[governance] IGC nominees for MAG

[Adam Peake]

>I am not able to understand Adam's proposal that the noncom should recommend
>all the 5 members of the MAG.


I was actually trying to avoid the word recommend 
in connection with the five ("caucus would 
support their continued membership of the MAG 
should the SG find they continue to enhance the 
balance of the group"). And tried to suggest 
after pretty minimal endorsement by the caucus 
they should be left to make their own case for 
why they should continue.

We know 1/3 of the current MAG will be rotated, 
and those five will be part of the total current 
CS membership that will be rotated. Let them take 
their chance along the the rest of the people who 
make up the current CS MAG membership. Some will 
be cut, that's the rule the MAG made for itself 
(and what I think our statement a few weeks ago 
asked for.)

The caucus should make recommendations about 
others who go through the nomcom process, stating 
their overall skill sets, how important it is for 
CS to be fairly represented, how these people 
fill gaps etc. Way I look at the process I think 
we will likely improve the number that way and 
get more new people into the MAG.

I'm trying to think of ways to maximize the 
number of CS members in the MAG. I think this is 
something to be strategic about rather than stand 
on principle (Parminder, I understand that to be 
what you are saying, we should be principled, and 
respect that.)

I could well be wrong, I am guessing how this may 
all play out. We don't know what other groups 
will suggest people, we don't know how many of 
the current members will be considered civil 
society.

Adam



>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. 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
>
____________________________________________________________
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