<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16608" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#000080 size=2>Hi all. Please excuse a novice
request, but I am unable to find a complete list of the current composition of
the MAG. Does anyone have a link? Thanks so much!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#000080 size=2>Ginger</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000080 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=parminder@itforchange.net
href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net">Parminder</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=governance@lists.cpsr.org
href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</A> ; <A
title=marzouki@ras.eu.org href="mailto:marzouki@ras.eu.org">'Meryem
Marzouki'</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, March 19, 2008 11:57
AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> RE: [governance] IGC nominees
for MAG</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV><BR>Meryem<BR><BR>> If you consider these two disctincts
levels, we're most probably in<BR>> agreement. At least I don't see any
contradiction with what you've<BR>> stated.<BR>><BR><BR>Me
neither. Thanks. Parminder <BR><BR>> -----Original Message-----<BR>>
From: Meryem Marzouki [mailto:marzouki@ras.eu.org]<BR>> Sent: Wednesday,
March 19, 2008 6:10 PM<BR>> To: <A
href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</A><BR>>
Subject: Re: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG<BR>> <BR>>
Parminder,<BR>> <BR>> I think we have to make a distinction between
:<BR>> <BR>> 1- the broader outreach of the IGC, and generally speaking,
its<BR>> general efforts to promote what it perceives as shared concerns
and<BR>> positions from civil society at large, according to its
charters'<BR>> vision, mission, objectives and tasks. I entirely agree with
you on<BR>> this, and this is provided by the charter anyway, as you
pointed out.<BR>> The consequence is that yes, this doesn't prevent IGC to
recommend<BR>> (e.g. for MAG membership), non current IGC members.
Actually, if I<BR>> remember well, this already happened during the first
selection process.<BR>> It's up to the nomcom to take or not into account,
among the whole<BR>> set of selection criteria, the prior engagement of the
applicant with<BR>> the IGC, depending on the applicant's overall profile
and statement<BR>> of intent.<BR>> Obviously, once nominated by IGC and
then selected by the UN SG, the<BR>> MAG member must become engaged in the
IGC (and in particular<BR>> subscribed to its mailing list) at least during
his/her MAG membership.<BR>> <BR>> and<BR>> <BR>> 2- the
representation issue, in terms of commitments to the IGC from<BR>> the
eventually selected MAG members: being accountable to the IGC,<BR>>
promoting and defending the IGC positions, etc.<BR>> <BR>> If you
consider these two disctincts levels, we're most probably in<BR>>
agreement. At least I don't see any contradiction with what
you've<BR>> stated.<BR>> <BR>> My point is that any selected MAG
member who is present on the IGC<BR>> recommendation list sent to the UN SG
should consider him/herself as<BR>> representative of the IGC in terms of
commitments, whether or not<BR>> this person have also been proposed by
another CS constituency.<BR>> <BR>> For instance, if person X is
selected by the UN SG as MAG member,<BR>> after having been recommended by
IGC as well as by three other<BR>> constituencies (or individuals) A, B,
and C, X commits anyway 100%<BR>> and is 100% accountable to IGC. And to
ensure this, this commitment<BR>> has to be indicated prior to any
selection by IGC. Obviously, it is<BR>> left to X's own ethics to make sure
that IGC, A, B and C's interests<BR>> and positions, as well as
requirements in terms of commitment, are<BR>> not in contradiction with
each others.<BR>> <BR>> Last but not least, the stakeholders repartition
of the MAG as well<BR>> as the last IGC statement's demand that final
selection made by UN SG<BR>> clearly indicates what stakeholder group a MAG
member is associated<BR>> with, make it hardly compatible that a person
nominated by IGC be<BR>> also nominated by a constituency who presents
itself in another<BR>> stakeholder category than CS.<BR>> <BR>>
Best,<BR>> Meryem<BR>> <BR>> Le 19 mars 08 à 06:10, Parminder a écrit
