[governance] IGC nominees for MAG

Wed Mar 19 12:27:43 EDT 2008

Meryem

> 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.
>

Me neither. Thanks. Parminder 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Meryem Marzouki [mailto:marzouki at ras.eu.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 6:10 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] IGC nominees for MAG
> 
> 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, 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
> >
> >
> > 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

____________________________________________________________
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