[governance] IGC nominees for MAG

[Ken Lohento]

Dear colleagues

I think we have a consensus about a nomcom process, and to have new 
names, and some colleagues suggested principles of a specific mandate 
the people IGC recommends must have (we need to further discuss some of 
these rules). I would also like to say that the current CS MAG members 
have throughout these 2 years supported the caucus positions (even 
though the consensus is sometimes hard to achieve within IGC itself), 
interacted with and sent reports to the IGC and to other CS groupings, 
during and after meetings, even though it's it was not through formal 
proceedures, and even though we can improve things.

But to continue with the nomcom process : first of all, I would like to 
say I will not vote against submitting only new names to the UN, but I 
think it's reasonable and consistent with the caucus last statement 
(Feb) and the general consensus (here and elsewhere) that there is some 
continuity within the MAG ; therefore at least a few IGC members of the 
current MAG should be included in the new list. Not having none of them 
in that list will also be interpreted as disavowal/denial of confidence 
in all of them (unless we express clearly the contrary) and I hope it's 
not the caucus general feeling :-). We may include all the current 
members + the new names, or selected 3 current MAG members (through 
another ramdom process, unless we have a better quick method) and add 
the new names. In any case, it's true it's the UN that will decide.

Best

Ken L

Jeanette Hofmann a écrit :
> 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