:<BR>> <BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> >
Bill and Meryem have raised the issue of whom does the IGC<BR>> >
represent, and accordingly whether we should only nominate IGC<BR>> >
members, or consider some outsiders as well.<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>>
><BR>> > I had tried to raise and discuss this issue in my email dt
16th,<BR>> > which is enclosed. And it is certainly a very important
issue.<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > First, about
Meryem's point<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > I don't
agree with IGC<BR>> ><BR>> > > declaring itself all of sudden
as representing more than what it is,<BR>> ><BR>> > > i.e. this
list (or even eligible members of the IGC.<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>>
><BR>> > Which is somewhat allied to Bill's point<BR>>
><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > > I'm not quite getting the
argument about why the caucus should be<BR>> ><BR>> > >
submitting<BR>> ><BR>> > > names from elsewhere. The IGC
served as a focal point and funnel<BR>> > for<BR>> ><BR>> >
> other<BR>> ><BR>> > > CS groups during WSIS because it was
part of a larger coalition,<BR>> > but WSIS<BR>> ><BR>> >
> is<BR>> ><BR>> > > over and so is that coalition.<BR>>
><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > Here, I draw your attention to the
charter (<A
href="http://www.igcaucus.org/">http://www.igcaucus.org/</A><BR>> >
IGC-charter_final-061014.html) which not only makes the point of<BR>> >
IGc's WSIS lineage but also in its mission statement stresses the<BR>> >
point of being/ providing a forum for wider CS inputs, coordination<BR>>
> of CS advocacy etc. And if there were still any ambiguity in
this,<BR>> > the list of 'objectives and tasks' is quite clear about
linkages to<BR>> > other CS groups, outreach to them, and even
representing them in<BR>> > some way. In fact, 6 out of 8 points under
'objectives and tasks'<BR>> > speaks about this association with other
CS groups.<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > I think, as per
the charter, IGC clearly looks at itself in some<BR>> > way as
representing a wider CS constituency in IGC process. and I<BR>> > think
such issue-based cross representation is also the way to go<BR>> > in a
network age, for the greatest effectiveness of CS.<BR>> ><BR>>
><BR>> ><BR>> > It is also important to see and understand such
wider<BR>> > representation in a somewhat different, and more topical,
context.<BR>> > We cant expect a global body of 40 to reserve five
members for a<BR>> > group of 60 or so individuals, isn't it. And we are
actually asking<BR>> > for increased representation. In numbers, a group
like ISOC<BR>> > (whatever be its stakeholder status) is much much
bigger. Many NGOs<BR>> > and most CS networks are in fact much bigger.
So, obviously our<BR>> > claim to the kind of representation we ask for
can only be on the<BR>> > basis of being a kind of key CS front group
(loosely put) in the IG<BR>> > arena, for a wider CS constituency, with
which we should try to<BR>> > keep making connections, as per our
charter. This we hardly ever do<BR>> > though, preferring to live in our
splendid isolation. This needs to<BR>> > bother us, and we should take
corrective steps, but not to throw<BR>> > away the semblance of this
wider CS representative-ness, with which<BR>> > will be thrown away most
of our legitimacy.<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > This is
why I spoke of IGC filling in a CS vacuum -with however<BR>> > thin and
shaky base - in IG area (which McTim refutes), and trying<BR>> > to do a
better job of it. This is also why issues of, what is CS,<BR>> > what CS
we represent, how to bring ourselves in a closer alignment<BR>> > with
wider CS constituencies ( involved in global policy arena) is<BR>> > an
important issue - which many just refuse to discuss, and other<BR>> >
consider all such discussions as some kind of a personal conspiracy<BR>>
> that I and some others are trying to hatch in this group.<BR>>
><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > This said, to address the
practical issue raised by Bill<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>>
> why would we allocate scarce<BR>> ><BR>> > > nominee slots
to folks who aren't here and hence wouldn't play those<BR>> ><BR>>
