[governance] IGC nominees for MAG

[Jeanette Hofmann]

Milton L Mueller wrote:
> Jeanette:
> These are reasonable questions. Let me respond below
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> 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?
> 
> Two responses: first, the current MAG has been in place for 2, going on
> 3 years and there has been no rotation. A 1/3 rotation every year
> therefore would imply that all of them could be rotated. 

This may be your point of view, and that of Vittorio and a few others. 
 From what I remember, the caucus never discussed this interpretation of 
the rotation rule, and I don't think there would be consensus on this.
> 
> Second, in practical operational terms the UN SG decides who is to be
> rotated. The caucus is fully within its rights to give the SG a list
> that includes all, some or none of the current MAG members. 

Yes, that is certainly true but it escapes my understanding why the 
caucus would even consider a list without any of the current members. 
Mary Douglas and Aaron Wildavsky once ascribed to sects the view that 
"the evil is at home, emanating from our own social system". I am often 
reminded of this when I see how we treat each other in spaces such as 
this list.
> 
>> 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?
> 
> For reasons of transparency and for the reason you outline below: in
> many cases, there will be no consensus and the MAG member will need to
> advocate, consider or modify positions to reach it. In that case, I and
> many others want to know where this person is "coming from."

I don't speak against this. What I question is that MAG members can 
"truely represent" something as diverse as the opinions of this caucus 
or any other civil society entity.
> 
>> 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...
> 
> Your suggestion below is a good one: resignation. 
> 
>> In my view, it contributes to a clean process to ask all members to
>> apply again. 
> 
> Exactly. That is the point I have been trying to make. Each MAG member
> should express a willingness to serve and to be rotated off. This does
> not mean we want to replace all of them, but it does make it clear that
> they are delegates of something bigger and also combats the notion that
> MAG members have some kind of God-given right to stay on simply because
> they were selected three years ago, or because they find it fun and nice
> to be in that position. As you say, a "clean process." 
> 
>> 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.
> 
> People support the principle of rotation. But that principle has been
> ignored for two years running. In order to implement its spirit we need
> to make a statement.

That principle wasn't established two years ago. Two years ago we were 
nominated for one year. And then we were in limbo for about half a year 
or longer.
> 
>> 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. 
> 
> This is a requirement that cannot practically be enforced. I think it's
> cleaner and simpler simply to ask MAG applicants to produce the kind of
> statement of intent rule 2 asks for. Also I don't see why it is
> inconsistent to also ask them to report to the caucus after each
> meeting, although again that can hardly be enforced short of the nuclear
> option of recall. 

I didn't speak against reports, I asked about the logic of expressing 
once's own opinion if one is expected to not act in ones own capacity.
> 
>> 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.
> 
> I don't like this mushy talk, Jeanette about MS consensus. There is no
> such thing. Governments want half the positions, they get them, it
> doesn't matter what PS or CS think about it. There are other examples
> but no point to go into them.

Sorry if you don't like what I say. Yet it is fact that the MAG is 
supposed to reach consensus on its recommendations. If the CS members 
cannot agree to anything but the positions the caucus managed to reach 
agreement upon, the CS members have a bit of a problem.

What I miss in this discussion is the concept of trust. Some of the MAG 
members are known on this list for years. We have helped developing and 
advancing civil society positions for years. We have participated in the 
discussions on this list with the aim to develop convincing civil 
society positions. To act "in a personal capacity" is not worth much 
unless there is a considerable number of people who believe in the same 
principles and goals. Isn't that obvious?
jeanette
> 
>> 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. 
> 
> Yes.
> 
>> 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.
> 
> Of course.
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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