Civil Society Candidates – 2017

Thank you for your interest in the 2017 OGP Steering Committee selection process. We are delighted to share the list of nominations we have received for the two civil society seats on the OGP Steering Committee. We have received a total of 29 nominations representing a highly competitive and accomplished list of civil society leaders representing different countries and thematic interests.

We had an open call for endorsements for all the nominees for a two week period that closed on March 22. We received over 400 endorsements across all candidates. Below, we have published a list of all endorsements we received on [email protected].

Following that, members of the selection committee – Undral Gombodorj (Mongolia), Laura Neuman (US), Mukelani Dimba (OGP Steering Committee), Aidan Eyakuze (OGP Steering Committee) and Paul Maassen (OGP Support Unit) – arrived at a shortlist using the submitted paperwork to individually rank each of the candidates (more detail on the selection process in the Steering Committee Selection tab ). The names and scores of the 10 shortlisted candidates are published on the shortlist tab. Please see below for scores of all other candidates on the long list and an explanatory note on the scoring process. The scoring process is also outlined in the shortlist tab. Please note, the scoring process was done solely based on the documents provided with the nominations and the match against criteria set to respond to the current needs of the OGP Steering Committee. 

For more information on the rotation process and the role of the Steering Committee, please refer to the Steering Committee Selection tab.

Click arrows below to scroll the table.

This initial assessment resulted in individual candidate’ scores of up to a maximum of 75 points (3 criteria, 5 points max per criterion, 5 members of the selection committee). All successful candidates scored between 46 and 62 points on the three criteria combined (and non selected candidate scores ranged from 8 to 44).

The criteria broken down ​for initial shortlisting:​

Leadership

1 point if leadership is mostly limited to leading an organization and/or leadership experience is roughly 3 years.

3 points if candidate has been able to represent his issue beyond his/her organization, played a leadership role nationally (for example on boards) and/or leadership experience is roughly 5 years.

5 points if candidate has experience in leading across issues/organisations, played a leadership role internationally (for example in coalitions or boards) and/or leadership experience is roughly 7 years. Candidate has a diversity of leadership experiences (different issues, different settings).

Working across stakeholders

1 point if candidate has experience in playing different roles in his/her career but mostly within civil society in his/her country.

3 points if candidate has experience in playing different roles in his/her career in different sectors (e.g. government, private sector) or cultures.

5 points if candidate is widely experienced in multi-stakeholder initiatives or negotiating across stakeholders.

Ability to read and represent the interests of civil society

1 point if candidate is hardly rooted in and connected with civil society in his own country, and/or has experience in only one sector, and/or is not involved in the OGP process nationally

3 points if the candidate has broader, more in-depth experience across civil society (e.g. knowledge and networks on more issues), and/or has been actively involved in OGP.

5 points if the candidate is very well connected across civil society and issues, also outside his/her country, has the ability to look beyond his/her own issue, country or region, can serve as a listening post and/or has been a leader in the OGP community.

The resulting list was used as a basis for a more in depth discussion on all candidates individually as the scores are only part of the equation. In that discussion we also looked at other crucial factors including diversity across open government issues, regions, and gender. Lastly, we brought into the conversation the endorsements and other intelligence from the community received on the candidates.