> > roles?<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > First, it
is not very likely that many names from outside IGC will<BR>> > actually
be suggested. Most people/ groups with a like-minded<BR>> > interest in
IG, and interested in IGF processes, I understand are<BR>> > already in
the IGC. Second, we can request any outsider, we wish to<BR>> >
nominate, to get engaged with the group, at least in the period of<BR>>
> the MAG membership, and if our selection is good, I expect the<BR>>
> person to so get involved. In any case we will have core existing<BR>>
> IGC members in the MAG, a few of them if they do the task of<BR>> >
representing IGC in the MAG is more than enough. The most important<BR>>
> issue is to keep the identity of IGC as the main group
representing<BR>> > wider CS constituencies and interests intact, and
further<BR>> > strengthen it. If we don't, we will be doing it our own
peril.<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > I think these
issues being central to IGC's identity and<BR>> > representative-ness
deserve a discussion here.<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> >
Parminder<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>>
><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>>
><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > >
-----Original Message-----<BR>> ><BR>> > > From: Meryem
Marzouki [mailto:marzouki@ras.eu.org]<BR>> ><BR>> > > Sent:
Tuesday, March 18, 2008 10:41 PM<BR>> ><BR>> > > To: <A
href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</A><BR>>
><BR>> > > Subject: Re: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG<BR>>
><BR>> > ><BR>> ><BR>> > > Adam, and all,<BR>>
><BR>> > ><BR>> ><BR>> > > Le 18 mars 08 à 17:09,
Adam Peake a écrit :<BR>> ><BR>> > ><BR>> ><BR>> >
> > Anyway, Carlos is proposing --actually organizing and doing--
a<BR>> ><BR>> > > > much more principled approach.<BR>>
><BR>> > > [...]<BR>> ><BR>> > > ><BR>>
><BR>> > > > I agree, let a nomcom make
recommendations.<BR>> ><BR>> > ><BR>> ><BR>> > >
Contrarily to the LAC caucus, the nomcom is not an option for IGC.<BR>>
><BR>> > > It's mandatory per the IGC charter. So - and I'm pretty
comfortable<BR>> ><BR>> > > to remind this as someone who
entirely disagree on the nomcom<BR>> > process<BR>> ><BR>> >
> to select people, who accordingly voted against this provision
when<BR>> ><BR>> > > adopting the IGC charter, and still
accordingly is never<BR>> > volunteering<BR>> ><BR>> > >
for nomcoms - unless the IGC charter is revised and this is unlikely<BR>>
><BR>> > > right now, we have to go through the nomcom, fullstop.
I'm with<BR>> ><BR>> > > Diderot on this (and on many other
issues as well:))<BR>> ><BR>> > ><BR>> ><BR>> >
> Let me add that to the best of my understanding, no one may be<BR>>
><BR>> > > recused from volunteering to a nomcom. And that "All
nomcom<BR>> ><BR>> > > participants, voting and non voting,
will be disqualified from<BR>> ><BR>> > > selection as
candidates for the list or team being chosen" (see<BR>> ><BR>> >
> <A
href="http://www.igcaucus.org/nomcom-process.html">http://www.igcaucus.org/nomcom-process.html</A>).<BR>>
><BR>> > ><BR>> ><BR>> > > First rule: don't change
the rules during the process (or, worse,<BR>> ><BR>> > >
retroactively). In terms of legislation, this is called rule of law.<BR>>
><BR>> > ><BR>> ><BR>> > > > And the caucus
should make sure other interested groups know about<BR>> ><BR>> >
> > the process and have the opportunity to either participate in
what<BR>> ><BR>> > > > we're doing or submit names
independently.<BR>> ><BR>> > ><BR>> ><BR>> > > I
don't agree with this. More exactly, I don't agree with IGC<BR>>
><BR>> > > declaring itself all of sudden as representing more
than what it is,<BR>> ><BR>> > > i.e. this list (or even
eligible members of the IGC, as Parminder<BR>> ><BR>> > >
recently reminded: "I must inform the new members that they will be<BR>>
><BR>> > > eligible for voting (if they have subscribed to the
charter in their<BR>> ><BR>> > > acceptance email)<BR>>
><BR>> > > only after being on the list for 2 months. Same goes
for IGC<BR>> ><BR>> > > positions, including nomcom
etc...".<BR>> ><BR>> > ><BR>> ><BR>> > > First
implication of this is that people proposed by IGC for MAG<BR>>
><BR>> > > nominations should be accountable to IGC, and not
