[governance] NomCom and conflicts of interest

[McTim]

On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 5:39 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com]
>> 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.
>
> Hold on. I thought we were discussing who the _IGC_ (this caucus) should
> nominate to be on the MAG.

We are. We are saying to anyone working for these orgs, that "you may
be a non-profit, and you may be CS, you may be part of the list, but
when push comes to shove, you won't be eligible for the MAG nomination
from the IGC"

I think that is unacceptable, I think you probably do as well.

We are not discussing who should be
> categorically excluded from participation in IGF as a whole.

that's right

>
>> Do we really want to do that Milton?
>
> If "we" means IGC,

it does.

possibly not (see comments below) If it means IGF as
> a whole, certainly not. The IGC/IGF distinction is important, of course.
>
> As I have said, I think it is relevant and legitimate to recognize a
> "potential conflict of interest" between IG agencies' staff and
> principals and the Forum's discussion of those agencies' policies and
> processes.
>
> But as a hypothetical, supposed someone from RIR staff or a regular
> consultant to a RIR participated in our discussions and showed that s/he
> was an independent, intelligent and critical thinker who recognized
> problems, was not afraid to identify and talk about problems, and was
> willing to entertain reform proposals. It is quite possible that such a
> person could, over time, generate trust among the members of IGC, and
> that s/he would be nominated to represent civil society on the MAG.


Ok, fine, if that is the criteria then IT MUST be enshrined in the
charter!! Otherwise it's not transparent or even fair.

We have had (and continue to have) RIR staff on this list, they have
even been nominated to the MAG by our NomCom before.
Was the charter changed to suddenly ban these people??? If so, I missed it.

These facts are not in dispute

1) We have a precedent, the nomcom ignored this AND invented a
precedent that is 180 degrees different than reality.

2) The decision had no consensus, in the IG world when there is no
consensus, no decision is taken (except the decision not to decide)

3) The nomcom broke rule #5

4) We are excluding a class of people for a potential conflict when
the decision makers have the exact same conflict. This is NOT (just)
about existing IG folk being excluded, it's about our broken
processes, and how a decision was made in contravention of our rules,
in the dark, with no recourse for review.  It's about how we go about
making sure this travesty never happens again.  It's about our
reputation and standing to participate in IG matters.

>
> Of course, we should be aware of organizational constraints (could this
> person be muzzled or fired by their organization if they said "the wrong
> thing?")
>

red-herring, this is nowt to do with us.

> So we may agree, there should be no simplistic, categorical exclusion of
> people from nongovernmental I* organizations, but of course we should be
> aware of potential conflicts of interest, imbalances, hidden agendas,
> and dual identities.

So, does this mean you would agree to change the wording of the nomcom
page of the charter?

-- 
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