[governance] IGC nominees for MAG

[Carlos Afonso]

We need to untangle this. If there is to be a nomcom, it has to adhere 
to certain rules (not nominating themselves, not taking the initiative 
to capture nominees a la ICANN; it should just facilitate the process 
and try to consolidate a list of names generated by the IGC and the 
different other regional cauci as well as other CS constituencies which 
are involved in the IG debate).

Otherwise this might lead to an endless imbroglio (Vittorio knows the 
meaning of the word...) and we better stick to Vittorio's suggestion.

Probably the nomcom thing might become so troublesome that we might 
overshoot all deadlines and end up nominating no one, or do so with a 
lot of disagreements. Let us be careful (but we also need to act 
quickly...).

frt rgds

--c.a.

Vittorio Bertola wrote:
> Milton L Mueller ha scritto:
>> 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. 
> 
> Actually, I think that this "double track" would end up this way: you 
> have a big and interesting discussion from the bottom about who could do 
> this job well, then you put a lot of effort in coming to consensus on a 
> couple of names, but then you discover that these two names are just to 
> be added on a slate of five others that were already preselected from 
> the top, and did not have to go through any kind of public scrutiny.
> 
> Where did I already see this model? I think it was in ICANN's At Large 
> elections in 2000, and at that time I'm quite sure that some of the 
> people who now advocate this idea were challenging it on the basis of 
> its top-down nature :)
> 
> My feeling is that many, possibly most, of the current MAG members 
> should and will be confirmed anyway, whatever process we pick. So why 
> pick one that will leave to any loser the sense of not having been 
> playing on a level field? How helpful can that be to the future 
> credibility of the MAG and of the IGF in general?
> 
> Anyway, I volunteer for the Nomcom.
> 
> Ciao,

____________________________________________________________
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