

On 06/09/2004, at 11:51, Beatriz Busaniche wrote:

> En la lista de Patentes, copyrights y marcas de la CMSI acabo de 
> recibir
> este mensaje que indica que ya hay dos personas designadas para
> representar a nuestra región en el grupo de trabajo sobre Internet
> Governance.
>
> desearía preguntar qué proceso de selección se llevó a cabo para esa
> nominación y cuáles fueron los mecanismos transparentes de elección
> entre posibles candidatos al WG en relación a nuestra región.
>
> dado que no ha circulado ningún mensaje al respecto en esta lista,
> desearía llamar la atención sobre este hecho.
>
> ¿Quiénes fueron candidatos? ¿cómo se eligieron los dos designados según
> este mensaje?
>
> Agradecería información, ya que este tema nos involucra a tod at s los que
> estamos trabajando en el proceso de CMSI y el acceso y la transparencia
> en la información es uno de los derechos por los que luchamos verdad?
>
> Gracias
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Mensaje reenviado-----
> From: Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>
> To: Georg C. F. Greve <greve at fsfeurope.org>, PCT-WG 
> <wsis-pct at fsfeurope.org>
> Subject: Re: [Wsis-pct] [Fwd: Re: [governance] names for the Working 
> Group - some news]
> Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2004 07:19:56 -0700
>
> Hello Georg,
>
> I'm glad you're able to join in the discussions.  As for what other
> groups are doing regarding a process for coming up with names to
> suggest, I can tell you what the ICANN Non-Commercial Constituency has
> done so far on this issue.
>
> First a call for nominations was taken and about 22 names in total was
> proposed, this process was about 2 weeks.  In an effort to achieve
> geographic diversity, two slots were allotted to each geographic 
> region.
>   One person who's focus is on technical expertise and one person who's
> focus is on policy issues for each region.
>
> After receiving all the nominations, a committee winnowed it down so
> there would only be one person in each of 10 slots.  But there wasn't
> anyone nominated from the Arab part of the world, so that was left 
> empty
> and the committee decided that due to one nominee's "global" nature, 
> she
> should be proposed as a "global" candidate.
>
> I was not a member of this committee so I cannot say how the committee
> made its final decisions, but I would guess it was a straight vote 
> among
> the committee members.  Last week, the narrowed list of names was sent
> to the general NCUC mailing list for comment and criticism.  If there 
> is
> no major objections to these selections within the next week, that will
> be the list of recommendations proposed by the NCUC group to MK/KA.
> Here is a cut and paste of the list of NCUC nominees:
>
> ----------------------------
> Global:  Karen Banks
>
> Africa
>     Technical: Adiel Akplogan
>      Policy: Olivier Nana Nzepa
>
> Asia-Pacific
>      Technical: Paul Wilson
>      Policy: Eung Hwi Chun
>
> Europe
>      Technical: Vittorio Bertola
>      Policy: Marco Cappato
>
> Latin America
>      Technical: Raul Echeberria
>      Policy: Carlos Afonso
>
> North America
>      Technical: Karl Auerbach
>      Policy: Susan Crawford
>
> --------------------
>
> I am not suggesting that we follow this specific process, but it is
> helpful to look at how other groups have made their selections.
>
> Debate on the WSIS-IG caucus rages, with no clear process agreed to 
> yet,
> so I think we have to wait a few days to see what they will finally
> decide on a process.  The forwarded call for nominations was only a
> draft and it is being ripped apart on the list with many calling for
> nominations to come directly from the plenary, instead of simply
> forwarding on selections from individual caucuses.  So we have to wait
> to see what we forward to them.  Either way, we should send in our own
> recommendations to the MK/KA.
>
> But, returning to our process of selection, Georg has suggested a
> deadline of receiving nominations by Wednesday 12:00pm Geneva time.
> This sounds like a good target (about 2 and a half days from now) to 
> me.
>
> We need to decide how many people do we ultimately propose from our
> caucus.  I would recommend at least 3 and no more than 5 people.  I
> don't like the idea of proposing "alternates", and "teams" is not how
> the Secretary-General will make his determination, so it makes little
> sense for us to propose along those lines.  These 3 - 5 people should
> have expertise in intellectual property rights and Internet governance
> issues (as defined in previous emails).  Personally, I think our focus
> should be on protecting individual rights, particularly freedom of
> expression on this WG.
>
> Georg has also suggested that we comment on the names from Wednesday,
> Sept. 8 until Friday, Sept. 10, 14:00 Geneva time.  I also agree with
> this process.
>
> How do we get from a list of potentially many nominees to our final 3-5
> selections?  I think we should also set up a committee of volunteers to
> narrow down the names.  This must be a democratic process.  We cannot
> have one person making this decision for the group.
>
> Perhaps our committee can deliberate over the weekend, and we can make
> our final selections on Monday, 13 Sept.  This is the date by which
> KA/MK have said they want to hear from people.
>
> How do people feel about this process or something like it?
>
> Thanks for reading such a long email!  Please comment on this proposed
> process.
>
> Robin
>
>
>
> Georg C. F. Greve wrote:
>
>>  || On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 13:26:14 -0700
>>  || Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:
>>
>>  rg> [...]
>>
>>  rg> KA/MK will be trying to balance between a number of different
>>  rg> issues in their final selection for membership onto this Working
>>  rg> Group, so if we give them several names to choose from, we will
>>  rg> have a better chance of one of the names being selected.
>>
>> Thanks Robin, your suggestion seems to make sense.
>>
>> Do you know whether there is an agreed upon way of handling this
>> within Civil Society, is this in line with what others are doing?
>>
>> Let us work for now with the assumption that we will produce a ranked
>> list of people to nominate with the PCT working group for the
>> consensus building process.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Georg
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WSIS-PCT mailing list
> WSIS-PCT at fsfeurope.org
> https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/wsis-pct
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lista Caucus Lac
> Lac at wsis-cs.org
> Página de Información: 
> http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/lac
>