YCIG Charter Review Working Group - 10-day Objection Period [Until May 16]

[david ng]

Dear all,

Public Comment Period for the YCIG Charter Review was ended on 26 April 2016. Summary of comment received during public comment period from 28 Mar - 26 Apr 2016: 

A total of 4 responses recevied; 

- 2 are empty responses. 

- 1 proposing to have 5-10 Steering Committee members 

- 1 proposing 10 members with gender balance included. 

Survey Result Link: https://www.surveymonkey.com/results/SM-KNV97SKS/ 

Following the procedure, we will now enter the 10 Day Objection Period on Public Comment, which is aimed to provide a window for the YCIG community reviewing the public comments collected over the last month and further feedback on the integration and adoption to the drafted Charter Review Document. 

Please feel free to contribute your input in following online survey. 

YCIG Charter Review - 10 Day Objection Period on Public Comments
https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/N8F3PM7

Contribution Deadline: 16 May 2016 (Mon) 

Reference Document Links: 

- YCIG Charter Review 

https://ycigweb.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/ycig-charter-review_20160328.pdf 

- YCIG Charter - Annex I_Election Process of Steering Committee 

https://ycigweb.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/ycig-charter-annex-i_election-process-of-steering-committee_20160328.pdf 

-YCIG Charter Review Subgroup Comments and Public Review Record

https://ycigweb.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/ycig-charter-review-subgroup-comments-and-public-comments_20160506.pdf 

Kindly also fill out the Doodle Poll to join our public consultation call to discuss on the public comments: 

http://doodle.com/poll/uytia4n5arkmtrut

Look forward to hearing from you.

Regards,

David

--
David Ng
Coordinator of NetMission.Asia

12/F Daily House, 35-37 Haiphong Road, Tsim Sha Tsui, Hong Kong
T: +852 2244 7987 | F: +852 2244 7902 | www.NetMission.Asia

[Ayden Fabien Férdeline]

Hi David, Thank you for sharing the outcome of this consultation process. I was among those YCIG members who did not submit comments. This was for three reasons: firstly and primarily, because the text in the proposed charter did not even remotely reflect the discussions that the subgroup I was in had; secondly, because the SurveyMonkey form was limiting and framed questions in a way that I found objectionable; and finally, because it was not clear how these responses would be analysed nor by whom. Now that the exercise is complete and there are only two 'valid' responses, I would like to state the obvious and express my concern about the representativeness of the results of this public consultation exercise. While I am a strong advocate of evidence-based policy-making, in this instance, the limited number of respondents is unlikely to reflect the views of youth online. My feeling is that we need to start this 'process' (and I use that term loosely) from the beginning. We need to be meeting in subgroups, agreeing on text, publishing drafts as a community, and then launching a consultation process. Consensus is only fleeting at the best of times — a document cobbled together by a few people and which ignores the legitimate concerns and questions raised in subgroups is bound to fail. I appreciate my comments here will not be seen as helpful, and I do appreciate the work that you and others have put into developing the charter, but I would like to re-state my position, as I did a fortnight ago: the YCIG should adopt the best practices of other Internet governance policy-making bodies, and turn to the bottom-up participatory model of governance for reaching consensus and bringing into effect its Charter. We can do this. And I certainly think we should be doing this. Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "YCIG" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ycig+uns...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Martin Fischer]

Dear Ayden,

I very much share your concerns, the open comments in sub group C on membership have been ignored in the first send out, in the revision and there has never been a discussion on them at all. I filled in the latest form, also stating that without due process I feel not comfortable to agree to the revisions. Dropping a pile of papers and excluding uncomfortable comments will not help to create consensus and I am very happy that there is other people speaking up about problems in these procedures.

Here I would like to mention a couple of issues I feel need more thorough discussion with the entire group before there can be any adoption procedure:

- Steering Committee without decision making power is incredibly impractical

- The vision statement should be updated, if we want to do a full review, after all the numbers in the text do hardly fit current western societies (youth is not the largest user group anymore). I would also appreciate a bit more structuralist approach towards the vision statement and less value-based talking. Eg. including the creation of support structures for youth participation in Vision and Specific Objectives.

