[governance] IGC nominees for MAG

Wed Mar 19 01:10:22 EDT 2008

Bill and Meryem have raised the issue of whom does the IGC represent, and
accordingly whether we should only nominate IGC members, or consider some
outsiders as well.

I had tried to raise and discuss this issue in my email dt 16th, which is
enclosed. And it is certainly a very important issue. 

First, about Meryem's point

I don't agree with IGC

> declaring itself all of sudden as representing more than what it is,

> i.e. this list (or even eligible members of the IGC.

Which is somewhat allied to Bill's point

> I'm not quite getting the argument about why the caucus should be

> submitting

> names from elsewhere.  The IGC served as a focal point and funnel for

> other

> CS groups during WSIS because it was part of a larger coalition, but WSIS

> is

> over and so is that coalition.  

Here, I draw your attention to the charter
(http://www.igcaucus.org/IGC-charter_final-061014.html) which not only makes
the point of IGc's WSIS lineage but also in its mission statement stresses
the point of being/ providing a forum for wider CS inputs, coordination of
CS advocacy etc. And if there were still any ambiguity in this, the list of
objectives and tasks is quite clear about linkages to other CS groups,
outreach to them, and even representing them in some way. In fact, 6 out of
8 points under objectives and tasks speaks about this association with
other CS groups.

I think, as per the charter, IGC clearly looks at itself in some way as
representing a wider CS constituency in IGC process
 and I think such
issue-based cross representation is also the way to go in a network age, for
the greatest effectiveness of CS. 

It is also important to see and understand such wider representation in a
somewhat different, and more topical, context. We cant expect a global body
of 40 to reserve five members for a group of 60 or so individuals, isnt it.
And we are actually asking for increased representation. In numbers, a group
like ISOC (whatever be its stakeholder status) is much much bigger. Many
NGOs and most CS networks are in fact much bigger. So, obviously our claim
to the kind of representation we ask for can only be on the basis of being a
kind of key CS front group (loosely put) in the IG arena, for a wider CS
constituency, with which we should try to keep making connections, as per
our charter. This we hardly ever do though, preferring to live in our
splendid isolation. This needs to bother us, and we should take corrective
steps, but not to throw away the semblance of this wider CS
representative-ness, with which will be thrown away most of our legitimacy. 

This is why I spoke of IGC filling in a CS vacuum with however thin and
shaky base - in IG area (which McTim refutes), and trying to do a better job
of it. This is also why issues of, what is CS, what CS we represent, how to
bring ourselves in a closer alignment with wider CS constituencies (
involved in global policy arena) is an important issue  which many just
refuse to discuss, and other consider all such discussions as some kind of a
personal conspiracy that I and some others are trying to hatch in this
group. 

This said, to address the practical issue raised by Bill

why would we allocate scarce

> nominee slots to folks who aren't here and hence wouldn't play those

> roles?

First, it is not very likely that many names from outside IGC will actually
be suggested. Most people/ groups with a like-minded interest in IG, and
interested in IGF processes, I understand are already in the IGC. Second, we
can request any outsider, we wish to nominate, to get engaged with the
group, at least in the period of the MAG membership, and if our selection is
good, I expect the person to so get involved. In any case we will have core
existing IGC members in the MAG, a few of them if they do the task of
representing IGC in the MAG is more than enough. The most important issue is
to keep the identity of IGC as the main group representing wider CS
constituencies and interests intact, and further strengthen it. If we dont,
we will be doing it our own peril. 

I think these issues being central to IGCs identity and representative-ness
deserve a discussion here.

Parminder 

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Meryem Marzouki [mailto:marzouki at ras.eu.org]

> Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 10:41 PM

> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org

> Subject: Re: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG

> 

> Adam, and all,

> 

> Le 18 mars 08 à 17:09, Adam Peake a écrit :

> 

> > Anyway, Carlos is proposing --actually organizing and doing-- a

> > much more principled approach.

> [...]

> >

> > I agree, let a nomcom make recommendations.

> 

> Contrarily to the LAC caucus, the nomcom is not an option for IGC.

> It's mandatory per the IGC charter. So - and I'm pretty comfortable

> to remind this as someone who entirely disagree on the nomcom process

> to select people, who accordingly voted against this provision when

> adopting the IGC charter, and still accordingly is never volunteering

> for nomcoms - unless the IGC charter is revised and this is unlikely

> right now, we have to go through the nomcom, fullstop. I'm with

> Diderot on this (and on many other issues as well:))

> 

> Let me add that to the best of my understanding, no one may be

> recused from volunteering to a nomcom. And that "All nomcom

> participants, voting and non voting, will be disqualified from

> selection as candidates for the list or team being chosen" (see

> http://www.igcaucus.org/nomcom-process.html).

> 

> First rule: don't change the rules during the process (or, worse,

> retroactively). In terms of legislation, this is called rule of law.

> 

> > And the caucus should make sure other interested groups know about

> > the process and have the opportunity to either participate in what

> > we're doing or submit names independently.

> 

> I don't agree with this. More exactly, I don't agree with IGC

> declaring itself all of sudden as representing more than what it is,

> i.e. this list (or even eligible members of the IGC, as Parminder

> recently reminded: "I must inform the new members that they will be

> eligible for voting (if they have subscribed to the charter in their

> acceptance email)

> only after being on the list for 2 months. Same goes for IGC

> positions, including nomcom etc...".

> 

> First implication of this is that people proposed by IGC for MAG

> nominations should be accountable to IGC, and not dilute the

> accountability need in whatever CS fuzziness. If someone is proposed

> by another entity in addition to IGC, then bravo, but this doesn't

> reduce by any mean the need for accountability to IGC.

> 

> Best,

> Meryem____________________________________________________________

> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080319/f9432065/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded message was scrubbed...
From: "Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net>
Subject: RE: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2008 19:44:07 +0530
Size: 31974
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080319/f9432065/attachment.eml>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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