[governance] IGC nominees for MAG

[Adam Peake]

if you think what I'm trying to suggest is top down then I'm not 
explaining myself very well.

Anyway, Carlos is proposing --actually organizing and doing-- a much 
more principled approach. Trying to be strategic in a process no one 
understands probably isn't smart. (and as one potential nomcom member 
is perhaps threatening me... I'd best shut up :-)

I agree, let a nomcom make recommendations. And the caucus should 
make sure other interested groups know about the process and have the 
opportunity to either participate in what we're doing or submit names 
independently.

Adam


>Milton L Mueller ha scritto:
>>You can tell from the above that I do not agree with Adam's position
>>below:
>>
>>Adam Peake:
>>>The five members of the MAG the caucus nomcom recommended in 2006 
>>>be included on any list of candidates with a note to say the 
>>>caucus would support their continued membership of the MAG should 
>>>the SG find they continue to enhance the balance of the group. The 
>>>five (unless anyone drops out) are included in any candidate list.
>>
>>Indeed, I find it difficult to think of any justification for this rule.
>>As I said, this list is nothing more than advice on who to throw out and
>>who could be added. So creating a rule that forces us to support all
>>current members eliminates half of our our ability to give advice. It
>>also completely eviscerates any pressure we are able to place on
>>existing MAG members who allegedly represent us. This is absurd.
>
>Actually, I think that this "double track" would end up this way: 
>you have a big and interesting discussion from the bottom about who 
>could do this job well, then you put a lot of effort in coming to 
>consensus on a couple of names, but then you discover that these two 
>names are just to be added on a slate of five others that were 
>already preselected from the top, and did not have to go through any 
>kind of public scrutiny.
>
>Where did I already see this model? I think it was in ICANN's At 
>Large elections in 2000, and at that time I'm quite sure that some 
>of the people who now advocate this idea were challenging it on the 
>basis of its top-down nature :)
>
>My feeling is that many, possibly most, of the current MAG members 
>should and will be confirmed anyway, whatever process we pick. So 
>why pick one that will leave to any loser the sense of not having 
>been playing on a level field? How helpful can that be to the future 
>credibility of the MAG and of the IGF in general?
>
>Anyway, I volunteer for the Nomcom.
>
>Ciao,
>--
>vb.                   Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu   <--------
>-------->  finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/  <--------
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance