[governance] NomCom and conflicts of interest

[McTim]

Milton,

You seem to have misinterpreted a few things, let me elaborate, but
rest assured this'll be my last post for today (except for a rebuttal
to willie, maybe), as I am off to bed soon:

On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 10:59 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
> 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)

well, since the NomCom report says "Internet governance
organizations", without defining that list, it could be hundreds of
organizations, and many thousands of people. I'd say that's pretty
"general", but if you think it's a "specific class", then this caucus
needs to elaborate a specific list of these organisations.

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.

The charter says, in part:

"Membership

The members of the IGC are individuals, acting in personal capacity,
who subscribe to the charter of the caucus. All members are equal and
have the same rights and duties."

Now, the Nomcom seems to have decided that all members are NOT equal,
as those who work for an undefined group of organisations are
ineligible for our MAG nomination.

>
>> - 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

which they didn't, in this case, (as required by rule #5).

>and there is nothing unreasonable or manifestly unfair about them,

well this criteria seems both unreasonable and unfair.  Exclusion
based on employment in an undefined group? What's reasonable or fair
about that?  How is one to know which employers fall under this
category?

>that is the end of the matter.

It's the end of the matter as far as results of the NomCom go, (as
there is no appeal possible).

> 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.

I don't see anyone arguing that, what I am arguing is that we all have
the same or similar (perhaps even greater) potential conflicts of
interest, as George, VB, Suresh, I and others have noted.  It's the
height of hypocrisy to say "we are all equal (except when it comes to
nominations for the MAG, then some are less equal than others)"


>
>> - 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.

Why not?? Rule #5 seems to say that it should be made public/discussed
by the caucus!

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.

The question is central to the current debate, to wit, do we change
the charter to eliminate this specific act of misfeasance, or do we
just hope for the best next time?  If the nomcom didn't follow rule #5
this time, what makes anyone think the next Com will do better?

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.

Did you miss George's post on the list?

"The idea that civil society groups, or committees as was the case
here should be free of potential conflicts is both counterproductive
and unnecessary, as well as possibly prejudicial. What is important in
dealing with conflicts of interest is not to use them as an
exclusionary device, but to declare them very publicly at appropriate
times and, when there is a clear conflict with respect to choices of
individuals, recuse oneself appropriately."

We all have potential conflicts of interest, singling out a class of
employers is discrimination, pure and simple.

>
>> -  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

Since it's not against the rules to make up a precedent that is
factually the opposite of what is true, well, you are correct (oh,
wait, except for that pesky rule #5, of course).


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.

Another red-herring? No one has suggested this, as you very well know.
 "Really, the level of discourse on this list is just getting silly."
Really.


-- 
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