[governance] nomcom's creteria - was multistakeholding

Robert Guerra lists at privaterra.info
Sat Jun 7 11:22:19 EDT 2008


This year's IGC nomcom was challenging and did have its drama. It
raised important issues and revealed that there are significant
differences of opinion.. BUT, the report was issued and the names
forwarded to the secretarait (I hope).

That being said, if issues remain - might I suggest they not be
discussed not under the umbrella of a single subject line - but a
variety of different ones. That way, it makes it easier for those of
us who don't have the time or energy to reply real-time as some on her
seem to be able to to.

What i'm trying to say - is that the thread is becoming too complex,
and too hard to track for those who are new as well as those who can't
follow in real time. The issue are important - but, there comes a
point where one should recognizes that no consensus is possible on one
or more topics. In that case - do we agree to disagree/move-on , take
it to a vote, or some combination of both.

regards
Robert






On Sat, Jun 7, 2008 at 2:11 AM, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>> > > 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
>
____________________________________________________________
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



More information about the Governance mailing list