- The membership paragraph seems pretty messed up (due to not attaching the discussion). There is no need for three categories, also voting rights should be clarified (who can vote for WHAT).

Kind regards

Martin

--

Martin Fischer
Trainer & Facilitator
E-mail: martin.f...@gmail.com
Website: www.gameoverhate.org

[sana.a...@gmail.com]

I would like to echo these insightful comments made by Martin and Ayden. 

I won't even go into the fact that when I repeatedly tried to engage with some of the sub groups I was not added to any of the mailing lists either as an observer or a member. None of the parties in charge of the groups that I contacted mentioned any reason that I could not be added. Yet nothing happened. I began to wonder if the subgroups actually existed. This continued for several weeks before I got sick of following up and being asked for my email address and assured I'd be added. 

There is a deep lack of accountability here and without establishing a fair and transparent process, all the output from this group is just arbitrary ad hoc and unrepresentative of the youth it aims to represent. 

Sana

Sent from my iPhone

[Michael Oghia]

Hi everyone,

In addition to supporting Ayden, Martin, and Sana's statements, I also did not submit comments because I did not think that Ayden's earlier points (from an email he sent many weeks ago) were adequately addressed -- in which he questioned the transparency of the decision making process. Aside from David, I am not sure who even worked on the document in question or how much of the work each subgroup did was included. It is especially disappointing given how collaborative we were coming off from the IGF and WSIS+10 process.

If I'm missing something, please inform. Otherwise, I do not support the document as is.

Best,

-Michael

__________________

Michael J. Oghia
Istanbul, Turkey

Journalist & editor

2015 ISOC IGF Ambassador

Skype: mikeoghia

Twitter | LinkedIn

[Yannis Li]

Hi Everyone,

Just want to quickly chime in on this discussion. 

Firstly, I would say the draft charter review is certainly a collective effort even though some of you questioned its representativeness. The coordinators listed before and agreed upon on the mailing lists have been on several calls to consolidate what have been discussed among the sub-groups. Therefore I would say definitely more people involved in the document development than just David. And we appreciate him for volunteering his time to coordinate and send out notice to keep track on the process all along.

Regarding the transparency issues, I think there is a documentation of the sub-group discussion and comments documented and shared with the survey together. Yet I don’t agree on boycotting the process during the public consultation as the public consultation was exactly meaning to collect opinion on the draft developed. And the draft wasn’t a stone document but just something to start with. 

Anyhow I believe everyone here on the list earnestly want to do something good for the group. It would be much more constructive if we could have more concrete suggestions from everyone and try coming to a consensus on how to move things forward. 

Best 

Yannis

[Michael Oghia]

Hi Yannis,

I wholeheartedly agree with your last statement, and here are a few suggestions:

1. State more clearly who is developing the document. Is it the sub-group coordinators? Is it the chair(s) / executive team / steering committee?

2. Who is the point of contact for the development process and how was that person selected?

3. Who was overseeing the sub-group work and why did he/she/they not better follow-up with the groups to track their work?

4. Address how was the sub-group work incorporated into the document.

5. Martin's points should be addressed

If any of these are clear and I've missed it, please link me to where I can find the information.

Best,

-Michael

[David NG]

Hi everyone,

Sorry that the following one will be a long email.

It is really grateful to see there is active discussion on the coalition issue, while we all contribute voluntarily for such meaningful movement on youth engagement in Internet Governance after a long day of work/study. Thanks Ayden, Martin, Sana, Michael and Yannis for the response. 

Maybe it is easier to share from personal view on how's things getting started, I was as one of the moderators of the YCIG session in IGF2015 together with Ephraim and Yannis, that's probably the reason why you will see us showing up so frequently. Meanwhile, we are just like you, a member of the coalition, neither existing steering committee member nor interim steering committee member (as there is no interim SC actually). 

During the session at IGF,  there is a consensus on reviewing current charter for steering committee election especially evaluate the election procedure and membership structure. As you can see our coalition need a better structure and coordination on admin issues such as keeping meetings record or website maintenance. Being the session moderator and member of YCIG, I feel there is obligation to help executing the community agreed action plan to move things forward, and now would like to try my  best to provide the information I have in hand, hope it helps keeping everyone on the same track. I believe the argument may sometimes because of misunderstanding and expectation mismatched.

