[governance] IGC nominees for MAG

[Milton L Mueller]

Ken Lohento wrote:

> 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 

Just to clarify, I don't know of anyone who has advocated submitting
_only_ new names. 

What I have said is that the NomCom and the caucus should start with a
clean slate in developing a new list. The fact that someone is currently
on the MAG does not -- and should not -- guarantee that they should be
on a new list. 

We know for a fact that the IGF Secretariat and the UN S-G will maintain
a one-third rotation. Our list, therefore, is simpy our advice on who to
throw out and who could be added. It is not even binding advice, as we
all know. 

It is likely, in my opinion, that some of the existing MAG members will
be on our new list, it is even possible that all of them will. But the
whole point is to give the caucus, the broader CS community, the right
to decide who is and who isn't. That seems reasonable to me.

You can tell from the above that I do not agree with Adam's position
below:

Adam Peake:
> 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. 

Indeed, I find it difficult to think of any justification for this rule.
As I said, this list is nothing more than advice on who to throw out and
who could be added. So creating a rule that forces us to support all
current members eliminates half of our our ability to give advice. It
also completely eviscerates any pressure we are able to place on
existing MAG members who allegedly represent us. This is absurd. 

Generally, I have been pretty favorably impressed with Adam's role on
the MAG and he seems to have been one of the most active memebers in
relaying information to us. Advocating incumbent rights in this way
really undermines my support for him. People who have done good jobs
should be confident in the ability of their constituency to understand
and recognize it. 



____________________________________________________________
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