[governance] 2008 NomCom Report

[McTim]

On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 2:17 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
> Folks, attached is the report from the 2008 Nominating Committee.

thanks for the report.

I was troubled and very surprised by the following:

"Candidates employed by Internet Governance Organisations
Another matter that emerged was whether to accept candidates who are full time
employees of existing Internet governance organizations – irrespective
of their civil
society credentials. Some members believe that the issue is really of
primary identity of
the person – if a person is a fulltime employee of IG organization
then though they may
have progressive views, they can not be said to be having CS
credentials. Again there
was no consensus on this issue within the NomCom – but there were seen
to be potential
conflicts of interest involved for employees and this was combined
with the precedent
already established within CS Caucus to not accept nominations from full time
employees of existing Internet governance organizations in arriving at
our decision.
However, at the same time, there was a strong feeling we should work
closely with these
bodies and build relationships as with other stakeholder groups. We
believe they should
be welcome and encouraged to participate on the CS mailing lists.
However, a future
NomCom, if IGC does not adopt a formal position on this in the
meantime, might wish to
include in its call for candidates that employees of internet
governance organizations will
not be considered for endorsement by CS Nomcom because of potential conflicts of
interest (but are encouraged of course to separately apply for
representation on MAG)"

A number of questions arise from this.

1. How do we define "internet governance organizations"??
Do we make a list and vote on it?

2. How about those folks who work 100% of their time on IG issues for
CS organisations?  Don't they have the same conflict of interest?  In
other words, these people have a certain agenda or viewpoint they are
working from, just as is assumed employees of IG bodies do.  Why don't
we exclude them?

3. How about part-time employees or consultants of IG bodies don't
they have the same potential conflict of interest?

4. I wasn't aware that we had set a precedent on this, when was this?
IIUC, we as a caucus nominated Paul Wilson of APNIC as a possible MAG
member, no?  So this precedent is the opposite of what the NomCom
recalled.


-- 
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