[governance] Re: Nomcom and conflict of interest

[McTim]

On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 7:53 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>
<snip>
> 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 –

Actually the real issue IS: our charter says we are all equal, in
terms of having the same rights.  The NomCom has decided to change
this, many disagree.  How do we make sure that this doesn't happen
again.

I will be glad to address what you think the real issue is, below

> "us" being the IGC

Yes, we ARE the IGC, but for some reason we allow any CS Tom, CS Dick
or CS Harry to be nominated to the MAG (except of course if they are
fulltime employees of ....). If you are so fired up about who
represents 'us", then why aren't you concerned that people who may
have little or no knowledge about 'us" are able to represent "us"??


> – when we discuss RIR policy in the context of the IGF?

Well, now you are missing the target.  AFAIK, RIR policy is rarely
discussed at the IGF, but we are actually talking about the MAG
nominees.  I have not seen any mention of any actual RIR policy in the
MAG meeting minutes or list archives.

> Do you want an RIR staff person or an independent voice?

It's a bit complicated, so let's see if you can follow;

RIRs don't set numbering policies, neither do their
members (as a set of people), its the community
that sets policy, this can include members, and
everyone else who chooses to participate.

RIR staff are like rapporteurs, they document and
communicate the policies, make sure the policies
are followed, and do a variety of other things to support
the community and the Internet at large.

They are very knowledgeable, yet independent
(they can't be biased for or against certain members
for example, or certain policies for that matter).

So, to answer your question; "we" would be far better off having
someone who knows numbering policy inside and out when it comes to
"RIR policy in the context of the IGF" rather than someone
"independent" but almost certainly less knowledgeable!


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 _us_ in that discussion.

Actually, how they get chosen is the issue.  If the IGC wants to
exclude ICANN, ITU or WIPO staff from representing them, then a NomCom
can either decline to put their individual names forward OR the entire
IGC can decide to put these exclusions in the charter.  A NomCom
shouldn't make decisions for the whole group.


>
> As I said earlier,
>
> 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.
>


> As governance entities RIRs are accountable to _their own members_ 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.

What the RIRs have done on EC shows that they DO listen to everybody.

They are
> welcome on our list, they are welcome in our dialogue. But they are not our
> representatives.

Certainly not according to NomCom 2008!

But they SHOULD BE ABLE to represent 'us", at least in the case when
they are charter signers, as all those have "equal rights and duties"

> They are representatives of their own memberships.

Yes, they are, in a manner of speaking, just as you represent IGP
members on the MAG, or Ken represents Panos Institute West Africa, his
full time employer (Ken please correct me if I'm wrong about your
employer).

I don't
> see how anyone can deny this simple observation.

I'm not.  Granted, they are supposed to represent "in their personal
capacity", but I don't doubt that CS nominees represent their full
time employers to a certain extent.  So they have the same "potential
conflict" as those who work for "IG organisations".

No one has yet to refute this simple observation of mine.



 IG organizations should not
> have a dual, contradictory role.

Well, since all MAG members represent their employer to some extent
AND in their "personal capacity", I'd say they all have this dual,
sometimes contradictory role, no?

 And since RIRs are extremely well-resourced

Not all of them.

> organizations that are well-represented in every conceivable IG Forum, it is
> hard to understand this manufactured

Is there a factory that turns out complaints? That would be convenient!

In all seriousness, it is a very real (not artificial as the adjective
'manufactured" suggests) violation of the spirit of the charter that
we are discussing.


complaint
> about their somehow being
> excluded

Somehow excluded? I would say it's a very concrete exclusion, not
nebulous at all, as the word "somehow" suggests.
-- 
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