On 30 October 2010, the following were chosen as IGC civil society nominations to the IGF working group of the Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD):
William J Drake
Nomcom chair Ian Peter’s report:
The Nomcom was briefed on October 20, and asked to complete this task by October 31 a very tight timeframe. The members selected were Qusai Al-Shatti, Gurumurthy K, Hempal Shrestha, Jacquiline Morris and Ian Peter. Ian Peter was elected Chair for the purpose of this exercise.
Our first step was to call for nominations to be clarified or added to (original nominations were made in conjunction with the co coordinator ballot on October 10).
A final list of candidates was published on governance list on October 24 as follows:
Jeremy Malcolm, Tim McGinnis , Anupam Agrawal , Rafik Dammak , Mohamed Zahran , Cheryl Langdon-Orr , Jamil Goheer , Wolfgang Kleinwächter, Imran Ahmed Shah , AHM Bazlur Rahman , William J. Drake, Izumi Aizu , Michael Gurstein , Divina Frau-Meigs , Baudouin Schombe , Fearghas McKay, Hakikur Rahman, Solomon Gizaw , Fouad Bajwa , Kwasi Adu-Boahen Opare, Pascal Bekono, Milton L. Mueller, Vittorio Bertola , Shahzad Ahmad, Katitza Rodriguez, Julian Casasbuenas G, Hong Xue, Hanane Boujemi, Jeremy Hunsinger , Vivek Misra, Marília Maciel , Sivasubramanian M , Carlos Watson, Parminder Jeet Singh, Anriette Esterhuysen.
Late nominations were also received from Anja Kovacs, Roland Perry, and Mohamed Zahran. The applications submitted after the closing dates were also examined by the NonCom. However, none of them could make it to the final list.
In addition to selecting the 10 candidates to represent the civil society Internet Governance Caucus, the IGC Nomcom was asked to consider an informal request to include representatives of the “technical community”. We have not done so specifically, because the request was informal and we do not believe it is appropriate in the spirit of multi stakeholderism for our group to try to represent the wishes of a separate stakeholder group. And while we would point out that among the names we are forwarding are people with long standing involvement in and knowledge of Internet technical and governance bodies, it is not up to us to formally attempt representation for these bodies in reponse to an informal request from some other party to do so. We believe a direct approach by CSTD to bodies such as the NRO and ISOC from CSTD would be more appropriate.
Some private correspondence was undertaken with representatives of ISOC and RIRs before arriving at this position, and we believe it is the appropriate response for all parties concerned in the circumstances. No names were submitted by these bodies for Nomcom consideration.
The group defined its selection criteria for IGC representation as
1. Regular contributor to IGC
2. Consultative style with IGC members
3. Knowledge of/ previous experience with CSTD
4. Knowledge of the UN system
5. Able to represent the diverse range of views and perspectives held by civil society
The group also decided that it would consider both geographic and gender diversity in determining its final slate from among the most supported candidates.
Nomcom members then scored candidates individually and each nomcom member who participated came up with a list of 10 names. These were collated , with the majority of candidates on our final list being initially selected by all participating nomcom members. The Nomcom then discussed finalisation of the slate and the merits of respective candidates, bearing in mind geographic and gender balance as much as possible to come up with a final list.
This was a very tight timeframe. Nomcom members worked very well together and with a great deal of agreement on how to proceed to bring this to a successful conclusion in a tight timeframe.
Finally, we must add that the slate of candidates available for selection was extraordinarily good, and representative of the diverse talents within the Internet Governance Caucus. While on this occasion, for the purposes of CSTD representation, the Nomcom clearly wanted to ensure that some of IGC¹s more experienced members were involved, we would like to stress that for future tasks, such as MAG rotation, different criteria would apply and we would like to see more people having the opportunity to represent IGC. So we would encourage unsuccessful nominees on this occasion to put their names forward again in the future and thank them for their offer to contribute on this occasion.