[governance] Nomcom and conflict of interest

[Milton L Mueller]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Raul Echeberria [mailto:raul at lacnic.net]
> 
> 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.

That was not the exact point I was making, but it is one worth making. A
discussion of that point would be more productive than an attack on the
Nomcom report. 

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

Yes, that was indeed my main point. Our nominations reflect IGC
preferences. We lack the institutional capacity to claim that those
preferences represent the whole of "civil society" on a global scale.
But at least we are an open, CS caucus. Just like the RIRs claim to
represent the "internet community." This claim has some legitimacy
because RIRs are open to participation -- even though only a tiny
portion of the affected community actually participates in RIR
processes. 

<this section moved>

> 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.

I myself would prefer to have a truly bottom-up representational
process, rather than a top-down process in which people lobby the
Secretariat and UN S-G to make sure they are represented. It seems to me
that the lobbying process would only favor stronger economic vested
interests. 

>  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.

True, but how can I be confident that the representative of "academia"
chosen by a remote Secretariat or SG will represent academics who are
engaged and informed about internet governance? One can find academics
on any side of a policy issue. It would not make me happy, e.g., to put
Professor John Yoo on the MAG.** How can an "academic" be held
accountable if his or her appointment came from the top and not from
cultivating political support on the bottom? Isn't it possible that
powerful interest groups would lobby the UN SG and others to put their
pet academics on and to exclude more critical ones?

> 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.

Yes, so we seem to agree on the fact that IGC nominations are of limited
impact and that there are at the moment many other channels. And for the
time being, that is fine.

But we do not agree on the more fundamental point: I would not be
satisfied with relying on the discretion of the UN SG or Secretariat
over the longer term. I would prefer to see a real bottom up
representational structure set up. 

And perhaps we both agree that the composition of the MAG is not all
that important, as long as it is balanced. 

Maybe we don't even need a MAG, we just need more open consultations,
and some volunteers to help the Secretariat with the execution of goals
and plans. 

I think the MAG has become a target for an increasingly unhealthy bunch
of political fights. Maybe we can just get rid of it altogether. 


** John Yoo is the UC Berkeley law professor who wrote the infamous
"torture memo" for President Bush 
____________________________________________________________
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