[governance] nomcom's creteria - was multistakeholding

[Parminder]

> > > if not I move that we move on and that there be no
> > > further discussion on the MAG nominations along with a simple
> > > declaration
> > > that the next NomCom undertake to only make substantive decisions
> > > concerning
> > > the criteria for selection after broad consultation with the group.
> > i can certainly support this statement.
> 
> I second the motion.  Learn from the experience, agree that future nomcoms
> should consult on procedural matters and charter compliance, and move on.

 I could have given my views on this statement if I knew what it meant.

(I recognize that most members just want to close this discussion and thats
why this statement is proposed by some, but I think we would not be doing
the group and its processes any good by adopting it, and rather be harming
it, for reasons stated below)

The intent of this statement is already there in the nomcom guidelines.
Re-asserting it, especially on the top of a proposal for charter amendment
proposed by someone who spoke of 'shame on the nomcom', looks to me a clear
censure of the nomcon, and I want to be clear about what are we censuring.  

I also have to especially do so because the chair of the nomcon said in an
email sometime back that he is not going to respond on the behalf of the
nomcom anymore on this issue. 

Yes, the earlier nomcom gave out some criteria before the process which this
nomcom did not. This could have been done and that is accepted. However,
this is the not the reason behind the above censure. Also this nomcom did
follow all criteria that were 'laid down' by the earlier nomcom. 

There are always some implied criteria - for instance as were implied within
the previous nomcom's stated criterion that the nominated person should be
civil society - that nomcoms use without coming to the group every time. I
am quite sure that any nomcom will have rejected the chief of telecom
division in Indian government, and the google's chief of public policy,
without going to the bigger group. (or we not far from the situation when
Nitin will announce during the opening ceremony of an IGF that 'next,
Microsoft's chief of strategic partnerships will speak on the behalf of
civil society'.)

Still, on issue of persons centrally associated with Internet governance
institutions (IGIs) the nomcom had the clearest advice from the IGC as could
ever happen, coming from a consensual statement adopted only a few weeks
back, after a very detailed discussion. (Remember when we call for
consulting with the group, unless we really go for consensus process on each
and every referral we are only speaking of a general discussion and the
group picking up the sense of the group).


When the group agreed that -- " .	Civil society has been under
represented in the multi-stakeholder advisory groups appointed in 2006 and
2007, this anomaly should be corrected in this round of rotation"... it was
clear that we were not including MAG members closely associated with IGIs in
describing our under-representation. 

And if further clarification was at all needed, it is provided most clearly
by the statement 

"We agree that the organizations having an important role in Internet
administration and the development of Internet-related technical standards
should continue to be represented in the MAG. However, their representation
should not be at the expense of civil society participation".

What clearer advice can a nomcom get from the IGC that people centrally
associated with IGIs are not supposed to be considered in IGC's slate of CS
nominees for the MAG. Can we be asking UN SG to not represent IGIs at the
expense of CS participation, and ourselves forwarding IGI rep names on our
CS slate of nominees.... that would be ludicrous. 

What gratefulness are we showing to this nomcom, and what message are we
giving to the future ones, by chastising it for doing what the group clearly
meant it to do... In light of above, I cant support this statement. 

We are asking for nomcoms to always clearly clarify its criteria with IGC,
when many of us mostly run away from clarifying the main issue that comes
up. Can those closely associated with IGIs be considered CS for IGC's
purposes? So, either we leave things as they are, or give group's clear
views (if we feel the need to amend those given in Feb) on the above
specific point. There is no use in shadow boxing. While the ostensible
intent of the above statement that is proposed to be adopted is to give some
clarity, it does nothing other than add a great amount of further
obfuscation on the issue.   

So if anything is to be done at all lets no more avoid the real issue - and
it will come up very soon again for selecting IGF speaking. So instead of
chastising a nomcom for not seeking the groups direction on the only issue
that we know is relevant in the present situation - why don't we just give
the 'groups directions' on this issue for future nomcoms (this is only for
those who think such 'directions' are not clear in our Feb statement).

I must also mention that McTim etc closely participated in the drafting of
feb statement. It amuses me no end that the same people who will argue
strongly for having IGIs as a clear separate stakeholder group at one time
(feb statement), will at other time fight to get them also nominated from
the CS group....  I really will like to see some sense put into all this.


Parminder 




____________________________________________________________
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