[governance] IGC nominees for MAG

[Adam Peake]

Meryem,


>Adam, and all,
>

(deleted)

>>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.


I think you're misunderstanding what I wrote.  Probably because I 
wasn't very clear!

As far as I'm concerned, any CS group, whether a member of the caucus 
or not, should be able to recommend names for the pool of candidates 
caucus nomcom will consider. I was thinking particularly of groups 
that have organized workshops, dynamic coalitions, but also the WSIS 
plenary lists (and WSIS caucus/WG).  Nomcom process should be looking 
for the strongest pool possible to choose from.

And those groups (and individuals) would of course be free to 
organize their own process of making recommendations direct to the SG 
process, or through self nomination.

The caucus has no special right to be the only representative of CS 
in Internet governance matters.  It's never claimed such a right 
(best I can remember, anyway.)  But it has build a reputation as the 
leading CS actor on the issue (though that's slipping.)


>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.


I think anyone who accepts the caucus' recommendation has an 
obligation to ensure the caucus is informed of what the MAG's 
considering, and the MAG informed of the caucus' positions. Such 
people should be or become list members, and should be involved in 
reporting to/from the MAG.  The caucus will see what they do on the 
list through the extracted email.  The summaries of the closed 
meetings are quite informative, though often need clarification. 
Probably be a good idea if the caucus went over these summaries after 
the meeting and then asked MAG members for clarification.  (Would 
also help us get a better understanding of what we're achieving in 
the MAG/IGF.)


>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.


What do you mean by "accountability"?  I've never felt accountable to 
the caucus, I don't find it something it's possible to be accountable 
to (basically a mailing list anyone can join, not very clear what 
someone would be being accountable to.) I may just understand (feel) 
differently from you about the word.

Thanks,

Adam



>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

____________________________________________________________
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