[governance] IGC nominees for MAG

Parminder parminder at itforchange.net
Tue Mar 18 01:03:23 EDT 2008


> Anyway, I volunteer for the Nomcom.

Wait a minute, Vittorio. You are still a co-coordinator (even if at this
stage a little reluctant one) till we have the new co-coordinator. :)

We may need to consult on some issues during the process, so Id like it best
if you stayed out of the nomcom. 

As for co-coordinator elections, as you know, we now have a voting software,
and ill quickly get down to work on it. Thanks. 

Parminder 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vittorio Bertola [mailto:vb at bertola.eu]
> Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 10:19 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG
> 
> 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,
> --
> vb.                   Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu   <--------
> -------->  finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/  <--------
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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