[governance] IGC nominees for MAG

[Lee McKnight]

I note Avri's offer to fire up a nomcom etc process, doesn't that make
sense for getting process going asap. Practically speaking all current
mag members are off for the next round unless and until the SG
reappoints them, so kind of a moot point whether they tender
resignations or not, isn't it? Let's pass it to a nomcom asap and let
them take the heat and sort it out.

Of course that might all seem too practical and and out of character for
the caucus to proceed like that : )

Lee

Prof. Lee W. McKnight
School of Information Studies
Syracuse University
+1-315-443-6891office
+1-315-278-4392 mobile
>>> ca at rits.org.br 03/14/08 12:13 PM >>>
I disagree it is a principle. It was the suggestion most seemed to be 
satisfied with, but the howtos were not detailed, and of course the SG 
might change this. Let us note that the MAG could not even agree it will

not challenge the 50% rule, as we can see in the most recent messages in

the igf-members list on the subject -- which also show there is doubt on

any rotation principle which will be de facto adopted by the SG.

I suggest CS people as a block, quits, independently of what the SG does

(and he will do whatever is less troublesome for him without breaking 
rules -- and the 1/3 thing is not a rule nor a principle), and opens up 
the space for indications of CS reps to the MAG trying to make sure 
there is a better balance in regional + gender + etc representation. The

ones who want to stay would put their names again on the block for 
discussion, and the constituency should of course consider this, but we 
could very well propose that more or less than 1/3 be replaced.

If we replace, in the suggested process above, none, one third of the 
six-seven, or half, or 3/4, it is far less relevant than making sure we 
have a full list of names which might represent a better CS consensus. 
If anything, CS in the MAG was far worse in coordinating itself than the

other non-gov stakeholders, so, I think we all need an opportunity to 
restate our presence, and this is it (although it seems time is quite 
short).

--c.a.

Lee McKnight wrote:
> 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
> 
> 

____________________________________________________________
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