[governance] nomcom's creteria - was multistakeholding

[McTim]

Hullo Parminder,

On Sat, Jun 7, 2008 at 9:11 AM, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
<snip>
>
> 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.
>

It may "look" like that to you, but no one has moved that the nomcom
be censured.

> 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.
>

Why is that relevant to the two motions at hand?

> Yes, the earlier nomcom gave out some criteria before the process which this
> nomcom did not. This could have been done and that is

SOULD have been done, according to the charter, not "could".

accepted. However,
> this is the not the reason behind the above censure.

There is no motion of censure.

 Also this nomcom did
> follow all criteria that were 'laid down' by the earlier nomcom.
>

except rule #5, oh, and someone mentioned rule #3 wasn't followed either.


> 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 -


Now I am confused.  If the previous nomcom stated it, then it's not
implied, it's stated.  I agree that nominees should have be CS (at
least on some level).  For example, when a previous nomcom chose PW as
a nominee, they did so because of his CS status.


 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'.)
>

very red herrings ignored.

> 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).


Agreed, the statement we made was contentious, the nomcom should have
realised that and NOT gone any farther than down that road.

<snip>

> 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.

Here is a question I have asked you repeatedly, (and never gotten an
answer).  If your sentence above is true, then why have we nominated
someone "centrally associated with" an IGI to serve on the first MAG
AND the nomcom THIS year nominated a full time staff member of an IGI?

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.

see above, we have done it twice.

>
> 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.
>

Can you do your job as coordinator and count the support for each
motion?  IIRC, if there are 10 supporters the motion goes forward.
The motion I made several weeks ago has close to 10 supporters.

The motion on a statement will probably get 10 easily.

I support BD's latest motion, which is to form an ad hoc sub goup as
described in the charter.  I also volunteer to be on this ad-hoc
sub-group.


> 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).

a sub-group should be able to do that.


>
> 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.
>

One of the reasons I argued for a 4th SH group, is that they are not
being welcomed (by this CS group at least) as CS, so in order that
they are adequately represented, I felt that they should be a 4th
group.  They are certainly not gov nor are they PS (nor are they
examples of IGO's, as Milton would have it, (tho some of them are
international in scope, some are not).

If they ARE CS, AND we get them a separate SH grouping, this increases
the number of CS representatives, thus offsetting the 50% of MAG seats
given to gov'ts.

Several years of experience as a staff member of an IGI and many years
experience as a member of protocol and numbering policy communities
have given me the certainty that these bodies operate as CS.  If you
would just join one of these communities, I think you would see what I
mean.

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
$ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim
____________________________________________________________
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