[seedig] Role of former SEEDIG Hosts?
dusan at dukes.in.rs
Wed Oct 25 02:12:25 CEST 2017
Thank you all. Must say: What a discussion about the thing that is not of any crucial value for the SEEDIG.
Sorina’s section WHY speaks for itself. Firstly, it’s expected from observers “to lend their advice and support” while those organization can appoint anybody, even someone new without expected valuable “advice”. The support from those organizations was proved in this two/three years, so with or without those roles, they would provide what is expected from observers. Overall, the whole deal with observers seats is written in just one sentence: “Yes, they could do this even if not offered a formal observer seat, but why not recognize their contributions through such roles?” So, the conclusion – it’s not substantial, it’s about “why not”.
Let me try to answer to this basically trivial question:
1. Because they will do it even if you don’t give them those roles.
2. Because there are bunch of other organizations (supporting orgs and sponsors) which was REGULARY contacted and asked about opinions and advice in previous years, on ANY crucial work or decisions in previous years. Also, in elections committee, you have observers from this orgs, why not in exe com, as they were practically doing it.
3. Because the basic logic is not good and will not bring good – give me to give you.
4. Because we are not old as MAG, big as MAG and IGF, and we don’t need to copy/paste solutions from them just because solutions work there.
5. Because this is not crucial thing right now that we need to solve – hint> legal entity, resolve membership and bunch of others.
6. Because we are building bureaucracy that is not in proportion of SEEDIG (142 members).
7. Because we need exe com to WORK, and the advices - you can find wherever you turn your head
8. Because it is not attracting NEW organizations, but ones that are already involved. So, no new members and no new support.
9. Because this is not what will bring “broader institutional support” more than usual
10. Because “establishing observer seats for Host Countries could strengthen SEEDIG in broader terms”, but could also be a factor of instability. My guess - it will be a decoration committee
11. Because you can ask the orgs do they want that – there are only three orgs in proposal.
12. Because it’s decorative committee, nothing substantial. Because it’s equal to giving a plaques for 10th years anniversary…
I can easily continue with tenish more, but it’s enough for me to conclude – I am strongly against the proposal at this moment, and I still think that this is Muppet Show Balcony committee.
About understanding host as personal or entity, Anja’s idea wasn’t clear enough. In first sentence was countries, then hosts, then “showing respect toward those that were the direct drivers”. The direct drivers were mentioned in my mail. But, overall - it’s irrelevant was it personal or entity, we all, or mostly all, live in SEE and we know what we are going to get from those orgs (except for Serbia/RNIDS). And above all that, people – we need to work.
My two cents,
p.s. – promise, last time writing on this ;)
From: Dušan Caf [mailto:dusan.caf at gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2017 10:34 PM
To: SEEDIG list <seedig at rnids.rs>
Cc: Sorina Teleanu <sorinat at diplomacy.edu>; Anja Gengo <agengo at unog.ch>; Dušan Stojičević <dusan at dukes.in.rs>; Michael Oghia <mike.oghia at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [seedig] Role of former SEEDIG Hosts?
Dear Anja and Sorina, all,
I appreciate this discussion about the role of SEEDIG hosts. It was first initiated during the drafting stage of the ToR. The SEEDIG hosts rotation principle was proposed similar to that applied in the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC), in order to provide for continuity of SEEDIG annual meetings and sharing experience of former host(s).
In the ToR drafting process, the proposal was rejected as it envisaged that the former host and the future / current host would be regular members of the Executive Committee. As that implied substantial changes to the ToR, the proposal was left for later consideration.
Your suggestion, Anja, does not require substantial changes to the ToR, which is highly appreciated. It could also easily gain the support of the SEEDIG community. The aspects pointed out by Michael are also very important: “[…] it could help incentivise more people / organisations / countries […].”
On the other hand, Dušan’s arguments are also worth considering. Is an observer role challenging enough for Host Countries and oblige them to get involved in the work of the Executive Committee and/or SEEDIG?
In my opinion, there should be a formal way for sharing organisational experience among the most recent former and the future/current hosts, which is definitely not only about logistics. More importantly, SEEDIG needs broader institutional support and establishing observer seats for Host Countries could strengthen SEEDIG in broader terms.
Sorina, I give my support to the pilot project.
On 24 Oct 2017, at 20:53, Sorina Teleanu via seedig <seedig at lists.rnids.rs <mailto:seedig at lists.rnids.rs> > wrote:
First, I would like to thank Anja for raising this issue, and to Michael and Dusan for providing their input. I am adding below my own thoughts, not on behalf of the executive committee, but as an executive committee member.
1. If I understand Anja’s suggestion correctly, the idea is to create observers seats on the executive committee for hosts of SEEDIG annual meetings. In my understanding, if we talk about hosts, this would mean organisations, not individuals. And it would be the decision of host organisations to take up the seats or not, and to appoint whomever they want for these seats. (Of course it would be ideal for those appointees to be persons who had helped with the SEEDIG meeting, but that might not always be the case). If I am not wrong, this is also how it works with the IGF MAG, and former IGF host countries. Anja, please correct me if this is not the case.
2. If my understanding is correct, then I would, personally, be in favour of adding such observer seats on the election committee.
Why? It is true that SEEDIG meetings are different, but there are also things that can be learned from one cycle to another. And it does not have to be only about logistics in the strict sense of the term, but also other issues related to the organisation of the meeting (one example being communication and outreach, where the host plays an important role). As someone who has been around for all previous three meetings, I believe that having the former hosts around, to lend their advice and support, would be a positive thing. And it is not only about the former hosts up to now, but something for the future also.
