<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<html><head><style type="text/css"><!--
blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li { padding-top: 0 ; padding-bottom: 0 }
--></style><title>RE: [governance] Re: Nomcom and conflict of
interest</title></head><body>
<div>Milton,</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>When you say below, "Who represents us on the MAG," I
have to point out that all MAG members serve in their individual
capacity and do not represent any external group. That point has
been made repeatedly by Nitin Desai and Markus Kummer.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>I suspect that you are aware of this and that the phrasing below
was just not well thought out. But others may not, and it's a
crucial distinction to be remembered. The group is not selecting
its representatives; rather it is selecting those people in whom they
have confidence will distinguish themselves if selected as effective
MAG members in the public interest, according to the rules of the
MAG.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>I know that it must be frustrating not to be able to draw your
own conclusions from direct observation, but it is my opinion that the
majority of MAG members, when speaking in MAG meetings, do try to
represent a general and public interest, admittedly each through their
individual lenses, rather than being explicitly channeled by narrower
interests dictated by their background or the organization from which
they come.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>George</div>
<div><br></div>
<div
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<span
></span>~~~~~~~</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>At 12:53 PM -0400 6/2/08, Milton L Mueller wrote:</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Content-class:
urn:content-classes:message<br>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;<br>
<x-tab>
</x-tab>boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C8C4D1.26A98532"<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Arial" size="-1"
color="#000080"> </font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Arial" size="-1"
color="#000080"> </font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>
<hr size="2"></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Tahoma"
size="-1"><b>From:</b> Robert Guerra
[mailto:lists@privaterra.info]<br>
</font><br>
2. In my view - RIRs should be included as a full member in our IGC
discussions.<br>
<br>
<font color="#000080">Robert,</font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Times New Roman"
color="#000080">I think you have missed the target in this
increasingly tiresome discussion. No one - not me, not Parminder,
not anyone else - has ever proposed to exclude RIR representatives
from our discussions. Indeed, I have urged people here to get involved
in RIR policy discussion lists, and vice-versa. No one disputes that
RIRs play an important role in global IG, either. As has been said
repeatedly, the real issue is: who represents us on the MAG - "us"
being the IGC - when we discuss RIR policy in the context of the
IGF? Do you want an RIR staff person or an independent voice? Same
goes for ICANN, ITU, WIPO, etc. Is there not a problem if our
"representative" in discussions of ICANN is someone who works for
ICANN? No one has ever said that ICANN or an RIR should not be able to
participate in the broader discussions of their role in global
internet governance. The issue is who represents _<i>us</i>_ in that
discussion. </font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Times New Roman"
color="#000080">As I said earlier,</font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Courier New" size="-1">RIR's
membership is predominantly, though not exclusively, composed of
commercial hosting companies and ISPs -- the most common consumers of
IP address blocks. But there are also govt agencies and CS groups.
RIRs are better thought of as multi-stakeholder regulatory
organizations, not as CS, business or govt. Within the framework of
IGF and the Tunis Agenda, they fit squarely in the category of
"international organizations" along with ICANN. So of course
RIRs and ICANN, like other international governance organizations such
as OECD or ITU, will be and absolutely should be represented in the
MAG and in panels, etc. -- as IOs.</font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Times New Roman"
color="#000080">As governance entities RIRs are accountable to
_<i>their own members</i>_ not to us (IGC). As governors, RIR leaders
should be accountable to and listen to what the different sectors of
society have to say about IG policy. They are welcome on our list,
they are welcome in our dialogue. But they are not our
representatives. They are representatives of their own memberships. I
don't see how anyone can deny this simple observation. IG
organizations should not have a dual, contradictory role. And since
RIRs are extremely well-resourced organizations that are
well-represented in every conceivable IG Forum, it is hard to
understand this manufactured complaint about their somehow being
excluded and powerless in these dialogues. It is getting a bit silly,
is it not?</font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font
face="Times New Roman"> </font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br>
____________________________________________________________</blockquote
>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>You received this message as a subscriber
on the list:<br>
governance@lists.cpsr.org<br>
To be removed from the list, send any message to:<br>
governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org<br>
<br>
For all list information and functions, see:<br>
http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</blockquote>
<div><br></div>
</body>
</html>