[governance] Re: Nomcom and conflict of interest

[Jeremy Malcolm]

On 03/06/2008, at 1:10 AM, George Sadowsky wrote:

> When you say below, "Who represents us on the MAG," I have to point  
> out that all MAG members serve in their individual capacity and do  
> not represent any external group.  That point has been made  
> repeatedly by Nitin Desai and Markus Kummer.

Yet it has also been repeatedly observed on this list that the  
assertion is simplistic and incomplete (well explained for example by  
Parminder at http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/governance/2008-03/msg00266.html) 
.  It is more accurate to say that whilst MAG members are not  
appointed to appoint their institutions, they are appointed to  
represent (in a broad sense) their stakeholder groups.  Were this not  
the case, there would be no point in ensuring balance between  
stakeholders at all.  The MAG would be a simple meritocracy in which  
the best qualified candidates were appointed, regardless of  
stakeholder balance.  But in fact the distinct values and interests of  
the governmental, private sector and civil society representatives are  
central to the very legitimacy of the MAG (and the broader IGF too).

> I suspect that you are aware of this and that the phrasing below was  
> just not well thought out.  But others may not, and it's a crucial  
> distinction to be remembered.  The group is not selecting its  
> representatives; rather it is selecting those people in whom they  
> have confidence will distinguish themselves if selected as effective  
> MAG members in the public interest, according to the rules of the MAG.

Without detracting from the above, on a purely political level this is  
also an idealistic account of the motivations of those groups that  
nominate candidates for the MAG.  Given that the Secretariat/Secretary- 
General seems to have an unstated policy of privileging nominations  
made through representative groups like the IGC over individual  
nominations, why wouldn't the groups so privileged nominate those whom  
they are confident will best represent the group's collective views  
rather than a broader "public interest"?  I, for one, am happier to  
see strong progressive civil society voices on our MAG slate who can  
argue robustly against the interests of governments and the private  
sector.

-- 
Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com
Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor
host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'

____________________________________________________________
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