[governance] Re: Nomcom and conflict of interest

[Suresh Ramasubramanian]

That, Jeremy, is not an acceptable conclusion - or one that is shared by
several people on the list as you can see.

The other problem is that you have a weird and wonderful definition of

1. Progress, or Progressive

And

2. Civil Society

	srs

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 6:36 AM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; George Sadowsky
> Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Nomcom and conflict of interest
> 
> 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.
> 


____________________________________________________________
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