<!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">
McTim,<br>
<br>
It is incorrect rather inaccurate for you to state that<br>
<pre wrap="">"This is your position, (and Guru's)."
</pre>
Ian who as the chair of nomcom shared the report with IGC, has already
explained in detail the logic of that para in the nomcom report in a
mail of his. <br>
<br>
The relevant part of the report states <br>
"Again there was no consensus on this issue within the NomCom – but
there were seen to be potential<br>
conflicts of interest involved for employees and this was combined with
the precedent<br>
already established within CS Caucus to not accept nominations from
full time<br>
employees of existing Internet governance organizations in arriving at
our decision".<br>
<br>
Adam has come on the list to support this statement in the report, that
this is in keeping with the IGC position. <br>
<br>
Milton and Parminder have also given explanations for this position. I
have done the same earlier, as to why the CEO of ICANN or the CEO of a
RIR cannot be endorsed by IGC to MAG as a CS representative. We need to
consider the interests/positions/perspectives the person will represent
and it is not right that 'Bertrand as a signatory to the IGC charter'
can be considered as a IGC nominee to MAG, when he represents French
Govt at GAC. <br>
<br>
Even if diverse, CS does stand for a set of positions that basically
seek to extract accountability from governance institutions. Hence it
is wrong to completely ignore the conflict of interest possibilities
for a full time employee or a CEO of a IG organization and consider
him/her for CS candidature. (As I have mentioned earlier, I am all for
moving towards a world where all those who are governed have also a
good role and part in governance itself, however it is not reality
today and pretending otherwise will continue imo to perpetuate the
current distortions in IG). In terms of identifying which institutions
would be covered under this conflict of interest and what kinds of
employment (full time / CEO/ consultants/ part time etc) could need
discussion. Yet the basic principle of 'conflict of interest' needs to
be accepted, this is the very premise on which multi-stakeholder
principle is based. And we need to have this clarity on who will
represent CS in MAG as well, which was partly made clear in the IGC
submission to Feb 2008 consultations.<br>
<br>
The signing of the charter by a person cannot be a sole consideration
either way - we consciously tried to get nominations of people from CS
outside the IGC (this was also discussed quite a bit on the list), also
membership on the list is not a sufficient criterion for nomination.
The nature of an organization being non-profit cannot be in itself a
sufficient consideration for ICANN to be CS (by this token all Govts
would be CS!). When even ICANN and RIRs identified themselves as PS, it
is quite odd
that you keep insisting that they are CS - being more loyal than the
King :-)<br>
<br>
<pre wrap="">And you wonder why these IG orgs identified with PS in WSIS? Maybe
it's because they'd rather have a nice hug rather than a kick in the
ass. I know which I prefer!</pre>
<br>
You have, as in the statement above, always made your political
sympathies and position clear (and parminder or milton's position is no
more or no less political than yours! This is to respond to your 'I
don't see the caucus as "political" at all. It SHOULD NOT be IMO'). <br>
<br>
Guru<br>
<br>
McTim wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:f65fb55e0805311516s3fc2d6c2y8be474b2493b943@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 11:32 PM, Parminder <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net"><parminder@itforchange.net></a> wrote:
<snip>
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">combined with the precedent
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
a completely invented precedent BTW.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">already established within CS Caucus to not accept >nominations from full time employees of existing Internet >governance organizations in arriving at our decision."
suggests that the nomcom satisfied itself
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Exactly, they satisfied THEMSELVES, and didn't bring this contentious
issue to the caucus as suggested by rule #5.
, and decided, that certain
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">structural situation, as described, involved a conflict of interest.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
potential conflict of interest, which as has been noted, is the same
potential conflict of interest that all full time employees of CS orgs
carry.
The part that really fires me up is the "if a person is a fulltime
employee of IG organization then though they may have progressive
views, they can not be said to be having CS credentials."
This is NOT the caucus position, (nor will it ever be if I have
anything to say about it). This is your position, (and Guru's).
And you wonder why these IG orgs identified with PS in WSIS? Maybe
it's because they'd rather have a nice hug rather than a kick in the
ass. I know which I prefer!
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>