---

CHARTER REVIEW PROCESS

1) 12 Nov 2015 - YCIG Session @ IGF2015

Reference: 

Session Report

http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/documents/igf-meeting/igf-2015-joao-pessoa/igf2015-reports/572-igf2015youth-coalition-on-internet-governance/file

Charter Review & Steering Committee Election Discussion:

Background: As part of the transition process of the YCIG, a new steering committee needed to be formed with the former committee members retiring due to the age limit. Therefore there is a need to review and revise the charter with more details on election procedure and membership structure. A Consultation Process has therefore being initiated from Bianca Ho, IGF MAG member 2015 on the election process before the IGF Brazil meeting. 

Next Steps: 

proposed by Pim ten Thije (Adopted at the Young Coalition on Internet Governance session): 

1. Start with a working group created from a call in the mailing list. Goal: define the process of changing the charter. 

---- Done by the organizers of the Youth Coalition On Internet Governance in Brazil. 

---- Everyone can participate, 

---- When a lot of people want to participate actively: we can create sub work-groups for specific parts of the charters. 

2. A draft of the charter changes is created (by the same or a different working group). 

3. The whole community (mailing list) can give input and suggestions via Piratepad. 

4. Via the mailing list a vote is done on the specific proposal for the new charter ---- This is the most political neutral way. 

5. The steering committee is proposed and elected according to the charter.

2) late Nov to Early Dec 2015 - Call for Charter Review Working Group

YCIG Session Report of IGF Brazil & Call for Volunteers of Charter Review Working Group

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/ycig/wIQtKM3bb5A/U50tMeXdAAAJ

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/ycig/wIQtKM3bb5A/KqeAX8ELAwAJ

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/ycig/wIQtKM3bb5A/JJC29B3FBwAJ

Based on the proposed next step, the session moderators (Ephriam, Yannis and David)  call for the formation of Charter Review Working Group, people should join before 6 Dec 2015, and scheduled a Working Group call on 8 Dec 2015. 

3) 8 Dec 2015 - Charter Review Working Group Call

YCIG Call Minutes December 8th

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/ycig/rwiW20E-5ck/ym9q3gQMCQAJ

Reference: 

Call Minutes

https://goo.gl/BP4pTe

All subgroups has PIC – Persons In Contact, they take the responsibility among each other for organising calls/meetings and taking minutes. By splitting this responsibility we ensure continuity. 

a. Steering committee 

i. David NG (Asia Pacific) 

ii. Ephraim Percy Kenyanito (Africa) 

iii. Florian Daniel (Europe)

b. Election Process 

i. Pim ten Thije (Europe) 

ii. Yannis Li (Asia Pasific)

c. Membership 

i. Bianca Ho (Asia Pasific) 

ii. Marina Macaja (LAC) 

iii. Janet

d. Vision and Mission   

i. Hailey YUNG (LAC) 

ii. Su Sonia Herring (Europe)

Proposed timeline

i. Sub-Group Draft v1 - Jan 18 

ii. 2nd Call: - Jan 21/22 

iii. Coordinator combine draft v2 - Jan 27 

iv. Public Comment for 30 days - Jan 28 - March 3) 

v. Final Draft - 9 Mar 

vi. 10-day Objection Period: - Until 19 March 

vii. Call to review objections - Week 21 March 

viii. Start Election - End of March

According to the call, 4 subgroups were formed with coordinators assigned, although the original purpose is election procedure and membership structure, "vision and mission" subgroup was also formed as to collect views from members. Meanwhile, a more detailed timeline was adopted. 

3) 18 Dec 2015 - Deadline for joining as volunteers for Charter Review Sub-Group

(Reply by 18 Dec) Volunteers for Charter Review Sub-Group - YCIG Call Minutes December 8th

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/ycig/rwiW20E-5ck/t-a3HDDECQAJ

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/ycig/rwiW20E-5ck/Yi076HH6DgAJ

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/ycig/rwiW20E-5ck/tbXRKlYrAwAJ

As the first draft from sub-group should be out on Jan 18, the deadline for joining sub-group set at 18 Dec.

