[governance] Re: Nomcom and conflict of interest

[McTim]

In addition to what SR has said in his reply, I am rebutting your
points one by one in hopes you read them.  This does not seem to have
been the case in the past, as you keep coming back with the same
arguments and myths that have been debunked already.


On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 4:17 PM, Guru <guru at itforchange.net> wrote:
> McTim,
>
> It is incorrect rather inaccurate for you to state that
>
> "This is your position, (and Guru's)."

Why? is it not your position that "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."

I seem to recall you making this absurd argument before.

Do you consider NIXI or INRegistry to be gov't PS or CS?  I see them
as CS, as does the LSE definition;

http://www.registry.in/about_inregistry/

"The INRegistry has been created by NIXI, the National Internet
eXchange of India. NIXI is a Not-for-Profit Company under Section 25
of the Indian Companies Act, 1956, with the objective of facilitating
improved Internet services in the country."

Sounds like a CS objective to me.

>
> 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.

This doesn't mean that the NomCom had the authority to take this
action.  If I shoot you in the head, do I get off scot-free to do it
again if I explain the logic behind my action? I think not.

>
> The relevant part of the report states
> "Again there was no consensus on this issue within the NomCom – but there
> were seen to be potential
> conflicts of interest involved for employees and this was combined with the
> precedent
> already established within CS Caucus to not accept nominations from full
> time
> employees of existing Internet governance organizations in arriving at our
> decision".

Yes, it does, and the two key bits for me are ;

1) there was no consensus, but a decision was reached anyway.  I'm
curious, why was this?

2) The NomCom invented a precedent that was 180 degrees away from
reality of the actual precedent. Did you not realise that the
precedent existed, or did you just ignore it?

>
> Adam has come on the list to support this statement in the report, that this
> is in keeping with the IGC position.
>

So? Adam has no more of a voice than I, according to the charter.


> 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.

Then why on earth did we do it two years ago?  How is it that you are
ignoring this simple fact?

IIRC, Avri, Jeannette SR, me, George, VB and Robert have all expressed
the notion that such a priori exclusion is not a good idea.  However,
we operate on a consensus basis, not on majority rule, something that
the NomCom seems to have overlooked.

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.

Show me where in the charter it says this!

>
> 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.

This doesn't follow. What if that CEO were running an org that also
stood "for a set of positions that basically seek to
extract accountability from governance institutions" ??

(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

IT IS in the example used frequently in this thread.  The RIRs are
governed by their members, and policies are set by the RIR community.
This is the reality of IG that I do on a daily basis.  I invite you to
join this reality. Please.  Your eyes will be opened to the notion
that the governed can also govern!

 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.

Ok, discuss, whose on your "hit list"?

>Yet the basic principle of 'conflict of
> interest' needs to be accepted,

I will accept it if we acknowledge that full time employees of CS orgs
have the exact same "potential conflicts".   As one of your FTEs,
doesn't Parminder have to represent your organisations position?  If
he doesn't then why would, say, an RIR staff member be held to a
different standard?  If he does, then he has the exact same potential
conflict that the Nomcom cited in their reasoning.

 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.

Then we need to rewrite the charter to exclude other stakeholders.  A
decision this momentous SHOULD NOT be taken by a NomCom alone.  Our
statement of Feb was hotly debated IIRC.  The NomCom should have
realised that this was an issue they had no right to decide upon
without consultation from the full caucus!

>
> 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!).


See my earlier rebuttals to Parminder, they are still valid, and I
can't be arsed to type them again.


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 :-)

I call em like I see em, and I see these orgs (and have participated
in their processes) doing part of what is now called IG for many years
before the term IG was invented.

>
> 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!
>
> You have, as in the statement above, always made your political sympathies
> and position clear

They are positions based on experience, on what I have seen and done
in the numbering community, not based on "politics".
Can you show me where in the charter the word "political" appears? I
can't find it!


-- 
Cheers,

McTim
$ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim
____________________________________________________________
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