[governance] NomCom and conflicts of interest

[Milton L Mueller]

Well-framed questions, Avri. My answers below:

> -----Original Message-----
> 
> - Is there a difference between Nomcom taking a possible conflict of
> interest into account in making its decisions and barring people based
> on the class of employer?

Yes, there's a major difference. A conflict of interest is a far more
individualized criterion and cannot be simply mapped onto class of
employer (although there may be a more than casual correlation). 

> - Is it essentially different to bar someone based on class of
> employer then it is to bar them on some other choice based personal
> attribute e.g. religion, educational level or way of dressing?

Yes, there is a huge difference. If the actual employer (no one has
proposed using a general class of employer) has a material interest in
policy or regulation, there is a logical connection between the decision
not to nominate and the person's employment. To say that we as IGC would
rather not nominate a staff member from ITU, the NTIA or Robert Mugabe's
cabinet to represent us on issues related to critical internet resources
is not at all like saying that we won't nominate Avri because we don't
like the way she dresses.

> - Is it ok to decide against a nominee based on possible conflict of
> interest?

Yes, of course. 

> I read the chartered nomcom instructions as saying there are only two
> reasons for baring someone (rule 4);  being a member of the nomcom ,
> being a member of the appeals team. I also read the chartered nomcom
> instructions as saying that criteria to be used by the nomcom, if at
> all possible, will be made public and reviewed by the caucus before
> any decisions are made.

A Nomcom has the ability to decide who it is in the best interest of the
caucus to nominate. I am, as you all know, not a fan of the Nominating
committee method. But once you accept the fact that a randomly selected
group deliberates in private about who to select, and once they make
their criteria clear and there is nothing unreasonable or manifestly
unfair about them, that is the end of the matter. 

No one can argue that it is inherently unreasonable or unfair to take
into consideration a possible conflict of interest among people whose
position on issues might be controlled by or unduly influenced by
organizations with governance authority. 

> - could criteria such as 'we will not select any people of such and
> such a class of employer' be made public and be discussed before a
> decision is made in a 2 month process?

No, it couldn't. But again, this is a hypothetical question of little or
no relevance to the current debate. No one was excluded because of a
"class of employer" per se. Rather, there was a quite reasonable - and
thus far unrefuted - recognition that certain employers create
"potential" conflicts of interest which should be taken into
consideration.

> -  does the charter need to amended in this repsect, or do we just
> need to make sure that in the future we follow the rules that exist,
> including the one about having a non voting chair whose responsibility
> it is to make sure we follow the rules?

Since no rules were broken and no problems were identified with the
results, I see no need to amend the rules. 

Those complaining now seem to suggest we should amend the rules to get
rid of the Nomcom model. But if we adopt voting, they will be just as
dissatisfied, because they will lose the votes, too. 

--MM
____________________________________________________________
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