[governance] Nomcom and conflict of interest

Sun May 25 09:49:59 EDT 2008

At 05:41 p.m. 23/05/2008, Milton L Mueller wrote:

> > -----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.

Of course. In fact I am not interested in 
attacking the Nomcom report, but discussing the concepts behind their behavior.
My point is that it is impossible to set up 
formal election mechanism base in the strict 
classification in 3 stakeholders group if later 
some organizartions/people are out of that classification.

> > 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.

The list is open, no doubt. There is a doubt 
about the openess of the caucus, since the nomcom 
has taken some criteria that exclude people from the list.
I don't think that this is unfair, but it is 
necessary to define better what this caucus is. 
The caucus seems to be: all of those that 
consider themselves as civil society 
organizations or people except those that work for ........
This is at least a not clear criteria.

>  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.

You are wrong on this point. The RIRs don't claim 
in anyway to represent the Internet community.
Speaking for LACNIC, this is very very far from 
our view. If you find any document in our website 
that say somethink like that or let anybody to 
intepret that, please advice me because we have to change it immediately.
I have to say that I have never heard that the 
RIRs are representatives of the Internet Community.

><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.

The discussion in this list is demonstrating that 
it is impossible. Who should appoint people on 
representation of CS? this list? it represents 
very partially the interests of the CSO. Regional 
caucuses? it would be a much better approach, it 
would be much more representative of the reality. 
The regional caucus, at least in LAC region, has 
proven to have a very different criteria for 
selecting their candidates to the MAG than the IGC.
But anyway many people could still claim for not 
being represented trought such system.

How many stakeholders group would we need? 
because there is a strong opposition to revisit 
this issue while it is clear that the strict 3 
groups definition leave many people in a confussing situation.

> >  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?

Mmmm. It would not happen since the IGF Sec is 
under a big public scrutiny. But anyway you, and 
all of course, have to accept that there could be 
people from the same stakeholder group than you 
with very different views. The reality is much 
more diverse and complex that some would like.

> > 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.

I have already demonstrated that it is impossible 
while other previous discussions are not solved before.

>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.

Maybe it is not a crazy idea.

Raúl

____________________________________________________________
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