[governance] Please summarize the discussion

Parminder parminder at itforchange.net
Wed Jun 11 07:26:44 EDT 2008


Dear Bertrand, and others

 

>As the causus coordinator, could you please, with the help of the  main
actors involved if necessary,  summarize briefly the main positions and what
is at stake here >? I'm a bit lost.

 

I think the two emails written on the subject giving some key points of the
discussions are quite useful to get a good sense it. I am enclosing these
emails, and also cut-pasting below.

 

To this I will add some more things, though I cant be sure how balanced it
may look 
. And I have had to do this under some time constraints. 

 

The main issue has been about whether some persons closely connected with
bodies involved in Internet governance (ICANN, RIRs etc) can also be
representing CS and IGC in the MAG (in the sense that CS/ IGC actually
nominates them to represent it), for stakeholder-wise speaking slots at the
IGF etc. 

 

This is really THE issue which got discussed, though you may note that there
are different ways in which it is characterized. One email below
characterizes it ‘whether ‘technical internet governance institutions are
CS, other quotes the nomcom report as speaking of the issue in relationship
to ‘paid employees of these institutions’, though the nomcom reports at
other places, and more often, speaks of  ‘full time paid employees’. I
myself prefer to speak of people who are centrally associated with these
institutions, and can in general be seen as representing them. 

 

It is also relevant that this issue got discussed in a somewhat similar
context when we developed our statement on MAG rotation to Feb
consultations, whereby the final consensus statement included the following 

 

*	In the interest of transparency and understanding the
responsibilities of MAG members, when making appointments to the MAG we
request the Secretary General to explain which interested group that person
is associated with. The rules for membership of the MAG should be clearly
established, and made open along with due justifications. 

 

*	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 and a fair balance of members among all
stakeholders assured. Fair civil society representation is necessary to
ensure legitimacy for this new experiment in global governance. 

 

*	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.

 

It is my impression that this consensus statement may have had effect on
what nomcom reports (I would expect it, as other IGC discussions and
statements, to inform nomcom’s working). McTim thinks that above IGC
statement was contentious and should not have been considered by the nomcom.


 

Since an amendment to the charter was proposed by McTim (see his email
below) that nomcom rules make it explicit that the employment of any
potential nominee will NOT be a relevant criterion for selecting IGC reps
etc, the discussion went into whether this would apply to government
employees, and those who may be employed in a substantive capacity by
private sector companies with sufficient ‘policy related weight’
..’ Those
who supported the amendment seemed to be of the view that this is fine (I
can be corrected on this) as long as the nominated persons have ‘CS
credentials’. I inquired if we are going to ditch structural criterion for
selecting CS nominees and go for ‘soft’ criterion like ‘CS credentials’ or
‘CS outlook’ can we then know what these could be
. But on this point the
discussion did not proceed further.

 

Those who preferred that we do not exclude reps of these ‘internet gov
institutions’ from IGC nomination argued that though these organizations
make policy (which was the argument of the other side for excluding them
from the CS category) the manner in which the policy is made by these
organizations is so different, and so centrally involves the whole community
in a such a continuous manner, that they should be considered CS. In case of
these organizations the traditional policy-making body vis a vis civil
society distinctions therefore do not apply. Those on this side of the
argument also kept insisting that all those who work with these Int gov
institutions (IGIs) have very solid CS credentials, and are really very
close to the CS in all ways. 

 

The issue of what is technical community and how it is different or not from
IGIs also came up, as it always in these discussions.

 

The issue of how can the same group/ institutions – the IGIs – ask to be a
separate category – a fourth stakeholder group - for selection to the MAG,
and also have some members/ reps (?) going through CS/ IGC processes also
came up
 (I think IGC did clearly say in Feb statement that IGIs should be
represented on the MAG, though not through CS/IGC processes)

 

Other members were insistent that to not nominate an IGI rep is to create
distinctions among IGC members, while the charter claims that all members
are equal. To this others argued that not choose as IGC rep due to potential
conflict of interest doesn’t mean exclusion from the caucus
  

 

I was very involved in these discussions, and am not quite sure if this is a
balanced summary of the ‘real’ issues that got discussed. Some other issues
got discussed like about making sure that nomcom sticks to existing nomcom
rules for declaring its criteria beforehand, and what level of criteria will
need to be written down, and what is the role/ responsibility of the caucus
to communicate such criteria
 However, the real issue of contention was
really the internet gov institutions employees/reps issue as described in
the two emails below, and by me above..

 

Parminder 

 

(The other two emails that have tried to sum up the issue are as follows)

 

Suresh wrote:

 

Summary -

 

1. The nomcom says "technical internet governance institutions" like the
RIRs are not civil society and not eligible to be nominated as civil society
by the caucus

 

2. Some of us disagree

 

2a. Some of us also point out something others have pointed out, the nomcomm
should have checked back with the caucus before taking this kind of
decision.

 

And McTim wrote:

 

 

On May 22nd, I proposed that we amend

 

http://www.igcaucus.org/nomcom-process.html  point 4

 

to read

 

4. All nomcom participants, voting and non voting, will be disqualified from
selection as candidates for the list or team being chosen. Members of the
current appeals team will also be disqualified from being chosen. No
disqualification can be made based upon the type of employment undertaken by
members.

 

I did this since the charter says "The members of the IGC are individuals,
acting in personal capacity, who subscribe to the charter of the caucus. All
members are equal and have the same rights and duties."  It doesn't seem
fair that some members are less equal than others, based on employer.

 

Bill has since proposed that we form a working group to unambiguously sort
this out.

 

The NomCom made a recommendation  "that an independent Chair -either voting
or non-voting - be appointed now, and charged with a review in association
with the Internet Governance Caucus of all processes associated with future
NomComs. The matters which we believe need review, clarification, or further
discussion, so that a next NomCom has a smoother operation, include

 

.       Clarification and weighting of selection criteria

.       Clarification of IG Caucus position on publication of candidates
details

.       Clarification of IG Caucus position on candidates who are paid

employees of internet governance organisations

.       An examination of ways to ensure regional representation or

input on NomComs

.       Clear publication on the Caucus website of a list of

procedures for future NomComs."

 

Mike Gurstein made a motion 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."

 

 

 

 

 

 

  _____  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080611/2f872005/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded message was scrubbed...
From: "Suresh Ramasubramanian" <suresh at hserus.net>
Subject: RE: [governance] Please summarize the discussion
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 15:15:34 +0530
Size: 10139
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080611/2f872005/attachment.eml>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded message was scrubbed...
From: "McTim" <dogwallah at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [governance] Please summarize the discussion
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 18:03:19 +0530
Size: 9318
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080611/2f872005/attachment-0001.eml>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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