[governance] IGC nominees for MAG

[Meryem Marzouki]

Parminder,

I think we have to make a distinction between :

1- the broader outreach of the IGC, and generally speaking, its  
general efforts to promote what it perceives as shared concerns and  
positions from civil society at large, according to its charters'  
vision, mission, objectives and tasks. I entirely agree with you on  
this, and this is provided by the charter anyway, as you pointed out.
The consequence is that yes, this doesn't prevent IGC to recommend  
(e.g. for MAG membership), non current IGC members. Actually, if I  
remember well, this already happened during the first selection process.
It's up to the nomcom to take or not into account, among the whole  
set of selection criteria, the prior engagement of the applicant with  
the IGC, depending on the applicant's overall profile and statement  
of intent.
Obviously, once nominated by IGC and then selected by the UN SG, the  
MAG member must become engaged in the IGC (and in particular  
subscribed to its mailing list) at least during his/her MAG membership.

and

2- the representation issue, in terms of commitments to the IGC from  
the eventually selected MAG members: being accountable to the IGC,  
promoting and defending the IGC positions, etc.

If you consider these two disctincts levels, we're most probably in  
agreement. At least I don't see any contradiction  with what you've  
stated.

My point is that any selected MAG member who is present on the IGC  
recommendation list sent to the UN SG should consider him/herself as  
representative of the IGC in terms of commitments, whether or not  
this person have also been proposed by another CS constituency.

For instance, if person X is selected by the UN SG as MAG member,  
after having been recommended by IGC as well as by three other  
constituencies (or individuals) A, B, and C, X commits anyway 100%  
and is 100% accountable to IGC. And to ensure this, this commitment  
has to be indicated prior to any selection by IGC. Obviously, it is  
left to X's own ethics to make sure that IGC, A, B and C's interests  
and positions, as well as requirements in terms of commitment, are  
not in contradiction with each others.

Last but not least, the stakeholders repartition of the MAG as well  
as the last IGC statement's demand that final selection made by UN SG  
clearly indicates what stakeholder group a MAG member is associated  
with, make it hardly compatible that a person nominated by IGC be  
also nominated by a constituency who presents itself in another  
stakeholder category than CS.

Best,
Meryem

Le 19 mars 08 à 06:10, Parminder a écrit :

