[governance] IGC nominees for MAG

[Carlos Afonso]

Precisely because of Vittorio's questions I think the SG would be much 
more comfortable with dismissing everyone and then picking 2/3 to stay, 
if this is really going to be the rotation rule.

Unless more than 1/3 do inform him that they are willing to be replaced, 
and hopefully in a balanced manner regarding the stakeholder groups. 
Hardly.

Frankly, it would be awful for the SG to receive a bunch of pleas in the 
style "I am the greatest, please keep me in", or " it would be so sad to 
leave such a nice group of folks" and so on, and, since most would not 
send a "yes, my place is at your disposal, sir", then have to sit and 
decide "no cookies for you anymore, Geraldo", and "yes, Virginia, I will 
let you continue" etc.

It is far more reasonable (and ethically coherent, less troublesome) for 
the SG to dismiss everyone and reorganize following the 1/3 + 2/3 rule. 
For several reasons, I hope he does so.

Let us therefore concentrate on how to arrive at a list of CS names for 
that 1/3.

In this aspect, please note that the Latin American and Caribbean WSIS 
caucus is trying to prepare a list of names to recommend on behalf of 
the region. Any news regarding the other regions?

[]s fraternos

--c.a.

Vittorio Bertola wrote:
> Adam Peake ha scritto:
>>> I think we should follow some basic guidelines:
>>>
>>> 1. Rotation would be for 1/3 of the MAG (I guess this means the whole 
>>> MAG and not only the 50% non-gov people).
>>
>>
>> "Rotating up to 1/3 of the members within each stakeholder group each 
>> year was seen as the appropriate way forward."  and "50% of its 
>> members proposed by governments and 50% by other stakeholder groups, 
>> would be maintained.
> 
> So, who gets to pick which members of the MAG are confirmed and which 
> ones are subject to reconfirming? What happens if you have to rotate one 
> third of the group but almost everyone in the group wants to continue? 
> I've seen a commitment to rotate "up to one third" (which might mean no 
> rotation at all) but I've not seen commitments to rotate "at least X%".
> 
> Frankly, I would think that rotating less than one third would be a 
> joke. There was no rotation last year, so if you have ascertained that 
> the right proportion of rotation is one third per year (which is already 
> pretty low), one would expect that this year two thirds of the group 
> would be rotated. Generally speaking, a group deciding for itself which 
> and how many of its members need to be changed at the term's end, and 
> deciding for very low values, does not look very good.
> 
> Please don't be offended - I know that everyone's intentions are good, 
> that establishing proper procedures in this informal environment is 
> hard, that there is the need to cope with balancing constraints etc. - 
> but the accountability and transparency of the MAG is still low, more 
> than that of the governing bodies of other global Internet governance 
> institutions. This is somewhat normal for such a young organization, but 
> perhaps some stronger show of will and bolder effort could be done: from 
> the outside, it really looks like the MAG is reluctant to change and 
> plans to replace as few members as possible, and this is not encouraging 
> for the credibility of the IGF.

____________________________________________________________
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