dilute the<BR>> ><BR>> > > accountability need in whatever CS
fuzziness. If someone is proposed<BR>> ><BR>> > > by another
entity in addition to IGC, then bravo, but this doesn't<BR>> ><BR>>
> > reduce by any mean the need for accountability to IGC.<BR>>
><BR>> > ><BR>> ><BR>> > > Best,<BR>>
><BR>> > >
Meryem____________________________________________________________<BR>>
><BR>> > > You received this message as a subscriber on the
list:<BR>> ><BR>> > > <A
href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</A><BR>>
><BR>> > > To be removed from the list, send any message
to:<BR>> ><BR>> > > <A
href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</A><BR>>
><BR>> > ><BR>> ><BR>> > > For all list information
and functions, see:<BR>> ><BR>> >
> <A
href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</A><BR>>
><BR>> ><BR>> > De : "Parminder" <<A
href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net">parminder@itforchange.net</A>><BR>>
> Date : 16 mars 2008 15:14:07 HNEC<BR>> > À : <<A
href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</A>>,
"'Jeanette Hofmann'"<BR>> > <<A
href="mailto:jeanette@wzb.eu">jeanette@wzb.eu</A>>, "'Milton L Mueller'"
<<A href="mailto:mueller@syr.edu">mueller@syr.edu</A>><BR>> > Cc :
"'Meryem Marzouki'" <<A
href="mailto:marzouki@ras.eu.org">marzouki@ras.eu.org</A>><BR>> >
Objet : RE: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG<BR>> > Répondre à : <<A
href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</A>>,
"Parminder"<BR>> > <<A
href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net">parminder@itforchange.net</A>><BR>>
><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > I will like to offer
a couple of points, in my personal capacity,<BR>> > on this<BR>> >
very useful discussion to evolve rules and methods for MAG<BR>> >
nominations.<BR>> ><BR>> > The 'personal capacity' vis a vis
'representing IGC' is a central<BR>> > point<BR>> > here. And we
need to take adequately nuanced positions in this regard.<BR>> ><BR>>
> First of all, the provision in MAG rules that members serve in
their<BR>> > personal capacity should be seen in the right context. This
is<BR>> > meant as a<BR>> > corrective to a possible situation
where seats are allocated to<BR>> > institutions, and whoever comes
representing the concerned<BR>> > institutions gets<BR>> > to sit
and participate in the MAG. Such a thing is obviously<BR>> > difficult
to<BR>> > implement in a multi-stakeholder context. However, for most
MAG<BR>> > participants, no one really seriously believes that they
completely<BR>> > speak<BR>> > only on basis of their personal
convictions, without any reference<BR>> > to the<BR>> > stands and
views of the groups they are known to be associated with.<BR>> ><BR>>
> Therefore the 'corrective' implied in the use of the term
'personal<BR>> > capacity' cannot be extended to the extreme to mean
that a MAG<BR>> > member has no<BR>> > representative-ness at all.
As Milton colorfully described, this is<BR>> > not an<BR>> >
invitation to a cocktail party, it is a public policy body. You<BR>> >
don't sit<BR>> > their because of any special personal attributes (that
would be<BR>> > elitist),<BR>> > you are there in some
representative capacity - whether of a<BR>> > constituency,<BR>> >
or a set of ideals.<BR>> ><BR>> > However, especially for a CS
member, since CS by definition is a<BR>> > less-institutionalized
category, I do agree that it is not possible<BR>> > for a CS<BR>>
> member just, and only, to parrot adopted positions. There is an<BR>>
> element of<BR>> > 'personal capacity' (with a wider accountability
to CS values and<BR>> > positions)<BR>> > here. So, we should have
some promises and processes for reporting<BR>> > back,<BR>> >
representing CS positions etc, but also allow a good degree of<BR>> >
'personal<BR>> > capacity' based representation. We need to find an in
between<BR>> > arrangement,<BR>> > as Jeanette suggests.<BR>>
><BR>> > I think some relatively more extreme 'be a true
representative'<BR>> > positions<BR>> > are coming as a (I think
legitimate) reaction against the way most/<BR>> > some IGC<BR>> >
nominated individuals took the 'personal capacity' thing so<BR>> >
literally that<BR>> > there has been very little if any
'representative-ness' character<BR>> > in their<BR>> >
membership.<BR>> ><BR>> > There is another, important, angle here.
