[Mmwg] Caucus nomcom

Fri Jun 13 22:14:27 BST 2008

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com]
> Sent: 14 June 2008 04:12
> To: mmwg at wsis-cs.org
> Subject: Re: [Mmwg] Caucus nomcom
> 
> hi,
> 
> one could argue that the issue of how people are defined and treated
> in various places as part of a multistakeholder process is a valid
> topic for discussion on this list.

Yes, and important to evolution of a multistakeholder process, but not
always directly related to whether they should represent one stakeholder
group or another
> 
> thus the issue of the treating of an individual as if the most
> important attribute of a person is their relationship to an employer
> is a good topic.

To me the issue is more that the employee of a major internet governance
body might have a conflict of interest representing civil society when
discussing internet governance matters. (things would have been much neater
if we discussed this as the prime issue and the Nomcom report was worded a
little differently) - to move on maybe we should adopt McTims wording that
suggests there should not be blanket bans on classes. I am happy with that.
> 
> another good topic is how one navigates in a context when they think
> there are 5 stakeholder groups but strict definitions only see 3.

Good question! When added to this is representative tensions between the
groups and some jockeying to occupy each others current representative
spots.
> 
> so if we can have the conversation in an environment where no one
> feels the need to be defensive about decisions they made or did not
> make, that might be a win all around.
> 

I guess that is directed at me? I do still feel the need to defend all the
decisions of the NomCom as its Chair, even where I disagreed with the final
decision (which was in a lot of areas and as regards a number of
candidates). It's not appropriate for me to act otherwise, but I am happy to
try to help find a way forward.

> 
> 
> On 13 Jun 2008, at 06:51, Adam Peake wrote:
> 
> >> I'm here and happy to comment if necessary.
> >>
> >> To me this is a small problem within a larger one that needs
> >> addressing.
> >>
> >
> >
> > And the larger problem is something we can address is a subset of the
> > caucus and others who might be interested, or something that should
> > be discussed on the caucus list?
> >
> > I'm basically asking what is the larger problem!
> >
> > Also, as I know there are probably people not interested in the
> > caucus' internal concerns, should this list (which has been dead for
> > about 9 months) be used in this way?  It's not being used for
> > anything else.
> >
> > Adam
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Ian Peter
> >>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp]
> >>> Sent: 13 June 2008 01:58
> >>> To: MMWG
> >>> Subject: [Mmwg] Caucus nomcom
> >>>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> If this list is still alive (find out in a moment) it might be the
> >>> place to begin discussing amendments to the caucus nomcom
> >>> procedures.
> >>>
> >>> Some information that might be helpful:
> >>>
> >>> Caucus website <http://www.igcaucus.org/>
> >>>
> >>> Caucus charter <http://www.igcaucus.org/IGC-charter_final-061014.html
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>> Current nomcom process <http://www.igcaucus.org/nomcom-
> >>> process.html>,
> >>> and as it's the focus, copied below.
> >>>
> >>> The charter says:
> >>>
> >>> "All nominations to external bodies, e.g., the IGF multistakholder
> >>> advisory group, will be made using a randomly selected nomcom
> >>> process
> >>> as defined in <http://www.igcaucus.org/nomcom-process.html>"
> >>>
> >>> And the nomcom process:
> >>>
> >>> "Randomly selected nominating committee
> >>>
> >>> In an effort to foster full inclusion in the process of selecting
> >>> the
> >>> appeals board and any other appointments the IGC may make other then
> >>> the election of coordinators, a nominating committee process will be
> >>> used. A nominating committee will be composed of 5 IGC members
> >>> selected at random according to the process documented in RFC3797.
> >>>
> >>> NomCom Process Details:
> >>>
> >>> 1. Whenever possible a call for volunteers for a nominating
> >>> committee
> >>> (nomcom) will be posted 2 months before the scheduled selection of
> >>> appeals team or selection of any other list of nominees needs to be
> >>> decided.
> >>>
> >>> One month will be used to constitute the nomcom and determine the
> >>> criteria for the selections they are to make, and one month will be
> >>> used to discuss and decide on candidates.
> >>>
> >>> 2. At least 25 volunteers, i.e. 5 volunteers for each nomcom seat,
> >>> are required for running the random process.
> >>>
> >>> 3. A non voting chair will be appointed by the coordinators for each
> >>> nomcom with the advice of the IGC membership. In order to serve as a
> >>> chair, it is recommended that a person has served in at least one
> >>> nomcom previously.
> >>>
> >>> 4. All nomcom participants, voting and non voting, will be
> >>> disqualified from selection as candidates for the list or team being
> >>> chosen. Members of the current appeals team will also be
> >>> disqualified
> >>> from being chosen.
> >>>
> >>> 5. Criteria used by nomcom will be made public and will be reviewed
> >>> by the caucus whenever possible before decisions are made
> >>>
> >>> 6. All candidates reviewed by nomcom will be made public as will
> >>> their applications and other information
> >>>
> >>> 7. The nomcom chair will put out a report after the selection giving
> >>> a description of the internal processes used in the selection.
> >>>
> >>> 8. Each nomcom will be selected for a specific decision and will be
> >>> disbanded after the decision is made.
> >>>
> >>> 9. There is no limit on the number of nomcoms an individual may
> >>> serve on."
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I suggest that discussion focus on a process for recommending names
> >>> for the MAG. Remembering the caucus cannot appoint or select, it can
> >>> only recommend.  That the MAG rotation process may change.
> >>>
> >>> If members of the most recent nomcom are not members of this list
> >>> (hope it works...) suggest they are invited to join.
> >>>
> >>> Adam
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> mmwg mailing list
> >>> mmwg at wsis-cs.org
> >>> http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mmwg
> >>> No virus found in this incoming message.
> >>> Checked by AVG.
> >>> Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 270.3.0/1498 - Release Date:
> >>> 6/11/2008
> >>> 7:13 PM
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> mmwg mailing list
> >> mmwg at wsis-cs.org
> >> http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mmwg
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > mmwg mailing list
> > mmwg at wsis-cs.org
> > http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mmwg
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mmwg mailing list
> mmwg at wsis-cs.org
> http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mmwg
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG.
> Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 270.3.0/1501 - Release Date: 6/13/2008
> 6:33 AM