>
>
>
>
> 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, isn’t 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 don’t, we will be doing it our own peril.
>
>
>
> I think these issues being central to IGC’s 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
>
>
> De : "Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net>
> Date : 16 mars 2008 15:14:07 HNEC
> À : <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, "'Jeanette Hofmann'"  
> <jeanette at wzb.eu>, "'Milton L Mueller'" <mueller at syr.edu>
> Cc : "'Meryem Marzouki'" <marzouki at ras.eu.org>
> Objet : RE: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG
> Répondre à : <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, "Parminder"  
> <parminder at itforchange.net>
>
>
>
>
> I will like to offer a couple of points, in my personal capacity,  
> on this
> very useful discussion to evolve rules and methods for MAG  
> nominations.
>
> The 'personal capacity' vis a vis 'representing IGC' is a central  
> point
> here. And we need to take adequately nuanced positions in this regard.
>
> First of all, the provision in MAG rules that members serve in their
> personal capacity should be seen in the right context. This is  
> meant as a
> corrective to a possible situation where seats are allocated to
> institutions, and whoever comes representing the concerned  
> institutions gets
> to sit and participate in the MAG. Such a thing is obviously  
> difficult to
> implement in a multi-stakeholder context. However, for most MAG
> participants, no one really seriously believes that they completely  
> speak
> only on basis of their personal convictions, without any reference  
> to the
> stands and views of the groups they are known to be associated with.
>
> Therefore the 'corrective' implied in the use of the term 'personal
> capacity' cannot be extended to the extreme to mean that a MAG  
> member has no
> representative-ness at all. As Milton colorfully described, this is  
> not an
> invitation to a cocktail party, it is a public policy body. You  
> don't sit
> their because of any special personal attributes (that would be  
> elitist),
> you are there in some representative capacity - whether of a  
> constituency,
> or a set of ideals.
>
> However, especially for a CS member, since CS by definition is a
> less-institutionalized category, I do agree that it is not possible  
> for a CS
> member just, and only, to parrot adopted positions. There is an  
> element of
> 'personal capacity' (with a wider accountability to CS values and  
> positions)
> here. So, we should have some promises and processes for reporting  
> back,
> representing CS positions etc, but also allow a good degree of  
> 'personal
> capacity' based representation. We need to find an in between  
> arrangement,
> as Jeanette suggests.
>
> I think some relatively more extreme 'be a true representative'  
> positions
> are coming as a (I think legitimate) reaction against the way most/ 
> some IGC
> nominated individuals took the 'personal capacity' thing so  
> literally that
> there has been very little if any 'representative-ness' character  
> in their
> membership.
>
> There is another, important, angle here. When we make the demand to be
> represented in MAG, and be represented in even greater number than  
> we are
> now, we just need to have some internal (and external) feel of what  
> and who
> we are as a group. Are we a discussion list, or are we a  
> collections 60
> something members who have signed on the IGC charter (each in her  
> personal
> capacity). A discussion list would not mean anything in such a  
> context. A
> group of 60 individuals, all in their personal capacity, would  
> still be just
> that. So, obviously any merit in our claims comes from (some degree  
> of) our
> 'representative-ness' of a wider CS community. This 'representative- 
> ness'
> cannot disappear when we forward nominations for MAG members.
>
> Another issue is whether we will nominate from among IGC members  
> alone. This
> opens the issue of defining members. The charter defines membership  
> as those
> who have signed the charter. Or do we consider anyone among all IGC  
> e-list
> participants. Or consider anyone who we may think is CS, and still  
> request a
> certain degree of engagement with IGC post selection as MAG member.
>
> In this a three way identity of IGC is relevant. (1)It is a discussion
> e-list. (2) it is an action and advocacy group of those who are  
> subscribed
> to the charter and (3)IGC is a kind of  a front - or an interface -  
> of a
> wider CS constituency. This role of CS comes from the WSIS, and is  
> also
> strongly implied in our charter.
>
> It is in the nature and identity 3 above, that we really have some  
> basis and
> legitimacy to expect that a couple of names we suggest to be  
> included in the
> MAG. But for this while we should internally understand and affirm  
> this 'CS
> front' (though we cant claim we have exclusive CS representation),  
> we should
> also have some sense of what is the nature of that wider CS which  
> we may
> represent. Unfortunately this discussion is something many of us have
> consistently refused to engage in.
>
> So while we will mostly nominate IGC members, because it is our
> understanding that many/most CS members who have direct interest in  
> IGF do
> in some form engage with this group, it is open to us to nominate  
> some who
> may not do so at present. Generally, such people may be of a  
> relatively high
> profile such that while they do not at present engage with IGC we  
> still
> think they will be good MAG members.
>
> It is though open to us to request these nominated persons to keep
> sufficient degree of engagement with the IGC, which if our choices are
> right, I am sure they will agree to. However, they will, as may  
> regular IGC
> member that become MAG members, will certainly push views beyond the
> constraints of only the agreed positions of the caucus. To make some
> distinction, one may expect that the existing IGC member nominees  
> to have a