When we make the demand to be<BR>> > represented in MAG, and be
represented in even greater number than<BR>> > we are<BR>> > now,
we just need to have some internal (and external) feel of what<BR>> >
and who<BR>> > we are as a group. Are we a discussion list, or are we
a<BR>> > collections 60<BR>> > something members who have signed
on the IGC charter (each in her<BR>> > personal<BR>> > capacity).
A discussion list would not mean anything in such a<BR>> > context.
A<BR>> > group of 60 individuals, all in their personal capacity,
would<BR>> > still be just<BR>> > that. So, obviously any merit in
our claims comes from (some degree<BR>> > of) our<BR>> >
'representative-ness' of a wider CS community. This 'representative-<BR>>
> ness'<BR>> > cannot disappear when we forward nominations for MAG
members.<BR>> ><BR>> > Another issue is whether we will nominate
from among IGC members<BR>> > alone. This<BR>> > opens the issue
of defining members. The charter defines membership<BR>> > as
those<BR>> > who have signed the charter. Or do we consider anyone among
all IGC<BR>> > e-list<BR>> > participants. Or consider anyone who
we may think is CS, and still<BR>> > request a<BR>> > certain
degree of engagement with IGC post selection as MAG member.<BR>>
><BR>> > In this a three way identity of IGC is relevant. (1)It is a
discussion<BR>> > e-list. (2) it is an action and advocacy group of
those who are<BR>> > subscribed<BR>> > to the charter and (3)IGC
is a kind of a front - or an interface -<BR>> > of a<BR>> >
wider CS constituency. This role of CS comes from the WSIS, and is<BR>>
> also<BR>> > strongly implied in our charter.<BR>> ><BR>>
> It is in the nature and identity 3 above, that we really have
some<BR>> > basis and<BR>> > legitimacy to expect that a couple of
names we suggest to be<BR>> > included in the<BR>> > MAG. But for
this while we should internally understand and affirm<BR>> > this
'CS<BR>> > front' (though we cant claim we have exclusive CS
representation),<BR>> > we should<BR>> > also have some sense of
what is the nature of that wider CS which<BR>> > we may<BR>> >
represent. Unfortunately this discussion is something many of us have<BR>>
> consistently refused to engage in.<BR>> ><BR>> > So while we
will mostly nominate IGC members, because it is our<BR>> > understanding
that many/most CS members who have direct interest in<BR>> > IGF
do<BR>> > in some form engage with this group, it is open to us to
nominate<BR>> > some who<BR>> > may not do so at present.