4) Jan - March 2016 -  Subgroups Communication

YCIG Charter Review Subgroup Comments and Public Review Record

https://ycigweb.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/ycig-charter-review-subgroup-comments-and-public-comments_20160506.pdf 

Sub-group coordinators are using different method to collect views from their own group members, And as stated in 8 Dec minute, coordinators will combine the document as 2nd draft for public comment. Nevertheless, it takes longer time then we expected, the timeline proposed to the current one.

5) 28 March - 26 April 2016 - Public Comment 

YCIG Charter Review Working Group - Public Comment Period [March 28 - April 26]

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/ycig/tMACqRgTnos/ouqNTmAsBgAJ

Reference Document Links: 

- YCIG Charter Review 

https://ycigweb.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/ycig-charter-review_20160328.pdf 

- YCIG Charter - Annex I_Election Process of Steering Committee 

https://ycigweb.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/ycig-charter-annex-i_election-process-of-steering-committee_20160328.pdf 

-YCIG Charter Review Subgroup Comments and Public Review Record

https://ycigweb.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/ycig-charter-review-subgroup-comments-and-public-comments_20160506.pdf 

After coordinators as listed combining the draft which follows the discussion outcome of session report, that the document will be focus on election procedure and membership structure, the public comment period was opened for a month, welcoming input from all ycig members.

6) Until 16 May 2016 - 10-day Objection Period 

YCIG Charter Review Working Group - 10-day Objection Period [Until May 16]

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/ycig/ieJjKQ71Tv4/pCbRVn6SBAAJ

This is where we are now, coordinators based on the comment received seeking for feedbacks from the community, to further work on the final draft. 

7) Next Step?

I guess it cannot simply decide by few of us here on how the process should be i.e. just fully adopt second draft or immediately restart the consultation process, as that may somehow conflict to the community consensus from the session@IGF and 8 Dec call. I believe it is always an open discussion, and that is what the coordinator group trying to do by keeping the record for referencing and provide open window for commenting. Would like to suggest organizing public comment period again for the final draft, that maybe another way out. 

---

Last but not least, that will be my personal response, please feel free to skip this part if you like  

@Ayden and Martin, I totally understand your concern, on top just would like to point out the public comment by Ephraim proposing 10 steering committee members with gender balance, indeed was already raised in the subgroup A discussion, however members do not adopt for the first draft, he raised again in public comment, and it is currently discussing. In fact, many points you raised are really insightful. I think we should make use of another round of public comment period, that we may proposed to have one. However, as the main purpose of charter review is on discussing election procedure and membership structure, maybe a separated vision statement should be slip out from the charter as annex, which we need not to fall into the charter review process again in the future but just annex review for update. 

@Sana, as one of the subgroup A coordinators, I am sorry that missing you out in the process, which I search back the mail record and only find this email on 7 Jan 2015 [https://groups.google.com/d/msg/ycig/rwiW20E-5ck/nKQWVFBVEQAJ], while there are still many emails coming in after the sub groups volunteers deadline on 18 Dec 2015. 

@Michael, I do agree we are doing quite well for the collaborative work of IGF taking stock paper and WSIS+10 statement. Understanding the charter review as a longer and more complex discussion process, transparency is of the concern, hope the above record may answer most of your questions. 

@Yannis, thanks for the effort from you and also other coordinators in the coordination calls and document preparation. Think "openness" is what the team believe, that we all trying to engage more people joining in the way to move things forward. 

----

Thank you for your attention. Good Night.

Regards,

David

[Martin Fischer]

Dear David,

I assume a lot of the transparency issues entered in the transition from step 3 to step 4, as the document from step 4 seems to not reflect the discussions from the subgroups. For example here is my group: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kwrpdjVtSMA3nislxiMS3eIrkVyIqPc4xlbH-cguorc/edit

As I stated in the document already I am not happy that already during the first update the comments were disregarded, when in the public consultation none of the points have been recognised it certainly did not feel open or inclusive.

I support to reopen for public consultation but we should find a procedure that allows everyone to contribute directly without these filtering mechanisms that seem to work rather poorly. I do not believe subgroups are necessary, the participation in the subgroups has been very limited. I think a complied document up for commenting will do the trick much better. Sadly the phone calls do not seem to attract sufficient participation (I have not signed up as I have to work these hours), hence I assume asynchronous mechanisms will have to suffice.

