[governance] IGC nominees for MAG

[Adam Peake]

>Adam,
>
>I agree with Adam's target number of CS members of MAG.
>
>I would assume most if not all current CS MAG 
>members MIGHT be recommended by the nomcom.


Lee,

I think we'll end up with a better overall result 
if we re-send the names of the five people the 
caucus nomcom recommended in 2006 (with no 
particular endorsement other than here they are 
and the covering comments as I mention in the 
last email), and then look for a nomcom to 
recommend a strong set of 10-15 others, people 
from the caucus and also outside. There should be 
plenty of people from organizations that 
participated in workshops, best practices, 
dynamic coalitions. Particularly to fill gaps we 
think missing in the MAG now and noted by the MAG 
itself in the recommendations it will make to the 
SG.

I think we give whoever it is making the 
selections more options if we do it this way. I 
am not saying we leave it to the SG (or whoever) 
but give them options to select from a wide set 
of qualified people.

Adam



>Having just established the 1/3rd rotation 
>principle, I disagree with Milton about applying 
>it retroactively, and with you Adam on leaving 
>it entirely to the SG.
>
>For a clean process I think the main thing is to 
>pass responsibility on to the nomcom asap.
>
>Lee
>
>Prof. Lee W. McKnight
>School of Information Studies
>Syracuse University
>+1-315-443-6891office
>+1-315-278-4392 mobile
>>>>  ajp at glocom.ac.jp 03/16/08 8:12 AM >>>
>I agree with Ken, and my probably more self-serving looking proposal is:
>
>The five members of the MAG the caucus nomcom
>recommended in 2006 be included on any list of
>candidates with a note to say the caucus would
>support their continued membership of the MAG
>should the SG find they continue to enhance the
>balance of the group. The five (unless anyone
>drops out) are included in any candidate list.
>Part of this arrangement should include a renewed
>commitment to ensure they provide a flow of
>information between the MAG and civil society
>(should be broader than the caucus) and whatever
>other conditions seem to make sense (we should
>discuss these criteria.)
>
>It's up to those five individuals to write up
>some persuasive reasons why they want/should stay
>on the group, and for the SG to select them or
>not considering advice he receives on their past
>contributions and the balance of the candidate
>pool.
>
>Important we emphasize civil society has been
>under represented in the multi-stakeholder
>advisory groups appointed in 2006 and 2007, and
>the MAG would benefit from an increase in civil
>society membership. Then provide an additional
>pool  of   9 / 11 / 15 (pick a number) additional
>candidates. The MAG recommendations say
>improvement's needed with regard to the gender
>balance and representation of developing
>countries, so focus on those areas: look for
>strong candidates from Latin America and Asia in
>particularly (South and South East Asia), and
>East and South Africa, making sure there's gender
>balance across the candidate pool and include
>Gender and ICT as a special interest group.
>
>Aim for a list of 15 + candidates, including the 5 from 2006.
>
>Other civil society groups will put forwards
>names, and I expect (no MAG insight - just
>personal opinion) the SG's going to give those
>people the same consideration he will the people
>recommended by the caucus.
>
>Milton, all MAG members are willing to be rotated
>out.  The idea of the "black box" was for all to
>have to resubmit their names and one way or
>another 1/3 would not be re-selected.
>
>Adam
>
>
>
>>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
>
>____________________________________________________________
>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