[governance] IGC nominees for MAG

[Parminder]

> 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).
>

Carlos

I think the nomcom will have to do more than 'consolidate a list of names'
as reach it from various quarters. It is has to do 'selection', there is no
other choice. (I did propose consideration of the alternative of direct
voting a few days back.) 

And what do you mean by ' a list of names generated by the IGC'. Nomcom is
THE process to generate such a list. Or do you mean anyone from within or
outside who self-nominates, or someone else nominates her, automatically
forms this list.... I don't think we are looking at that. Forwarding  a huge
list of all willing persons to the SG will just mean we give up all our
selection rights and leave it entirely to the SG. I don't think this is what
most people here want...

And yes, nomcom should give due weight-age and if needed priority to
nominations by other CS groups. But unfortunately there arent many who will
be doing such a nomination process. It is for this reason that even if with
a thin, and somewhat shaky, base, IGC which (to a considerable extent) fills
in the CS vacuum in the IG space should consider these task of CS
representation with a great deal of seriousness and sense of responsibility.



Parminder 



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Carlos Afonso [mailto:ca at rits.org.br]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 2:06 AM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG
> 
> 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


____________________________________________________________
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