[governance] IGC nominees for MAG

[Milton L Mueller]

Jeanette:
These are reasonable questions. Let me respond below

> -----Original Message-----
> 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?

Two responses: first, the current MAG has been in place for 2, going on
3 years and there has been no rotation. A 1/3 rotation every year
therefore would imply that all of them could be rotated. 

Second, in practical operational terms the UN SG decides who is to be
rotated. The caucus is fully within its rights to give the SG a list
that includes all, some or none of the current MAG members. 

> 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?

For reasons of transparency and for the reason you outline below: in
many cases, there will be no consensus and the MAG member will need to
advocate, consider or modify positions to reach it. In that case, I and
many others want to know where this person is "coming from."

> 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...

Your suggestion below is a good one: resignation. 

> In my view, it contributes to a clean process to ask all members to
> apply again. 

Exactly. That is the point I have been trying to make. Each MAG member
should express a willingness to serve and to be rotated off. This does
not mean we want to replace all of them, but it does make it clear that
they are delegates of something bigger and also combats the notion that
MAG members have some kind of God-given right to stay on simply because
they were selected three years ago, or because they find it fun and nice
to be in that position. As you say, a "clean process." 

> 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.

People support the principle of rotation. But that principle has been
ignored for two years running. In order to implement its spirit we need
to make a statement.

> 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. 

This is a requirement that cannot practically be enforced. I think it's
cleaner and simpler simply to ask MAG applicants to produce the kind of
statement of intent rule 2 asks for. Also I don't see why it is
inconsistent to also ask them to report to the caucus after each
meeting, although again that can hardly be enforced short of the nuclear
option of recall. 

> 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.

I don't like this mushy talk, Jeanette about MS consensus. There is no
such thing. Governments want half the positions, they get them, it
doesn't matter what PS or CS think about it. There are other examples
but no point to go into them.

> 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. 

Yes.

> 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.

Of course.

____________________________________________________________
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