[governance] Nomcom and conflict of interest

[Raul Echeberria]

At 12:39 p.m. 25/05/2008, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> > -----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.

Sorry. My english was not clear.
I didn't want to say that the nomcom excluded people from the list.
What I tried to say is that people who is 
subscribed to this list was excluded by the 
nomcom from the possibility of being nominated. 
It was for a given reason, it really doesn't 
matter what, but the openess of the caucus was 
restricted since somebody decided that not all 
the subscribers have the same rights.


> > 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

Yes, I know it. :-)
The charter is much broader regarding 
participation that the spirit behind several 
positions recently expressed in the list (including you).


> > >  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.

Thank you.


>But they do claim that the
>policies they adopt are a product of, and represent the will of, the
>Internet community.

It is also wrong.
I have never heard that before.
Same comment, please tell me where it is said 
that, because it should be corrected.


>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.

The difference is that if you were nominated to 
represent an RIR community in the Address Council 
for example (under the established procedures) 
nobody will say tht you can nor run the election 
because the kind of organization to which you 
work or because you defend certain ideas. The 
same applies to the RIRs' board elections.
So I think that your comparision is not good.
In fact I didn't start this discussion for 
deffending the RIRs. It is you that are insisting in this point.


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