[governance] Re: Nomcom and conflict of interest

[McTim]

On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 11:35 PM, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
<snip>

>> IF they sign the charter, they MUST be equal.
>
> Thanks for supporting the relevance of signing the IGC charter. However, we
> do nominate CS persons who are not IGC members, so this cannot be a
> condition.

I am arguing for those members, current and future who will be
unfairly excluded.  I didn't mean to imply that ONLY those that sign
the charter can represent IGC.   But now that I think about it, it's
not a bad idea.

>
> I am not sure what aspect of the charter you have repeated referred to as
> violated in nomcom's decision...
>

"All members are equal and have the same rights and duties."

Except those of course who work for "Internet Governance
organizations" of course, as they are relegated to the back of the
bus.

> I must also draw your attention to the fact that the preambular para of the
> charter
>
> "The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) was originally created by individual
> and organizational civil society actors who came together in the context of
> the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) to promote global public
> interest objectives in Internet governance policy making."
>

And you think that "Internet Governance organizations" DON'T promote
global public interest objectives in Internet governance policy
making.

Does the slogan "the Internet is for Everyone" ring a bell?

> does have important significance in deriving the meaning of CS as used by
> us,

What is the significance exactly?


if it is not otherwise clear (to a sufficient level of 'working
> clarity'). There was some context in which the CS term has been used in the
> WSIS,

Everyone who was not PS or govt presumably.

and the way the CS engaged with WSIS used it. (It is also significant
> to note that ICANN, RIRs etc were registered as private sector and not CS in
> the WSIS process.  Apparently, they didnt think they were CS, so why be more
> loyal than the king).

Maybe they got chased away by unfriendly attitudes, I don't know, and
I don't speak for them.  I speak for myself, and I say it is clear to
me that they are CS, however much you don't like this notion.


> So when the charter keeps mentioning the term 'civil society' everywhere, it
> is operating within some understanding of the term within which the
> membership para you quote is situated.

Maybe you can share this understanding with us then.  The LSE
definition is good enough for me.

> All the paras before the membership paras clearly keep stating that it is a
> civil society group, which will mean with civil society persons'
> membership....

and they are CS organizations, just as much as your org is CS.  So
their staff are CS persons.

>
> And the objective 8 refers to 'collaboration with other stakeholders' which
> clearly means (if there could at all be any doubt otherwise, which I don't
> think there is the least scope for)  that there are other stakeholders who
> are not CS (this is getting too much really even to try and argue, I really
> think the distinction is quite clear, and I just cant understand what is
> being meant really by saying there may be no distinction between CS,
> private/ business sector and government sector).....
>

Yes, there are other stakeholders, but if they sign the charter, they
are CS, even if they work for the Rhino Horn Importers Association.

I agree with Bill when he said "When did the caucus become the
Spartacus Youth League, I missed it..."

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
$ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim
____________________________________________________________
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