[governance] nomcom's creteria - was multistakeholding

Parminder parminder at itforchange.net
Sat Jun 7 13:26:45 EDT 2008


Avri

> Yes, but as you are the coordinator responsible for the caucus
> following its rules, I thought that was the most salient point in your
> message.
(snip)
>what is most important to me, in this case as you are the coordinator of
>the caucus is your unwillingness to say that you will work to see that we
>will abide by the rules in the future.

Yes, I am responsible for the caucus following the rules. Some rules were
not followed, non-voting chair (rule 3) and publishing criterion/ IGC's
review whenever possible (rule 5).... each had a different context, and
situation, in this nomcom's working. I can, and since these have been raised
by you, will, discuss them. There are others - including group members -
responsible for this as well, apart from some specific constraints, but
about that later.

The more basic point is that the discussion of the last week about whether
nomcom did a shameful act, and my political thinking had seeped into its
working, in not choosing some persons centrally connected to an IGI
(internet governance institution) , and whether technical community is just
all people, and so is CS, and we shd nominate just anyone who has some
un-described 'CS credentials' and outlook, and encourage nomination of
chiefs of IGI's etc..... cannot suddenly be converted into a simple issue
whether the coordinator is ready to pledge that he will do his best to see
that rules are followed in the future. Why wouldn't I just agree to this
statement if it were really as straight forward as that? It is too much of
an underhand deal for me to just take it on its face value and go with it...

So, while I will in separate emails explain the issues around each of the
above rules, what is most important is that we are clear about the basic
rule in question. Whether or not IGI reps can be nominated by IGC for MAG. I
take it, and nomcom took it, that the IGC expressed its clear view on this
issue in February discussions and statement. So, in the same way that a
nomcom wont feel it necessary to write down a rule that a government or
google policy person is not CS and cannot be nominated by IGC they took this
decision on IGI reps. (interestingly, most of those who are opposed to this
nomcom decision did mention in the last weeks discussion that even a
government or google's policy guy can be CS nominee, so should a rule
regarding that also be written now. We then will have to write a lot of very
basic stuff.) Otherwise they did follow the rules of the earlier nomcom -
just, since the existing rules said the nominee shd be CS, they took the CS
identity decision on some people centrally associated with IGIs. 

Beyond this, if we really need the next nomcom to write down this level of
rule as well, it is quite hypocritical not to agree to lay down the rule for
it, NOW... because, we know this will come up very soon again. Looks silly
to say, hey you should follow rules, but we wont tell you what the rule is. 

During the feb statement as well, some people wanted to not to carry on with
the discussion on this issue, but I insisted because I thought it was
important for the group to know where it stood on it. These members, no
doubt with best intentions, were of the view that it is not possible to
discuss this issue in the middle of the process, and that it should be
discussed some other time. But when it is now that 'some other time', we
cant say it, well no not now, it should be discussed when we are in the
middle of the process. That is quite impractical. 

So, the real issue here is of IGI reps, and if we have to make a statement
to uphold rules, we best also make the rule on this issue. This is for those
who think the rule isn't already there, my view is that it is there and the
nomcom followed it. Again this is the 'real rule' issue in question and
discussion, I cant just pledge 'I will do best to see that the rules are
followed in the future' when all the background suggests that it will be
seen to mean that I agree that in this particular case the rule was not, or
may not have been, followed. 


Parminder 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com]
> Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2008 5:48 PM
> To: Governance Caucus
> Subject: Re: [governance] nomcom's creteria - was multistakeholding
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Yes, but as you are the coordinator responsible for the caucus
> following its rules, I thought that was the most salient point in your
> message.
> 
> As I mentioned in an email along time of ago, I thought we made a
> mistake in not following our rules (all of the other issues are
> irrelevant to me - at this point anyway).  I think we have a
> procedural problem that needs to fixed if his group is ever going to
> try and use a nomcom process again and that is that we follow the rules:
> 
> - have a non voting chair (#3) responsible for following the rules.
> 
>     3. A non voting chair will be appointed by the coordinators for each
>        nomcom with the advice of the IGC membership. In order to serve
> as a chair,
>        it is recommended that a person has served in at least one
> nomcom previously.
> 
>     (i have already admitted giving bad advice on this one, i thought
> it could work
>      without one and think now that i was wrong)
> 
> - publish criteria to be used before using the criteria (#5)
> 
>     5. Criteria used by nomcom will be made public and will be
> reviewed by the caucus
>         whenever possible before decisions are made
> 
> While is debatable whether there was time for a full discussion of the
> criteria before the decisions were made, it is also the case that the
> criteria were not published until after the decision were made.  I
> have heard no one make the claim that they were not published because
> they did not have time.  And while I think the time for discussion
> might be limited in some cases limited, i think that before the fact
> publication is possible in almost all cases.
> 
> As I understand the 'motion' for ending this amicably was that we
> would do our best to follow our rules in the future.   Though I guess
> if we cannot say that, then perhaps McTim does have enough support to
> call for a vote on amending the chartered nomcom rules.
> 
> And while a lot of what you have to say personally about your beliefs
> on whether ITC organizations are different then ITC individuals and
> whether they should or should not be allowed to ...., what is most
> important to me, in this case as you are the coordinator of the caucus
> is your unwillingness to say that you will work to see that we will
> abide by the rules in the future.
> 
> and i agree with Bill, people who want to continue this discussion of
> whether being paid by an ITC org creates an impenetrable barrier to
> participating as CS  should do so in a group that comes back with a
> resolution to that conundrum when they reach one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 7 Jun 2008, at 07:17, Parminder wrote:
> 
> >
> >>>
> >>> 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.
> >>
> >>
> >> you cannot support support a statement that the next nomcom should
> >> follow the written  rules and publish its criteria before its makes
> >> it
> >> selections?
> >
> >
> > Avri, You are asking me to re write the whole email I wrote a little
> > while
> > earlier, which in view of other members' sensibilities I am unable to.
> > Parminder
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com]
> >> Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2008 3:30 PM
> >> To: Governance Caucus
> >> Subject: Re: [governance] nomcom's creteria - was multistakeholding
> >>
> >>
> >> On 7 Jun 2008, at 02:11, Parminder wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> 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.
> >>
> >>
> >> you cannot support support a statement that the next nomcom should
> >> follow the written  rules and publish its criteria before its makes
> >> it
> >> selections?
> >>
> >> a.
> >>
> >> ____________________________________________________________
> >> 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
> >
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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