[governance] Nomcom and conflict of interest

[Raul Echeberria]

Milton et al.

Your email seems to me very frank and very important.
Several people have proposed a more formal MAG 
nomination system based in the existence of 3 clear groups of stakeholders.
The discussion about the existence of 3, 4 or 5 
stakeholders groups is, in my opinion, not very 
important while we ensure that the IGF 
Secretariat take care of the multiples 
necessaries balances in their recommendations and 
the UN Secretary General take care of the same 
things at the time of taking decisions about the 
MAG composition.  It doesn't matter if the 
academic community is a stakeholder or not if we 
are confident that there will be people from this 
community in the MAG, same happen with many other 
organizations and inteests' groups.

Your email goes directly to the key point. You 
are deffending the idea that it is impossible to 
set up formal nomination process due to the fact 
that some part of the community would not be 
represented under the strict division in 3 stakeholders group.

It is a very valuable input for the discussion.

It is clear that the definition of a limited and 
strict number of stakeholders groups is not 
compatible with the estabishment of formal nomination processes.

Other important things is that you remark the 
fact that this caucus nominates people to 
represents striclty the caucus itself, what is 
another very frank statement that avoid any 
intention of representing a broader community than the own caucus.

It is another key issue, because it is important 
to understand that there are multiple nomination 
channels, even for the same stakeholder group, 
and nominations like the  IGC recommendations is just one of them.

It is an important step for having a common 
understanding of the way in which the integration of the MAG should be decided.


Raúl



At 11:48 a.m. 23/05/2008, Milton L Mueller wrote:


> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Vittorio Bertola [mailto:vb at bertola.eu]
> > Then, the issue is how do we create transparent processes in the IGF
>AG
> > so that issues cannot be foreclosed by certain stakeholders. But these
> > processes should be fair and equal to all stakeholders, not directed
> > against some of them specifically.
>
>Again, a necessary correction: we are not talking about what the IGF
>should do here. We are talking about who _this caucus_ should nominate
>to represent them on the MAG.
>
>The distinction is crucial.
>
>If this caucus doesn't nominate these other stakeholders they have
>plenty of other opportunities to get on the MAG.
>
>
>____________________________________________________________
>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
>
>
>--
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG.
>Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.24.0/1462 
>- Release Date: 23/05/2008 07:20 a.m.


____________________________________________________________
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