[governance] IGC nominees for MAG

[Lee McKnight]

Milton, Vitttorio,

I agree it iis important for IGC to establish a policy on rotation of
'igc' MAG members and regular procedures for new nominations.

I disagree that we should start the new policy with an exception to the
1/3rd off principle which wll be followed by governments.We need to be
looking beyond this first rotation to the ongoing operation of IGF,
Parminder should set our practices on the assumption that this will be
an annual practice,so who's on and who's off for 08-09 is not that big a
deal in the long run. 

But setting up a fair process for determiining that, that is a big deal.
Avri's early efforts for nomcoms and elections got us started right,
let's build on that.

Lee

Prof. Lee W. McKnight
School of Information Studies
Syracuse University
+1-315-443-6891office
+1-315-278-4392 mobile
>>> mueller at syr.edu 03/14/08 10:11 AM >>>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vittorio Bertola [mailto:vb at bertola.eu]
> 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.

Well said, Vittorio. It is really important that the IGF NOT get stuck
in the same self-perpetuating group. For that reason, I think it is
incumbent upon ALL of the members nominated by civil society via this
caucus to express their willingness to step down and be replaced by
someone new. At the very least, the current crop of CS "delegates"
should be able to decide among themselves which of the 6 or 7 should be
replaced. And that proportion should NOT be limited to one third, which
after all is only 2.15 people. We could in fact take a stand and offer
to replace 2/3 or one half. Why not? Can someone -- especially someone
currently on the MAG -- give me one reason we should not? 

It is more than the credibility of the IGF that is at stake, it is the
institutional capacity of IGF itself. An organization that does not know
how to regularly rotate and elect committee members is almost by
definition moribund or worse, corrupt. It is the most basic task that an
organization is supposed to be able to do. And given the tasks of the
MAG, which are entirely advisory and involve no technical expertise, the
case for high levels of continuity is quite weak. People like Adam and
Jeanette who were strong contributors to MAG, for example, can remain
major players in IGF whether or hot they are on the MAG. Or even if they
stay, one or two incumbents is sufficient. But precisely because they
are stronger members they should be the first to volunteer to be
rotated.

I am really sorry to have to say this less politely than Vittorio, but
if the people who are currently on the MAG liked being in that position,
I sympathize with you, I understand you, but I also say, get over it.
Think about something higher than your own personal enjoyment and
recognition. Think about the long-term future of IGF and civil society
participation in IG.

The key issue to consider is whether participation on the MAG is a
purely personal form of recognition and engagement, or whether you are
there to represent something larger - either a constituency or a set of
ideals. All this crazy, strategically suspect talk about people not
representing anyone or anything to the contrary, I would suggest that if
someone who wants to be on the MAG does not represent a constituency or
a point of view that transcends themselves they have absolutely no
business being on the MAG. This is not about who gets invited to a
cocktail party, it's supposed to be about internet governance policy.

I must also express disagreement with Meryem about not using the IGC to
nominate CS representatives on the MAG. It seems to me to be essential
that civil society use the only (quasi) universalistic organizational
mechanism it has to hash this out. Of course we know that other clusters
of actors can -- and will -- approach the UN and IGF Secretariat with
their own nominees. But IGC at least can make a credible claim to have
consulted a community and to have an unpredetermined outcome, so its
nominees have more legitimacy. 


____________________________________________________________
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

____________________________________________________________
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