[governance] Re: Nomcom and conflict of interest

[McTim]

On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 4:39 PM, Guru <guru at itforchange.net> wrote:
> 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.
>

This has no bearing on the issue at hand.

> 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.

So the day before I started working at an RIR I was CS, but the next
day I was not, then magically became CS again the day I left their
employment (all the while espousing the exact same views)?

>
> Whereas people representing ICANN or any other IAB can not be considered
> part of CS.

They can, just not in your narrow worldview.

 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.

But we have done in the past, and as Raul points out above "and now I
have received an important support form civil society organizations
from LAC region to continue serving in the MAG"

So are there alternate criteria for who CS is in the LAC region?

I note that you haven't answered VB in your post. His query was simple:

"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?"

My answer is that I do feel they are CS, but have no objection to an
official 4th SH grouping, as this gives CS double the representation.

I'll let Guru answer the second part of the question for himself (or
for his organisation), but logically, if they are not allowed in to
the CS room, then they should have their own.

-- 
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