> much greater amount of interaction, than some 'star' outside-IGC CS  
> persons
> that may get our backing. But the latter still shd do enough  
> interaction.
>
> Meaning, the actual situation will/ should be somewhere in between  
> 'true
> representative' of the IGC and some amount of 'personal capacity'  
> with a
> broader accountability to wider CS constituency. Lest I am  
> misunderstood, I
> am quite unhappy/ unsatisfied like many others about this exclusive
> 'personal capacity' interpretation that most IGC backed MAG members  
> have
> taken. And the situation should change, and change a lot.
>
> We should codify some processes of interactiosn with IGC for the CS  
> nominees
> that we recommend. And on that I see a good amount of consensus in the
> emails that have been posted.
>
> Parminder
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu]
> > Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2008 7:52 PM
> > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller
> > Cc: Meryem Marzouki
> > Subject: Re: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG
> >
> > Hi, I have a few questions regarding this list of "minimal rules".
> >
> > 1. The caucus statement prepared for the last public consultation a
> > rotation of one third of the MAG members: "One third of MAG members
> > should be rotated every year." is this recommendation still valid  
> and
> > does it also apply to the civil society members or has the caucus
> > changed its mind in the meantime?
> >
> > 2. Rule no. 4 defines as a requirements that the nominees "should
> > promote and defend the caucus positions
> >  >> established by consensus before any MAG meeting [...] i.e. they
> > don't consider themselves as "acting in their individual  
> capacity" but
> > as true representatives of the IGC." Why does the 2. rule require  
> that
> > the candidates disclose their own positions if they are expected to
> > advance the positions of the caucus instead of their own?
> >
> > 3. MAG members are appointed by the SG not by the caucus. What  
> would a
> > recall process intend to achieve? That the SG changes his mind  
> and kicks
> >   out the person? A bit far fetched I would say...
> >
> >
> > In my view, it contributes to a clean process to ask all members to
> > apply again. What I don't find acceptable is to ignore our own  
> position
> > paper on this issue that is in fact less than a month old and  
> enjoyed
> > unusually broad consensus.
> >
> > My suggestion would be to merge rule 2 and 4 into something more
> > consistent. For example, the nominee should be required to actively
> > participate in caucus discussions on matters that are on the MAG's
> > agenda. Active participation allows everyone to know and  
> understand the
> > positions held be the nominee. In case the caucus manages to  
> agree on a
> > common position (which often turns out to be impossible), the  
> nominee
> > should present that position in the MAG meeting. If the nominee  
> doesn't
> > agree with the caucus position, its more likely than not that  
> consensus
> > in the caucus couldn't be reached to begin with.
> > The "imperative mandate" which rule 4 seems to suggest is not  
> helpful in
> > a multi-stakeholder environment such as the MAG where consensus  
> depends
> > on open discussion, willingness to consider others points of  
> views and,
> > above all, to compromise.
> >
> > Regarding the recall, the only thing I could imagine is that all  
> caucus
> > nominees could be asked to commit themselves to step down in case  
> of a
> > recall. We should take into consideration though that not all cs  
> members
> > on the MAG got there through the blessing of the caucus. There  
> are other
> > channels outside the reach of our rules.
> >
> > jeanette
> >
> >
> > Milton L Mueller wrote:
> > > I sent my last message before reading this interesting and  
> important
> > > analysis of Meryem's. I will consider the whole thing more  
> carefully but
> > > my immediate reaction is that we can and should do this:
> > >
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >
> > >> we have
> > >> to collectively follow some minimal rules, like:
> > >> 1. Consider a fresh start. Anyone can be (self-)nominated, of  
> course
> > >> including those who have already been on the MAG
> > >> 2. Consider only nominations that come with a statement of intent
> > >> from the candidate, including which positions s/he would promote
> > >> within the MAG
> > >> 3. In case the candidate has already been on the MAG, consider  
> the
> > >> nomination only if it also comes with an accounting of what the
> > >> candidate has done so far
> > >> 4. Establish some requirements that should be followed by the
> > >> nominee: e.g. they should promote and defend the caucus positions
> > >> established by consensus before any MAG meeting, and report to  
> the
> > >> caucus after each meeting. i.e. they don't consider themselves as
> > >> "acting in their individual capacity" but as true  
> representatives of
> > >> the IGC.
> > >> 5. Make IGC nominees subject to a recall process, following  
> the rules
> > >> established in the IGC charter (http://www.igcaucus.org/IGC-
> > >> charter_final-061014.html) for the recall of coordinators.  
> Since the
> > >> MAG rules themselves consider that MAG members are acting in  
> their
> > >> individual capacity, the success of a recall vote on an IGC
> > >> representative to the MAG would imply that the IGC officially and
> > >> publicly notifies the UN SG of the recall.
> > >
> > > It seems to me we could do that while staying within the Nomcom  
> process
> > > proposed by Lee et al. Those rules above would just be  
> considered the
> > > ground rules for the NomCom.
> > > ____________________________________________________________
> > > 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
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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

____________________________________________________________
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