[governance] Re: [Mmwg] Caucus nomcom

[McTim]

<No apology for cross-posting>

On Sat, Jun 14, 2008 at 12:14 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
>
>
<snip>

> To me the issue is more that the employee of a major internet governance
> body might have a conflict of interest representing civil society when
> discussing internet governance matters. (things would have been much neater
> if we discussed this as the prime issue and the Nomcom report was worded a
> little differently) - to move on maybe we should adopt McTims wording that
> suggests there should not be blanket bans on classes. I am happy with that.

The reason that I don't feel it's useful to have this discussion
solely on the mmwg list is the above.  If you had voiced this on the
governance list, there would be now (by my count) 10 yeas to activate
a charter change vote.

Leaving aside the issue of potential conflicts of interest for ALL
staff of orgs which take positions in the IG field, perhaps the
charter amendment should have been "no other exclusions of members
will be approved by the caucus, since all members equally have the
right to be nominated by the IGC."

In the interests of full disclosure, I have very recently changed
status from "gifted amateur" to "Internet Governance Professional"
having been paid to do some word-smithing by an IGI (but not an IGI
whose staff, it seems, were included in the exclusion we are
discussing).

-- 
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