Kind regards

Martin

--

Martin Fischer
Trainer & Facilitator
E-mail: martin.f...@gmail.com
Website: www.gameoverhate.org

[Arsène Tungali]

Hi everyone,

Sorry i have been quiet lately due to a lot of other engements in the IG arena but also work. 

I have been following discussions here and i would like to thank and commend everyone for their comments, inputs, for raising issues and for willing to see things change for better.

I salute the work done by David in taking the lead, coordinating this work of charter review. This is a voluntary job and he chose to support that way, which is really well done.

After reading comments from colleagues and details provided by David in this trend as he was trying to explain and summarize the process, i think i personally agree on opening up again for consultations and as Martin said, to no longer have subgroups but to have a compiled text which will be presented to the list for everyone's participation.

If we can agree on timing (say open for a month) and in an open way, receive comments and inputs to be brought to the doc. This can be done either on etherpad or a similar platform that can help track comments etc. Much have been done so far, we should not start the process all over again and if all those comments that were not included can be brought back by their authors for consideration and appreciation.

My two cents for now.

-----------------

Arsène Tungali,

Co-Founder, @RudiInternational

CEO, @SmartServicesSarl & @MabingwaF

www.twitter.com/arsenebaguma

+243 993810967

Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo

Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos)

[Lorena Jaume-Palasi]

Dear all, 

this is one of the most constructive and liveliest threads we've had here for a while. I second Martin's proposal. Do you know this tool`?

https://www.discourse.org/

It may help us to open up the consultation in a good, structured way including all in a transparent way.

Cheers

Lorena

Lorena Jaume-Palasí ∙ Coordinator, Global Internet Governance Arbeitsgruppe

Internet & Gesellschaft Co:llaboratory e.V.

www.intgovforum.de ∙ www.collaboratory.de ∙ Newsletter ∙ Facebook ∙ Twitter ∙ Youtube

[Yannis Li]

Just took a quick look at the discourse.org.

It looks more like a forum to my understanding. Might be we could make it separate topics as before and post the already drafted version and people can add comments to it if that’s what preferred. In that case, everyone can view all comments and who made the suggestions. 

But I would propose we try encourage people to provide suggested test in addition to just comments and rationale.

Best

Yannis 

[Michael Oghia]

Hi everyone,

Sorry I am only now responding David. I'll keep it short: 

1. Thank you for highlighting the information you did. Indeed, that was largely the kind of clear description I was looking for.

2. I fully endorse a second comment period

3. I agree with Martin's statements in the email below, specifically that there was a lack of clear communication between steps 3 and 4. But perhaps we can use this as a lesson to strengthen transparency (or in reality, clearer communication) in the group. Especially in light of the new domain name, we can post all materials on a central platform that can be the go-to resource to see what is happening with any specific YCIG process (instead of looking through mails).

4. In line with my third comment, I suggest we include language in the charter on transparency and communication -- if it isn't already.

Best,

-Michael

[david ng]

Dear all,

Would like to push forward a bit on the issue while we all stuck at this point. 

From our previous discussion, seems we all prefer having another round of public consultation on the charter review. 

Suggest having a call to discuss with the coordinator group on how we can better work together on the public consultation such as suggestion on format, timeline, duration... 

Create a doodle poll here for coordinating the call, 

http://doodle.com/poll/bx5vpyq5yifccb63

Please add your availability in the doodle poll, feel free to share your thought and join the call if you are interested. 

Regards,

David

[Ephraim Percy Kenyanito]

Thank you. I will fill the poll too.

Sorry things have been super busy these past weeks.

--

Best Regards,

Ephraim Percy Kenyanito

Sub-Saharan Africa Policy Analyst/ Mchambuzi wa Sera Afrika Kusini ya Sahara

Access Now | accessnow.org

@ekenyanito
PGP: E6BA8DC1

Fingerprint: B0FA394AF73DEB7AA1FDC7360CFED26DE6BA8DC1

Subscribe to the Access Now Express, our weekly newsletter on digital rights

Sign up for our action alerts