Moreover, since we are talking about organisations, having their institutional support on a long term basis should be a positive thing as well. One simple example would be having AEK (the 2017 host) on board for the future, and helping with outreach to other regulatory authorities within the region. Same for RNIDS (2016 host), helping with outreach to ccTLD registries. (Yes, they could do this even if not offered a formal observer seat, but why not recognise their contributions through such roles?)
How? Observer roles are not envisioned in the current Terms of reference for the executive committee. But the ToR should be easy to amend, if the community decides that this is something to be tried. Building on the discussion so far, I see few things that could be detailed in the ToR for these roles:
a. The seats would be open for former and current SEEDIG host organisations.
b. It would be up to the host organisations to decide if they want to take up these seats, and who to appoint.
c. Observers would be entitled to participate in the work of the executive committee (as it is the case with IGF host countries on the MAG), specifically on issues related to the planning of the annual meeting (i.e. not only logistics). However, a clear difference would be made between executive committee members and observers: the roles and responsibilities of the executive committee would not apply to observers, and they would not be able to take part in decision making processes.
If we are concerned that this might not work as planned, we could consider starting with a pilot. This would mean having these seats added on an interim basis, for one or two years, and revisiting them after, based on actual experience.
These are my thoughts at the moment. It would be great to hear from previous hosts (and also from the upcoming host), and from other community members as well.
On 24 October 2017 at 11:48, Dusan Stojicevic <dusan at dukes.in.rs <mailto:dusan at dukes.in.rs> > wrote:
Nice idea, but…
I want to clarify this with some exact facts.
1. Annual meetings of SEEDIG was held in Sofia, Belgrade and Ohrid. By being a member of exe com at those points, I can say that you are talking about three people here - Iliya, me and Sasho, respectively. Anyone else would be just a representative of the hosting country, which is not idea, I presume?
2. The role of advisory committee or the role of observer is unclear in SEEDIG process so far. This needs to be specified, but I always think of that role as Statler and Waldorf, two grandpa’s from Muppet Show, sitting on the balcony seats… (for young members of the list - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statler_and_Waldorf)
3. All three of us, we all have good idea about logistics, but each meeting was different than other because of differences in SEEDIG agenda. We can help in logistics, but don’t know is that important, regarding the fact that every next meeting will be different in the future.
4. Iliya and me, we already resigned in exe com, by our decisions to not involve more in SEEDIG. Sasho is currently in exe com. If you want to build something like this, before losing time in brainstorming – it’s not that you have 20 people to ask – it’s just three - you can ask us about participating in such committee. Somehow, I doubt that I would like the role of Statle or Waldorf J
My two cents,
From: seedig [mailto:seedig-bounces at lists.rnids.rs <mailto:seedig-bounces at lists.rnids.rs> ] On Behalf Of Michael J. Oghia via seedig
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2017 10:27 AM
To: Anja Gengo <anja.gengo at gmail.com <mailto:anja.gengo at gmail.com> >
Cc: SEEDIG list <seedig at rnids.rs <mailto:seedig at rnids.rs> >
Subject: Re: [seedig] Role of former SEEDIG Hosts?
Thanks for the additional context. And to clarify: I used advisor as a synonym for observer, so absolutely. Since our community is also rather small, those individuals would likely already be involved in some capacity regardless.
So, I still support it -- thanks for the good suggestion!
On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 8:24 AM, Anja Gengo <anja.gengo at gmail.com <mailto:anja.gengo at gmail.com> > wrote:
Dear Mihajlo, All,
Thanks a lot for a prompt response, and very important points.
While leaving it to the SEEDIG respective community to further brainstorm on this, I will just say that the experience of some of the NRIs and the IGF is to give to the Hosts the role of observers. It could be also to think about the role of advisors, as you said, with keeping a clear distinction between the role of the members of the EC and the Hosts representatives.
On 24 October 2017 at 10:18, Michael J. Oghia <mike.oghia at gmail.com <mailto:mike.oghia at gmail.com> > wrote:
Hi Anja, all:
I like this idea, especially since it could help incentivize more people / organizations / countries to get involved and help them stay involved over time. It would also give additional support to the EC. I'd like to hear what others think as well. I'm only concerned that since the SEEDIG region is relatively small, so eventually someone from each country could be involved, which could create a lot of unwanted bureaucracy and politics, or otherwise hinder the process.
Perhaps if such individuals were solely in an advisory position but the EC keeps all decision-making abilities, it would best protect the smooth operation of the SEEDIG process.
On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 8:06 AM, Anja Gengo via seedig <seedig at lists.rnids.rs> wrote:
Given the excellent progress on developing the ToR for the Executive Committee, I wanted to briefly ask if the SEEDIG respective community should think about giving a possibility for the former Hosts of the SEEDIG annual meetings, to continue having a say in the future SEEDIG processes.
I know some of the NRIs colleagues have this practice, as well as the IGF, where the seat on the multistakeholder core organizing teams is given to the Host Countries.
It could be seen as a way of showing respect toward those that were the direct drivers of the process implementation with making possible for the annual meeting to be hosted for the SEEDIG community.
And of course, every next Host could most certainly benefit from the experience the former Hosts have. This option would be alternative, depending on the Hosts final decision.
Just an idea, for the SEEDIG respective community to think of.
Thank you, and good luck with the election process!
Virus-free. <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient&utm_term=link> www.avast.com
Digital Policy Senior Researcher | DiploFoundation
Anutruf, Ground Floor | Hriereb Street | Msida, MSD 1675, Malta
<http://www.diplomacy.edu/> www.diplomacy.edu | www.giplatform.org <http://www.giplatform.org/> | https://dig.watch <https://dig.watch/>
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the seedig