More on Exclusion--verbose reply warning {was Re: [governance] Please summarize the discussion}

[McTim]

On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 2:26 PM, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

>
> 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 ….

That's an understatement.

>
> 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.

NO, that's NOT the "main issue", although it seems to be for you.  I
wonder why this is so important to you.  It seems to me that you have
your opinion on this issue, but several others of us have real life
experiential knowledge to contradict your opinion.   When confronted
with the facts of our experience, you can't seem to accept that your
opinion could possibly be wrong.

The main issue is following instructions laid out in our charter, and
how do we ensure that no discrimination against charter signers
happens going forward.

What you see is the main issue is simply criteria for nomcoms to use.

>
>
>
> 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.

ok, well I consider myself to be "centrally associated with these
institutions", this is my "primary identity" (nomcoms terminology).
Despite the fact that I have signed the charter, and the charter says
we are all equal AND that Guru (your boss) has already said that I
"could be clearly considered part of CS."

How can I be considered CS if, by your argument, my "primary identity"
and "central associations" are with IGIs?  Can I or can I not be
considered for the MAG nomination by this caucus?

The answer, of course, is that I have signed the charter, and thus
have the same rights as you or anyone else.  We cannot discriminate
against people based on a class of employer, "primary identity" or
"central association" as much as you might like to.  It violates the
agreement we have made amongst ourselves.

I chose not to allow folk to put my name forward this year, but I
certainly don't rule it out for the future, according to your logic I
would not be eligible.  According to the charter, I would.  I prefer
the charter, which I think you signed.

>
>
> 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.

This has no bearing on the issues at hand.

>
>
>
> 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.

Neither does this.

>
>
>
> 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

of course it was contentious, this is not my opinion. but an assertion
of fact. If one looks at the threads leading up to it, it is quite
clear that this was contentious.

> and should not have been considered by the nomcom.

This is not what I said.  What I said was they went much farther than
this statement allows.  They assumed authority not granted to them,
and excluded people who have signed our charter (which says we all
have equal rights).

>
>
> 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'.

My view is that if person x has signed the charter, she/he has equal
rights.  We cannot take those rights away because person x happens to
work for org y.

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.


As I have indicated many times, we as a caucus should not accept
'structural criteria" that violates our charter (unless we change said
charter, first).

>
>
> Those who preferred that we do not exclude reps of these 'internet gov
> institutions' from IGC nomination argued that though these organizations
> make policy

No, that's another mischaracterization, these organisations themselves
do NOT make policy, their communities make policies.


 (which was the argument of the other side for excluding them
> from the CS category)

which I think is nonsensical.  The opinion that CS MUST always stand
outside a power structure appears nowhere in any of the previously
quoted definitions of CS.


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.

NO, not "considered", it's that they ARE CS, according to every
definition of CS found (on the web).

In case of
> these organizations the traditional policy-making body vis a vis civil
> society distinctions therefore do not apply.

That part is correct.

 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.

again, a mischaracterisation, these people are not "close to CS in all
ways" they ARE CS.

>
>
>
> 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.

not brought up by me or those who support non-discrimination!

>
>
>
> 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…

as a red herring that you brought up.  The fact is that you oppose the
notion of a 4th stakeholder group AND say they can't be CS.  They are
not an official SH group, so MUST be CS, as they are neither PS nor
gov (and not IGOs FWIW).

(I think IGC did clearly say in Feb statement that IGIs should be
> represented on the MAG, though not through CS/IGC processes)

yes, you declared "rough consensus" on this in February.  But what the
nomcom did was not inline with this statement, it went much farther
and excluded charter signers, in violation of the "equal rights"
clause in the charter.

>
>
> 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…

which doesn't speak to the point of excluding charter signers from MAG
nomination, when in fact we have nominated such persons before.

>
>
>
> 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.

I'm sure it is not balanced.

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..

This is A real issue of contention, but not the one before the caucus now.

We have motions before the group and actions to take on the nomcoms
recommendations.  These are the "some other issues" that you refer to.
 They are the first order of business of the caucus IMO.

-- 
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