[governance] IGC nominees for MAG

[Parminder]

I will like to offer a couple of points, in my personal capacity, on this
very useful discussion to evolve rules and methods for MAG nominations. 

The 'personal capacity' vis a vis 'representing IGC' is a central point
here. And we need to take adequately nuanced positions in this regard.

First of all, the provision in MAG rules that members serve in their
personal capacity should be seen in the right context. This is meant as a
corrective to a possible situation where seats are allocated to
institutions, and whoever comes representing the concerned institutions gets
to sit and participate in the MAG. Such a thing is obviously difficult to
implement in a multi-stakeholder context. However, for most MAG
participants, no one really seriously believes that they completely speak
only on basis of their personal convictions, without any reference to the
stands and views of the groups they are known to be associated with. 

Therefore the 'corrective' implied in the use of the term 'personal
capacity' cannot be extended to the extreme to mean that a MAG member has no
representative-ness at all. As Milton colorfully described, this is not an
invitation to a cocktail party, it is a public policy body. You don't sit
their because of any special personal attributes (that would be elitist),
you are there in some representative capacity - whether of a constituency,
or a set of ideals. 

However, especially for a CS member, since CS by definition is a
less-institutionalized category, I do agree that it is not possible for a CS
member just, and only, to parrot adopted positions. There is an element of
'personal capacity' (with a wider accountability to CS values and positions)
here. So, we should have some promises and processes for reporting back,
representing CS positions etc, but also allow a good degree of 'personal
capacity' based representation. We need to find an in between arrangement,
as Jeanette suggests. 

I think some relatively more extreme 'be a true representative' positions
are coming as a (I think legitimate) reaction against the way most/some IGC
nominated individuals took the 'personal capacity' thing so literally that
there has been very little if any 'representative-ness' character in their
membership. 

There is another, important, angle here. When we make the demand to be
represented in MAG, and be represented in even greater number than we are
now, we just need to have some internal (and external) feel of what and who
we are as a group. Are we a discussion list, or are we a collections 60
something members who have signed on the IGC charter (each in her personal
capacity). A discussion list would not mean anything in such a context. A
group of 60 individuals, all in their personal capacity, would still be just
that. So, obviously any merit in our claims comes from (some degree of) our
'representative-ness' of a wider CS community. This 'representative-ness'
cannot disappear when we forward nominations for MAG members. 

Another issue is whether we will nominate from among IGC members alone. This
opens the issue of defining members. The charter defines membership as those
who have signed the charter. Or do we consider anyone among all IGC e-list
participants. Or consider anyone who we may think is CS, and still request a
certain degree of engagement with IGC post selection as MAG member. 

In this a three way identity of IGC is relevant. (1)It is a discussion
e-list. (2) it is an action and advocacy group of those who are subscribed
to the charter and (3)IGC is a kind of  a front - or an interface - of a
wider CS constituency. This role of CS comes from the WSIS, and is also
strongly implied in our charter. 

It is in the nature and identity 3 above, that we really have some basis and
legitimacy to expect that a couple of names we suggest to be included in the
MAG. But for this while we should internally understand and affirm this 'CS
front' (though we cant claim we have exclusive CS representation), we should
also have some sense of what is the nature of that wider CS which we may
represent. Unfortunately this discussion is something many of us have
consistently refused to engage in. 

So while we will mostly nominate IGC members, because it is our
understanding that many/most CS members who have direct interest in IGF do
in some form engage with this group, it is open to us to nominate some who
may not do so at present. Generally, such people may be of a relatively high
profile such that while they do not at present engage with IGC we still
think they will be good MAG members.

It is though open to us to request these nominated persons to keep
sufficient degree of engagement with the IGC, which if our choices are
right, I am sure they will agree to. However, they will, as may regular IGC
member that become MAG members, will certainly push views beyond the
constraints of only the agreed positions of the caucus. To make some
distinction, one may expect that the existing IGC member nominees to have a
much greater amount of interaction, than some 'star' outside-IGC CS persons
that may get our backing. But the latter still shd do enough interaction.

Meaning, the actual situation will/ should be somewhere in between 'true
representative' of the IGC and some amount of 'personal capacity' with a
broader accountability to wider CS constituency. Lest I am misunderstood, I
am quite unhappy/ unsatisfied like many others about this exclusive
'personal capacity' interpretation that most IGC backed MAG members have
taken. And the situation should change, and change a lot. 

We should codify some processes of interactiosn with IGC for the CS nominees
that we recommend. And on that I see a good amount of consensus in the
emails that have been posted. 

Parminder  


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu]
> Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2008 7:52 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller
> Cc: Meryem Marzouki
> Subject: Re: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG
> 
> 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