choose

Internet Governance Civil Society Coordination Group (CSCG)

Nominations for the IGF Planning Retreat

Jun 6, 2016

Below is an email just sent to the IGF Secretariat outlining the CSCG nominations for this event. Many thanks to those who applied to attend representing civil society.
Ian Peter

COPY OF EMAIL FOLLOWS

Dear Chengetai,
We are pleased to forward the names of civil society representatives nominated for the IGF Retreat on Advancing the 10-Year Mandate of the Internet Governance Forum on 14-16 July 2016.

Our understanding is that you want from us 2 designated participants, plus 3-4 additional nominees. This is in addition to the MAG member’s nomination of Lea Kaspar, which you will already be aware of.

Our two designated attendees are:
1. Stuart Hamilton – Netherlands -Deputy Secretary General, International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA)
2 Anriette Esterhuysen – South Africa – Executive Director, Association for Progressive Communications (APC)

Our additional nominations are:
3. Jac S M Kee – Malaysia – Manager Women’s Rights Program, APC
4. Cisse Kane -Senegal - Chair, African Civil Society on the Information Society (ACSIS)
5. Analia Apsis – Argentina – Co-coordinator, Internet Governance Caucus
6. Renata Ribeiro – Brazil - IT Professor, Federal University of Ceará, Brazil.

I believe you will have biographical details of all of these nominations, as we believe they all also applied by your online system; but please contact us if you need further information on any of these applicants.

These names have been selected after following as best possible in the time available our established procedures, which are outlined at http://www.internetgov-cs.org/procedures. They were chosen from 10 people who made direct contact with us seeking endorsement as civil society representatives. (Their names are included in Appendix A).

We commend these excellent representatives of civil society to you.

Additionally, and in the spirit of co-operation to ensure the best possible representivity for civil society stakeholders as such events, I wonder if you could take on board the following suggestions on conducting future such exercises, and circulate these to relevant colleagues?

The recommendations are based on the best practice we have observed with other organisations in selecting multistakeholder representatives. We are aware that on this occasion there have been some problems with the way this event was announced, but we will keep our comments to some positive suggestions on procedures for selecting applicants.

1. The process you ran necessitated all civil society applicants applying via your advertised procedures, and then separately to us. Most organisations these days run a transparent process whereby applications details are shared with stakeholder groups. This is not a privacy problem if people are advised beforehand. We commend this method to you as one which is easier for applicants, and also allows for better sharing of information towards selecting the best possible candidates.

2. An unusual feature of the way this selection was managed is that we needed to tell you our selections at the same time as you were still receiving applications (our deadline was the same as the applicant’s deadline). This was further complicated by the MAG members selecting their representative at the same time. May we suggest that, in allocating timeframes for such processes, you allow a period of time after individual nominations have closed to receive stakeholder group nominations? This makes for a less messy process all round.

3. We understand that, in finalising stakeholder representatives, you wish to ensure that you achieve the best possible gender and geographic balance across stakeholder groups. Your process for doing this on this and other occasions has been to make final selections yourselves without further consultation with stakeholder groups. This can sometimes be problematic, as you cannot possibly be aware of the ramifications of some such choices within stakeholder groups.

The way other organisations have handled this is to arrange a simultaneous phone hookup with representatives of stakeholder groups to discuss such final balance issues. You will find that we actually work quite well together in such circumstances, and we believe that the results will be more acceptable to stakeholder groups if this quick final consultation is included. This is also more aligned with the recommendation of the Working Group on Improvements to the IGF, later endorsed by the UN General Assembly, seeking self-management of stakeholder representative processes by respective stakeholder groups. Your current practices need to move further in this direction.

We offer the above suggestions in the spirit of co-operation with you, as we also want to see the best possible representation of stakeholders. And again, we offer our services to work with you and other stakeholder groups to refine procedures to ensure more acceptable and more representative results.

Sincerely,
Ian Peter – Independent Chair, Internet Governance Civil Society Coordination Group (CSCG)
(The Civil Society Coordination Group (CSCG) exists solely to ensure a coordinated civil society response and conduit when it comes to making civil society appointments to outside bodies. It comprises representatives of the coalition members of the Best Bits, Association for Progressive Communications, Internet Governance Caucus, Just Net Coalition, and Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group of ICANN. Together the reach of these groups extends to many hundreds of non-governmental organisations, as well as a much greater number of individuals. )

 

APPENDIX ONE –

APPLICANTS ASSESSED

Analia Apsis *
Tijani Ben Jemaa
Deborah Brown
Anriette Esterhuysen **
Stuart Hamilton **
Cisse Kane *
Jac SM Kee *
Remmy Nweke
Renata Ribeiro *
Klaus Stoll