[governance] Nomcom and conflict of interest

[Milton L Mueller]

> -----Original Message-----
> 
> 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.

Yes, "stakeholder classifications," as Karl and others have explained,
is always troublesome. That is why I raised the issue of whether we
really need a MAG as a formally constituted "representative" body. 

> >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.

Oh no, that is not true. No one is excluded from this list. No one has
ever asserted that anyone has been excluded from the list, though I
believe the charter provides for suspension or removal from the list for
personal insults and spam and other "netiquette" violations. No one has
ever been disciplined under these guidelines, however. Nomcom has not
done what you say, it has merely refused to nominate certain people as
caucus representatives because of potential conflicts of interest. But
those people can still be part of the caucus.

> necessary to define better what this caucus is.
> The caucus seems to be: all of those that

Raul, with respect, there is a very clear definition of this caucus, and
it is contained in the charter: 
http://www.igcaucus.org/IGC-charter_final-061014.html 
Please take a look at it.

> >  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.

OK, I see I worded this badly. No, RIRs don't claim to represent the
entire Internet community, you are right. But they do claim that the
policies they adopt are a product of, and represent the will of, the
Internet community. Just this Friday I had an ARIN representative speak
to a group of students and heard this claim made repeatedly. As I said,
I do not think this is a bad or false claim, the problem is what we mean
by "community." ARIN can claim that anyone who wants to affected RIR
policy can get involved in it, just as this caucus can claim that any
eligible CS person who wants to get involved can do so. So we can claim
to be a legitimate vehicle for transmitting civil society perspectives
into IGF just as ARIN can claim to be a legitimate vehicle for
developing policies re addressing.

____________________________________________________________
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