[governance] The New Class: Civil Society Professionals?

[McTim]

On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 3:48 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Vittorio Bertola [mailto:vb at bertola.eu]
>> Milton, if you really believe in this, then you should conclude that
> no
>> person working for or holding positions in a RIR, ICANN, ITU etc.
> should
>> be allowed to participate in the IGF...
>
> Absolutely not, see below. Their participation is vital. We simply have
> to recognize, as the tame language of the Nomcom committee report did,
> that there is a "potential conflict of interest."

ah , but the NomCom did more than just "recognize", while at the same
time, NOT recognizing their own "potential conflicts of interest."

>
>> The IGF AG is just an organizing committee, it is not tasked with
>> "judging the criticisms, assessments or policies" to be applied to IG
>> organizations.
>
> The AG is, for better or worse, an agenda-setting committee. It
> determines what topics are highlighted and considered at the Forum and
> how prominent they are -- and who gets to speak about them. It is wrong
> to say that the AG just organizes logistics, and you know that, VB. (If
> it is just an "organizing committee" then why should anyone complain
> about being limited or excluded from it?)
>
> Unfortunately, as we know all too well from its first two meetings,
> there are people associated with some governance organizations who
> deliberately attempt to foreclose discussion of topics that might make
> them uncomfortable. Not all of them, but some. Some people in the RIRs
> and ICANN, in contrast are quite reasonable and open.

But this exclusion, extends to more than just the RIRs and ICANN
doesn't it?  Theoretically, NREN staff, ccTLD staff, (even if they are
NGO employed), CAIDA, ISOC, ROSNIIROS, NLnet Labs, Merit Networks,
IIJ, ISC, ISI, non-profit IXP staff, JPNIC, and dozens more CS
Internet coordination and infrastructure groups.  Potentially, we
could be excluding thousands of people.

Do we really want to do that Milton?

>
> So we simply have to be aware of that and not pretend that a committee
> stacked with -- for example -- ICANN staff and Board, domain name
> registries under contract to ICANN, etc., is going to be an impartial
> judge of what kind of issues should be discussed about ICANN.
>

Agreed, nor should we pretend that a committee stacked with, for
example, Internet Governance Framework windmill tilters, such as
yourself and Parminder is going to be an impartial
judge of what kind of issues should be discussed. No one is impartial
Milton.  If the NomCom had excluded university professors, I imagine
you'd be up in arms PDQ!



> As I said before, this is just common sense, and the harder certain
> people associated with I* organizations come down against such a simple
> and obvious point the more they indicate to the rest of us that their
> intention is indeed one of protecting themselves and their buddies from
> scrutiny.

It's about fairness, and the rule of law.  The nomCom broke the rules
laid out for it.  They have discriminated against a class of folk
based on type of employer.  Isn't CS supposed to be AGAINST this sort
of thing?

>
>> I too was disappointed by seeing that the first IGF AG
>> was stuffed with a bit too many people strongly connected to ICANN,
> but
>> that doesn't mean that the right solution is to rule them out
> entirely.
>
> Then you have conceded the main thrust of my point. And who said
> anything about "ruling them out entirely?" Really, the level of
> discourse on this list is just getting silly. Remember, this whole
> discussion was prompted by some language in the noncom report that said
> that wsuch people might have a "potential conflict of interest."

No Milton, this whole discussion was prompted by some language in the
noncom report that said;

"not accept nominations from full time
employees of existing Internet governance organizations"

>
>> I don't see how a University or an NGO getting grants to
>> study IG is different from a RIR getting money to assign IP address
>> blocks.
>
> Vittorio, if you can't see that difference you are blind.

Then sign me up for a seeing eye dog.

Both the CS-IGP NGO and the RIR NGO have their own agendas to push.
That doesn't mean that one is not CS, nor does it mean they should be
excluded from our process.  RIRs don't exclude "us" from their
processes, why should we exclude them from a possible nomination?
____________________________________________________________
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