[governance] Re: Nomcom and conflict of interest

[Guru]

Dear Vittorio,

The issue you raise has been discussed quite a bit on the list ....

a. The term 'technical community' is being used to cover two different 
identities - the IABSs (Internet Administration Bodies such as ICANN), 
and individuals with technical expertise.

Individuals with technical expertise will be part of all the stakeholder 
groups - for e.g. the nomcom has endorsed candidature of Sheeran Amod 
who may be considered a 'technical person'. Carlos, McTim, Avri, Izumi 
.... are other people who come into mind who would consider themselves 
'technical' and could be clearly considered part of CS.

Whereas people representing ICANN or any other IAB can not be considered 
part of CS. e.g. CEO of ICANN or a RIR. It should be noted that IAB 
representatives may not always be 'technical' as understood in this 
discussion - the current chair of ICANN for e.g. is an IP lawyer, a 
profile quite different from that of Vint Cerf...

Of course I clearly support that ICANN and other IABs should be 
represented in the MAG (we all know that without these bodies, MAG will 
have no meaning), but as the IGC concluded 'not at the cost of civil 
society'.  Thus there is no way IGC can endorse for CS quota, IAB 
representatives.

regards,
Guru
ps - while it is accepted that these two identities may have overlaps as 
well, for the purpose of issues such as MAG membership, the distinction 
is critical

Vittorio Bertola wrote:
> Parminder ha scritto:
>> Before anything else, can we frame the issue in the right terms and
>> language? There is no exclusion of any body or organization for 
>> holding any
>> kind of views - so you may please stop repeating that. The issue is of
>> defining who and which groups can or cannot be representing CS 
>> because of
>> structural properties associated with an organization and the 
>> situation of
>> specific individuals vis a vis that organization.
>
> There is one point that I don't understand in this discussion.
>
> If we accept the claim that RIRs etc. are not part of civil society 
> and cannot be represented through civil society, then there is the 
> need for a separate "stakeholder group" including these organizations 
> so that they can be represented through this other mechanism. If, on 
> the other hand, we claim that there can be only three stakeholder 
> groups and not a fourth one for the "technical community", then the 
> technical community must be an equal member of the civil society group 
> of stakeholders.
>
> I don't understand whether this is being taken into account - ie, 
> those who think that the IGC Nomcom should consider nominees from the 
> technical community, feel that the technical community belongs into 
> the civil society group? And do those who oppose that think that there 
> should be a separate stakeholder group for the techies?
____________________________________________________________
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