[governance] Re: Nomcom and conflict of interest

[George Sadowsky]

Jeremy,

I guess that you believe in confrontation of stakeholders' interests 
as a way to make progress.  I would rather believe in, and practice, 
cooperation in finding acceptable middle grounds.

But of course if you believe in absolutes, that must be unacceptable.

George

At 9:06 AM +0800 6/3/08, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>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