Generally, such people may be of a<BR>> > relatively high<BR>> >
profile such that while they do not at present engage with IGC we<BR>> >
still<BR>> > think they will be good MAG members.<BR>> ><BR>>
> It is though open to us to request these nominated persons to
keep<BR>> > sufficient degree of engagement with the IGC, which if our
choices are<BR>> > right, I am sure they will agree to. However, they
will, as may<BR>> > regular IGC<BR>> > member that become MAG
members, will certainly push views beyond the<BR>> > constraints of only
the agreed positions of the caucus. To make some<BR>> > distinction, one
may expect that the existing IGC member nominees<BR>> > to have
a<BR>> > much greater amount of interaction, than some 'star'
outside-IGC CS<BR>> > persons<BR>> > that may get our backing. But
the latter still shd do enough<BR>> > interaction.<BR>> ><BR>>
> Meaning, the actual situation will/ should be somewhere in
between<BR>> > 'true<BR>> > representative' of the IGC and some
amount of 'personal capacity'<BR>> > with a<BR>> > broader
accountability to wider CS constituency. Lest I am<BR>> > misunderstood,
I<BR>> > am quite unhappy/ unsatisfied like many others about this
exclusive<BR>> > 'personal capacity' interpretation that most IGC backed
MAG members<BR>> > have<BR>> > taken. And the situation should
change, and change a lot.<BR>> ><BR>> > We should codify some
processes of interactiosn with IGC for the CS<BR>> > nominees<BR>>
> that we recommend. And on that I see a good amount of consensus in
the<BR>> > emails that have been posted.<BR>> ><BR>> >
Parminder<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > > -----Original
Message-----<BR>> > > From: Jeanette Hofmann
[mailto:jeanette@wzb.eu]<BR>> > > Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2008 7:52
PM<BR>> > > To: <A
href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</A>; Milton
L Mueller<BR>> > > Cc: Meryem Marzouki<BR>> > > Subject: Re:
[governance] IGC nominees for MAG<BR>> > ><BR>> > > Hi, I
have a few questions regarding this list of "minimal rules".<BR>> >
><BR>> > > 1. The caucus statement prepared for the last public
consultation a<BR>> > > rotation of one third of the MAG members:
"One third of MAG members<BR>> > > should be rotated every year." is
this recommendation still valid<BR>> > and<BR>> > > does it
also apply to the civil society members or has the caucus<BR>> > >
changed its mind in the meantime?<BR>> > ><BR>> > > 2. Rule
no. 4 defines as a requirements that the nominees "should<BR>> > >
promote and defend the caucus positions<BR>> > > >>
established by consensus before any MAG meeting [...] i.e. they<BR>> >
> don't consider themselves as "acting in their individual<BR>> >
capacity" but<BR>> > > as true representatives of the IGC." Why does
the 2. rule require<BR>> > that<BR>> > > the candidates
disclose their own positions if they are expected to<BR>> > > advance
the positions of the caucus instead of their own?<BR>> > ><BR>>
> > 3. MAG members are appointed by the SG not by the caucus.
What<BR>> > would a<BR>> > > recall process intend to achieve?
That the SG changes his mind<BR>> > and kicks<BR>> >
> out the person? A bit far fetched I would say...<BR>> >
><BR>> > ><BR>> > > In my view, it contributes to a clean
process to ask all members to<BR>> > > apply again. What I don't find
acceptable is to ignore our own<BR>> > position<BR>> > > paper
on this issue that is in fact less than a month old and<BR>> >
enjoyed<BR>> > > unusually broad consensus.<BR>> > ><BR>>
> > My suggestion would be to merge rule 2 and 4 into something
more<BR>> > > consistent. For example, the nominee should be required
to actively<BR>> > > participate in caucus discussions on matters
that are on the MAG's<BR>> > > agenda. Active participation allows
everyone to know and<BR>> > understand the<BR>> > > positions
held be the nominee. In case the caucus manages to<BR>> > agree on
a<BR>> > > common position (which often turns out to be impossible),
the<BR>> > nominee<BR>> > > should present that position in the
MAG meeting. If the nominee<BR>> > doesn't<BR>> > > agree with
the caucus position, its more likely than not that<BR>> >
consensus<BR>> > > in the caucus couldn't be reached to begin
with.<BR>> > > The "imperative mandate" which rule 4 seems to suggest
is not<BR>> > helpful in<BR>> > > a multi-stakeholder
environment such as the MAG where consensus<BR>> > depends<BR>> >
> on open discussion, willingness to consider others points of<BR>> >
views and,<BR>> > > above all, to compromise.<BR>> >
><BR>> > > Regarding the recall, the only thing I could imagine is
that all<BR>> > caucus<BR>> > > nominees could be asked to
commit themselves to step down in case<BR>> > of a<BR>> > >
recall. We should take into consideration though that not all cs<BR>> >
members<BR>> > > on the MAG got there through the blessing of the
caucus. There<BR>> > are other<BR>> > > channels outside the
reach of our rules.<BR>> > ><BR>> > > jeanette<BR>> >
><BR>> > ><BR>> > > Milton L Mueller wrote:<BR>> >
> > I sent my last message before reading this interesting and<BR>>
> important<BR>> > > > analysis of Meryem's. I will consider
the whole thing more<BR>> > carefully but<BR>> > > > my
immediate reaction is that we can and should do this:<BR>> > >
><BR>> > > >> -----Original Message-----<BR>> > >
><BR>> > > >> we have<BR>> > > >> to
collectively follow some minimal rules, like:<BR>> > > >> 1.
