<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<font face="Book Antiqua">McTim,<br>
<br>
Suppose Kieren McCarthy, employee ICANN and Bertrand de La Chapelle,
GAC member representing French Govt (who are both I think members of
this mailing list) asked endorsement from IGC for MAG membership, do
you think IGC should endorse them? <br>
<br>
In my view, even though both have participated in the IGC list and have
taken on CS identities, their current role prevents them from being
able to represent CS. In any discussion within MAG (or any such ms
group), it is unreasonable to expect that they will not represent ICANN
and the French Govt respectively and these will be 'default' positions
which will preclude their being able to effectively represent CS
positions. <br>
<br>
While it is true that many people don multiple hats etc, but one needs
to investigate the facts of the case and as in the above example, where
a specific hat is clearly the primary one, imo that will help in
deciding the stakeholder group membership. On the other hand, a part
time consulting relationship (which many IGC members do have, such as
Avri with IGF secretariat) may be a very different situation, needing
to be assessed differently.<br>
<br>
</font><font face="Book Antiqua">Your answer will help me better
understand your argument. <br>
<br>
</font><font face="Book Antiqua">regards,<br>
Guru<br>
ps - these names are used purely for example..<br>
<br>
</font>Also I am taking as a given that IGC nominees are for the 'CS
quota' and IGC has no business nominating candidates for the other
stakeholder groups.<br>
<br>
<br>
McTim wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:f65fb55e0805252324i2648bd91r82a0332cd706a11b@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Carlos,
On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 5:57 PM, Carlos Afonso <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:ca@rits.org.br"><ca@rits.org.br></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">For one, the list you make is misinformed (no reason for you to be
misinformed, as this info is in English in the CGI.br website) -- these are
names of CGI.br projects, not independent organizations.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
How is that relevant to the question, which I note that you have not
answered. I will try to re-word it for your convenience;
If one of the staff of the .br ccTLD was a member of this caucus AND
wanted to be nominated to the IGF MAG from this caucus (instead of by
your region), but was excluded from this possibility by the decision
made by our 2008 NomCom, would you be happy?
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Milton just repeats the simple fact that a (strong) number of stakeholders
in the MAG belong to a group with a common vision and defend the group's
positions in a very proactive, insistent and organized manner.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
That is irrelevant to our abused process.
Unlike many
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">NGO's reps (let us please play down this Snow White tale of "in their
individual capacities" as if they were had not become MAG members by the
wish of some interest group), some of their vocals are well paid to do this
and to be present in the meetings.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
A) this is also irrelevant to our abused process
B) I would suggest this is "just like" and not "unlike many NGO reps".
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Are they wrong? No, this is an opportunity they have been given by the
circumstances, and they have seized this opportunity to almost take over the
space -- the example Milton points out (the incredible resistance against
who controls or ought to control the logical infrastructure becoming a main
theme of the IGF) being an obvious example.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
So because there are so many of "them" already on the MAG, it's ok to
for "us" to exclude them from our nomination to the MAG?
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">The heated discussion we are witnessing is in essence a dispute to preserve
or reinforce such dominance in light of the 1/3 renewal, period.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
no, it's not. It's about fairness and legitimacy of our decsion
amking processes.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">So, let us move on to the themes, to the workshops, to the process of the
IGF itself etc -- this is not going to change whatever the screams and
diatribes we send to each other's screens.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
I think it was Henry Louis Mencken who said "if you want peace, work
for justice. This has recently morphed into "Know justice, know
peace" which in turn, has morphed into "no justice, no peace".
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
____________
Gurumurthy K
IT for Change,Bangalore | <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.ITforChange.net">www.ITforChange.net</a>
Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities</pre>
</body>
</html>