[governance] Re: Nomcom and conflict of interest

[George Sadowsky]

It is correct that there is a tension between stakeholder groups for 
the ability to appoint members to the MAG.  This is conceptually 
different than appointing representation, although in the worst case 
(my worst case, not Jeremy's) amounts to the same thing.

However, I want to repeat what I wrote earlier: in the majority of 
cases, regardless of who appointed the member, the members speak more 
in the general public interest rather than in line with the generally 
narrower interests of those who appointed them.  This IMHO is a 
fortunate happenstance and certainly was not guaranteed by any part 
of the process.

Unfortunately, some members do tend to represent narrower interests 
consistent with their background, and again IMHO, this does not help 
the work of the MAG.

George

At 3:24 PM -0400 6/3/08, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>  > -----Original Message-----
>>  .  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).
>
>Thanks to Jeremy for saving me the trouble of a long reply. I did not
>want to directly disagree with George, because he is right about the
>formal statement in the MAG charter. But in reality, what Jeremy says
>nails the truth; it simply cannot be refuted. Indeed, we have just gone
>through an insistence that Govertnments qua governments will get half
>the MAG. What can explain this if not the attribution of some kind of
>categorical representational quality to the government members of the
>MAG, and the use of that representation to make a statement about which
>sector has more power and clout in the UN?
>
>The difficult and troublesome fact is that multistakeholderism is messy
>in this regard. It establishes sectoral categories and seems to call for
>balanced representation of those categories, but since there is no
>institutional process for representing those categories it offers the
>pretence that the people we select are just "individuals acting on their
>own behalf."
>
>____________________________________________________________
>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