Consider a fresh start. Anyone can be (self-)nominated, of<BR>> >
course<BR>> > > >> including those who have already been on the
MAG<BR>> > > >> 2. Consider only nominations that come with a
statement of intent<BR>> > > >> from the candidate, including
which positions s/he would promote<BR>> > > >> within the
MAG<BR>> > > >> 3. In case the candidate has already been on
the MAG, consider<BR>> > the<BR>> > > >> nomination only
if it also comes with an accounting of what the<BR>> > > >>
candidate has done so far<BR>> > > >> 4. Establish some
requirements that should be followed by the<BR>> > > >>
nominee: e.g. they should promote and defend the caucus positions<BR>> >
> >> established by consensus before any MAG meeting, and report
to<BR>> > the<BR>> > > >> caucus after each meeting. i.e.
they don't consider themselves as<BR>> > > >> "acting in their
individual capacity" but as true<BR>> > representatives of<BR>> >
> >> the IGC.<BR>> > > >> 5. Make IGC nominees subject
to a recall process, following<BR>> > the rules<BR>> > >
>> established in the IGC charter (<A
href="http://www.igcaucus.org/IGC">http://www.igcaucus.org/IGC</A>-<BR>>
> > >> charter_final-061014.html) for the recall of
coordinators.<BR>> > Since the<BR>> > > >> MAG rules
themselves consider that MAG members are acting in<BR>> > their<BR>>
> > >> individual capacity, the success of a recall vote on an
IGC<BR>> > > >> representative to the MAG would imply that the
IGC officially and<BR>> > > >> publicly notifies the UN SG of
the recall.<BR>> > > ><BR>> > > > It seems to me we
could do that while staying within the Nomcom<BR>> > process<BR>>
> > > proposed by Lee et al. Those rules above would just be<BR>>
> considered the<BR>> > > > ground rules for the
NomCom.<BR>> > > >
____________________________________________________________<BR>> > >
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<BR>> > >
> <A
href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</A><BR>>
> > > To be removed from the list, send any message to:<BR>> >
> > <A
href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</A><BR>>
> > ><BR>> > > > For all list information and functions,
see:<BR>> > > > <A
href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</A><BR>>
> > ____________________________________________________________<BR>>
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<BR>> >
> <A
href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</A><BR>>
> > To be removed from the list, send any message to:<BR>> >
> <A
href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</A><BR>>
> ><BR>> > > For all list information and functions,
see:<BR>> > > <A
href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</A><BR>>
><BR>> ><BR>> >
____________________________________________________________<BR>> > You
received this message as a subscriber on the list:<BR>>
> <A
href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</A><BR>>
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:<BR>>
> <A
href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</A><BR>>
><BR>> > For all list information and functions, see:<BR>>
> <A
href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</A><BR>>
><BR>> >
____________________________________________________________<BR>> > You
received this message as a subscriber on the list:<BR>>
> <A
href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</A><BR>>
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:<BR>>
> <A
href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</A><BR>>
><BR>> > For all list information and functions, see:<BR>>
> <A
href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</A><BR>>
<BR>> ____________________________________________________________<BR>>
You received this message as a subscriber on the
list:<BR>> <A
href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</A><BR>>
To be removed from the list, send any message
to:<BR>> <A
href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</A><BR>>
<BR>> For all list information and functions,
see:<BR>> <A
href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</A><BR><BR><BR>____________________________________________________________<BR>You
received this message as a subscriber on the list:<BR>
<A href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</A><BR>To
be removed from the list, send any message to:<BR> <A
href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</A><BR><BR>For
all list information and functions, see:<BR> <A
href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</A></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>