[governance] nomcom's creteria - was multistakeholding

[McTim]

Parminder,

I'm only responding to your first mail, as there doesn't seem to be
much new in the second, and I know folk are tired of so many mails.

On Sat, Jun 7, 2008 at 8:26 PM, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
> 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 am curious as to how you know these things?  A week ago, you wrote:

"(I am speaking here in my personal capacity. However I must also tell
that I was not part of any decision-making process of the recent
nomcom, nor privy to their discussions.)"

Please share what you know with the rest of us.  Perhaps it will help
us understand.

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

Either you have misunderstood, or are intentionally mis-characterising
our position.  They are people, acting in various fora of  "uncoerced
collective action around shared interests, purposes and values" (the
LSE definition of Civil Society).

, and so is CS, and we shd nominate just anyone who has some
> un-described 'CS credentials'

That's what we are doing, I would prefer we nominate list
members/charter signers, but that's a completely separate
issue, probably not to be tackled right now.

and outlook, and encourage nomination of
> chiefs of IGI's etc.....

not encourage, merely NOT exclude the possibility, do I need to remind
you again that we have a precedent for such nominations?  Your
rhetorical mischaracterisation is getting boring, and creating lots of
text to read, as one feels compelled to correct them.

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... following our own rules is underhanded?  I've already
editorialized enough about the nomcoms actions, so will refrain from
further inflaming the situation.

> So, while I will in separate emails explain the issues around each of the
> above rules,

see above, how are you privy to this info?

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.

Like we have done in the past you mean, or like the nomcom did this
year, despite their rule making against it?

Our basic rules are spelled out in our charter and related pages.

 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

If that person signs the charter, they have the same right to a
nomination that you do.  If you want to change the charter to
eliminate this, please make such a motion.

IIRC, the caucus in it's February statement didn't say, "the technical
community isn't CS".  Such a statement would have been too contentious
and never gotten even the very, very rough consensus that the Feb.
statement received.

 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.

Which wasn't their decision to make, according to rule #5 AND they
violated their own decision.  Can you shed light on that one as well?

>
> 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.

the rules are on the nomcom page. They are quite clear to me.

The ad hoc sub group can write any further rules, as the full caucus
doesn't seem to have the patience for it.  Are you in favor of an
ad-hoc sub group to explore this?

>
> 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.
>

criteria should be given to the full caucus, as per the charter.

> 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.

No, they didn't.  They nominated a full time staff member of an IGI
after they had exceeded their authority in making an exclusion of the
very same type of person they nominated.

>Again this is the 'real rule' issue in question

as per Avri, it's irrelevant at the moment.

May I inquire, what's the status of your counting?

-- 
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