[governance] IGC nominees for MAG

Fri Mar 14 20:36:22 EDT 2008

Le 14 mars 08 à 15:11, Milton L Mueller a écrit :

> 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.

Especially when it has specifically been asked by the UN SG to:

"enhance the transparency of the preparatory process by ensuring a  
continuous flow of information between its members and the various  
interested groups.  It has also been requested to make proposals on a  
suitable rotation among its members, based on recommendations from  
the various interested groups." (press release of 20 August 2007:  
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs//2007/pi1791.doc.htm).

If I were the UN SG, I wouldn't find suitable what the MAG proposed:  
"It was understood that any decision on how to proceed would be left  
to the Secretary-General and that any list of candidates would  
include the current MAG members who wished to continue.  One of the  
criteria passed on to the Secretary-General would be the need for  
continuity and the request that approximately 2/3 of the members of  
the current group be carried over into the new group." (Summary of  
MAG meeting of 27-28 February 2008, para 9: http:// 
www.intgovforum.org/Feb_igf_meeting/MAG.Summary.28.02.2008.v2.pdf)

BTW, the UN SG asked that proposals on rotation be made by MAG  
members, "based on recommendations from the various interested  
groups". Have I missed such a discussion initiated on this list by CS  
MAG members nominated by the IGC and a synthesis of recommendations  
from this list - one of the "various interested groups" - BEFORE the  
last MAG meeting? Or is it that the UN SG simply had a dream of  
democratic process?

> 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.

Well said, Milton, but you should get back to reality. And this  
reality is that: "The 47 Advisory Group members will serve in their  
personal capacity" (press release of 20 August 2007, see URL above).  
Not only the UN SG's dreams are limited, but MAG members keep telling  
us the same thing, including CS MAG members suggested by the IGC.

This is exactly the reason why I asked for a preliminary discussion  
on the relevance of any nomination by the IGC.

> I must also express disagreement with Meryem about not using the  
> IGC to
> nominate CS representatives on the MAG.

You disagree, but at least you react and don't play the inertia game:  
this is much appreciated. I'm amazed at how so many people here seem  
ready to enter again a process without even willing to discuss its  
relevance, inter alia by assessing its first step, taking into  
account the experience so far. Some may genuinely think that what I'm  
saying is "not constructive" or even "destructive". But what is  
destructive - far beyond this group, to CS at large - is to go on  
with such a perverted process.

> It seems to me to be essential
> that civil society use the only (quasi) universalistic organizational
> mechanism it has to hash this out.

What for? We have some experience with a first nomination process  
(http://www.nomadicity.net/IGC-candidates-for-IGF-MAG.html). The IGC  
has received 27 nominations (names, endorsements, bios, "why they are  
a good choice for the MAG", and "capacity to serve on MAG" may be  
found at: http://www.wsis-cs.org/igfnominees.shtml). The IGC then  
selected 15 persons as its nominees (through a nomcom process), among  
them 5 were selected (note that I'm comfortable with this 5 out of 15  
selected persons: other CS constituencies nominated other persons,  
and the UN SG had to take this into account). When have we seen these  
5 MAG members consult the group that nominated them, and to which  
extent have they consulted (let aside some very practical ideas  
sollicitated almost only by one of them). When have we got any sound  
information or hints on what's going on in the MAG?
I would agree with you that this is essential, if only some minimal  
democratic principles were respected.

> Of course we know that other clusters
> of actors can -- and will -- approach the UN and IGF Secretariat with
> their own nominees.

Yes, and that's normal and highly desirable, but only under normal  
conditions. e.g. Carlos already said that the LAC caucus will propose  
its own nominees: this is good and I hope other caucuses/networks/ 
coalitions/organizations will do the same.

> 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.

First of all, that's not what happens in practice: in the end, the UN  
SG makes his own selection, and we have seen that he selected 5  
persons from among the IGC nominees. 5 out of how many CS MAG members?
Secondly: again, what for, in the end? What will rather happen is  
that selected MAG members among IGC nominees will be able to claim  
that they have this credibility and thus this legitimacy, and have  
another round of MAG membership "in personal capacity, not  
representing anyone nor anything".
That's where the process is perverted, both the IGC nomination and  
the IGF MAG process.
I'm not attacking any individual here. But how may one call a process  
where: a group nominates its representatives without giving them any  
mandate nor any minimal transparency and accountability requirement;  
accepts that these representatives are acting all of a sudden in  
their individual capacity; accepts that these representatives don't  
give them the least sense of what's going on inside the MAG; and  
accepts that these representatives don't even affect to come back  
with some accounting of what they have done and, on top of this, dare  
to say that they would like to stay in place? And how may one call  
such a group? A CS caucus? Not!

Why legitimating such a process? To delegitimate CS?

If we want to have any chance to stop this perverted process, we have  
to collectively follow some minimal rules, like:
1. Consider a fresh start. Anyone can be (self-)nominated, of course  
including those who have already been on the MAG
2. Consider only nominations that come with a statement of intent  
from the candidate, including which positions s/he would promote  
within the MAG
3. In case the candidate has already been on the MAG, consider the  
nomination only if it also comes with an accounting of what the  
candidate has done so far
4. Establish some requirements that should be followed by the  
nominee: e.g. they should promote and defend the caucus positions  
established by consensus before any MAG meeting, and report to the  
caucus after each meeting. i.e. they don't consider themselves as  
"acting in their individual capacity" but as true representatives of  
the IGC.
5. Make IGC nominees subject to a recall process, following the rules  
established in the IGC charter (http://www.igcaucus.org/IGC- 
charter_final-061014.html) for the recall of coordinators. Since the  
MAG rules themselves consider that MAG members are acting in their  
individual capacity, the success of a recall vote on an IGC  
representative to the MAG would imply that the IGC officially and  
publicly notifies the UN SG of the recall.

And, most probably, get back to IGC charter and think twice about  
this provision: "All nominations to external bodies, e.g., the IGF  
multistakholder advisory group, will be made using a randomly  
selected nomcom process as defined in http://www.igcaucus.org/nomcom- 
process.html.", asking ourselves why coordinators must be elected,  
while nominees are only selected through a nomcom process, and in  
addition asking ourselves which of the two processes is more suitable  
for selecting IGC nominees if we want them be our representatives.

Best,
Meryem____________________________________________________________
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