[governance] IGC nominees for MAG

[Lee McKnight]

Jeanette,

That's the beauty of the infinite loop of email lists, no debate ever
need end, even if it reached a point of consensus a month ago : )

Seriously, we can reflect 'about 1/3rd rotate out' as a general
guideline, while also recognizing that the final rotation (or not) is
set by the SG and not by IGC. So we won a tactical/procedural
recommendation battle on a principle of rotation a month ago, now it's
on to implementation.

And the nomcom will be free to recommend more or less since as Vittorio
notes with small numbers of people we could easily get say 20% or 50%,
even if aiming at 33 1/3rd%.

Anyway, as Meryem and Milton recommend,  I agree on codifying
accountability and reporting processes by  MAG participants to CS, as
this mechanism within the institution evolves, is, within the bounds of
what; now we get to argue about wordsmithing it, oh joy.

Also as Parminder notes, maybe moving to elections makes sense at some
point, though good luck trying to get that done in a couple weeks. The
nomcom already has a half dozen volunteers I think which is a great
start. 

Lee 

Prof. Lee W. McKnight
School of Information Studies
Syracuse University
+1-315-443-6891office
+1-315-278-4392 mobile
>>> jeanette at wzb.eu 03/15/08 10:22 AM >>>
Hi, I have a few questions regarding this list of "minimal rules".

1. The caucus statement prepared for the last public consultation a 
rotation of one third of the MAG members: "One third of MAG members 
should be rotated every year." is this recommendation still valid and 
does it also apply to the civil society members or has the caucus 
changed its mind in the meantime?

2. Rule no. 4 defines as a requirements that the nominees "should 
promote and defend the caucus positions
 >> established by consensus before any MAG meeting [...] i.e. they 
don't consider themselves as "acting in their individual capacity" but 
as true representatives of the IGC." Why does the 2. rule require that 
the candidates disclose their own positions if they are expected to 
advance the positions of the caucus instead of their own?

3. MAG members are appointed by the SG not by the caucus. What would a 
recall process intend to achieve? That the SG changes his mind and kicks

  out the person? A bit far fetched I would say...


In my view, it contributes to a clean process to ask all members to 
apply again. What I don't find acceptable is to ignore our own position 
paper on this issue that is in fact less than a month old and enjoyed 
unusually broad consensus.

My suggestion would be to merge rule 2 and 4 into something more 
consistent. For example, the nominee should be required to actively 
participate in caucus discussions on matters that are on the MAG's 
agenda. Active participation allows everyone to know and understand the 
positions held be the nominee. In case the caucus manages to agree on a 
common position (which often turns out to be impossible), the nominee 
should present that position in the MAG meeting. If the nominee doesn't 
agree with the caucus position, its more likely than not that consensus 
in the caucus couldn't be reached to begin with.
The "imperative mandate" which rule 4 seems to suggest is not helpful in

a multi-stakeholder environment such as the MAG where consensus depends 
on open discussion, willingness to consider others points of views and, 
above all, to compromise.

Regarding the recall, the only thing I could imagine is that all caucus 
nominees could be asked to commit themselves to step down in case of a 
recall. We should take into consideration though that not all cs members

on the MAG got there through the blessing of the caucus. There are other

channels outside the reach of our rules.

jeanette


Milton L Mueller wrote:
> I sent my last message before reading this interesting and important
> analysis of Meryem's. I will consider the whole thing more carefully
but
> my immediate reaction is that we can and should do this:
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>  
>> 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.
> 
> It seems to me we could do that while staying within the Nomcom
process
> proposed by Lee et al. Those rules above would just be considered the
> ground rules for the NomCom. 
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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