[governance] IGC nominees for MAG
Jeanette Hofmann
jeanette at wzb.eu
Sun Mar 16 13:59:22 EDT 2008
Guru wrote:
> I am not able to understand Adam's proposal that the noncom should recommend
> all the 5 members of the MAG.
>
> In the case of speakers for IGF @ Rio, we heard forceful arguments -
> including by Adam - for not nominating any of the IGF Greece speakers. The
> logic for this being several - that new perspectives are required,
> especially given that CS by nature is broad and diverse, and newer
> views/interests need to be heard. While the role of IGF speakers and MAG
> members are not identical, as Drake mentions, no rare expertise appears to
> be required that many CS members do not have. As for experience, there is
> really nothing that the MAG does, which cannot be learnt in a short period.
>
>
> Interestingly, some MAG members have suggested that they are in MAG more in
> their 'personal capacity' and not so much in terms of representing any group
> or CS.
Guru, I don't recall any MAG member saying that. Who was it and when?
jeanette
On this line of reasoning, there is even stronger imperative to
> rotate members so that we have wider CS represenation, and see new faces and
> different viewpoints. I find it even more untenable that the same people
> have both the 'expression of personal capacity' and 're-nominate all
> existing members' viewpoints. At least if we were agreeing with the
> 'representation' basis of MAG membership, the 'retain existing members'
> viewpoint may have some basis in better effectiveness of represenation etc
> (which, as mentioned above, I really do not subscribe to).
>
> I agree with Miltons observation that "an organization that does not know
> how to regularly rotate and elect committee members is almost by definition
> moribund or worse, corrupt... And given the tasks of the MAG, which are
> entirely advisory and involve no technical expertise, the case for high
> levels of continuity is quite weak". I think a rotation of 1/3 should be the
> minimum rather than the stipulation. I think this was also the spirit of the
> suggestion made in our Feb statement. Within CS, we should have the spirit
> of understanding the work done by members and what will best push CS agendas
> forward. Automatic re-nomination as a consequence would really be out of
> place in our current context and it is truly extra-ordinary for existing MAG
> members to make such proposals.
>
> Regards,
> Guru
> _____________
> Gurumurthy K
> IT for Change, Bangalore
> Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities
> www.ITforChange.net
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp]
> Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2008 5:43 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG
>
> 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
____________________________________________________________
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
More information about the Governance
mailing list