[governance] Re: Nomcom and conflict of interest

[Parminder]

> >> 1. He/She needs to have CS cred
> >
> >This suggests that 'CS credentials' should be used as a key and 'the'
> 
> This suggests that CS cred should be used as a key, yes.

Thanks for reasserting. But that's not the operating part of what I said,
which, to quote again, was...

"This suggests that 'CS credentials' should be used as a key and 'the'
central criterion, which will require a clear explanation what the proposer
of this criterion really means by it."

Did you read the part on requirement of some 'clear explanation' for it to
be  a meaningful criterion?

So, if you prefer that no 'structural distinction' be used to have some
level of 'working clarity' for whom we include as CS, and you prefer the
qualification of 'CS cred', I am obviously curious to know what you consider
as 'CS creds'... 


I repeat this point because almost all others who have had some reservation
on making any structural distinction at all in identifying CS, and CS
persons, that is suggested in IGC's WSIS history, in its charter, in
majority of discussions on the list, in our Feb statement, and in nomcom's
decision, have now spoken of some kind of criterion of 'CS credentials' or
'CS viewpoints'

I think they owe it to this discussion to clarify what they mean by this
criterion, what could be 'CS credentials' and 'CS viewpoints', and how they
can be applied in taking orgs and persons to be civil society or not. 
Thanks.

Parminder 




> -----Original Message-----
> From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net]
> Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2008 3:10 AM
> To: Parminder
> Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'McTim'; 'Milton L Mueller'; 'Vittorio
> Bertola'
> Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Nomcom and conflict of interest
> 
> Parminder [31/05/08 22:32 +0200]:
> >
> >> 1. He/She needs to have CS cred
> >
> >This suggests that 'CS credentials' should be used as a key and 'the'
> 
> This suggests that CS cred should be used as a key, yes.
> 
> >> 2. And needs to declare / satisfy the nomcom about conflicts of
> interest
> >
> >The part of nomcom statement
> >"Candidates employed by Internet Governance Organisations - Another
> matter
> >that emerged was whether to accept candidates who are full time employees
> of
> 
> That is exactly what we take issue with. The nomcom exceeded its mandate,
> and ignored precedent, by arbitrarily shutting out this section of
> candidates.
> 
> It also introduced a strong element of bias into the process. Yes, there
> are similarly chartered organizations to the RIRs that might align much
> better with intl org rather than cs, but the RIRs themselves are much
> closer to CS than those, and they are also eager to work with CS. Shutting
> them out and maintaining a "us versus them" mentality rather than an open
> mind is definitely not appropriate.
> 
> >suggests that the nomcom satisfied itself, and decided, that certain
> >structural situation, as described, involved a conflict of interest.
> 
> Indeed, and who then authorized the nomcomm to make this unilateral
> decision without coming back to the caucus? Rule 5 as McTim points out?
> 
> 	suresh
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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


____________________________________________________________
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