[governance] Nomcom and conflict of interest
Adam Peake
ajp at glocom.ac.jp
Tue May 27 11:20:27 EDT 2008
Ian, thanks for this note. I was travelling last
week and this thread and the one about Civil
Society Professionals have been hard to keep up
with.
I don't particularly like this notion of a
conflict of interest that excludes some from
consideration by the caucus nomcom, and said so
while we were discussing criteria and process the
nomcom should follow. But I was in a minority
then and the description in the nomcom report
seems to me to be consistent with what I remember
of general opinion on the list. It follows that
general consensus. I think the outcome is fair
and the process has been pretty straight.
Particularly given that (1) the caucus has made
clear it does not consider it's the only CS
entity with a right to submit names, others of
course can do so, and (2) obviously the Internet
technical community would be making its own
recommendations.
In 2006 it was not clear there would be a tech
community, and the caucus recommendations at that
time included one person from an RIR. Given the
tech community now has its own process (right?
Can someone describe it?) and there are more MAG
members from the tech community than CS (yes,
many of us overlap in our interests, but I think
we know people well enough to know where they are
on a spectrum, and those of us who are members of
the MAG have seen general alignments) I don't see
why the caucus shouldn't focus on people who are
more clearly identified with CS interests as they
have developed through WSIS and IGF to date.
Which leads to a next point... CS has been
running an open process (and now open criticism),
where is the same process from the technical
community? We have all agreed to improve
transparency, is CS the only one to bother?
It's often the case that civil society processes
get messy because they are so open. People get
angry and frustrated (I know I do.) So I'm
wondering where is the tech community's open
process: is someone coordinating names? Who?
What process was used? How was that process
agreed? Who has been recommended? Were people
from other interest groups considered? Were
people from other interest groups recommended
(was I considered/recommended :-) )
George, McTim, Suresh: you've made a fuss over CS
process (I think wrongly, it was consistent with
discussion on the list that informed the nomcom),
could you tell us about the tech community's
process. Please.
Thanks,
Adam
>Raul wrote (and I agree)
>
> >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.
>
>
>Agreed! Rather we should acknowledge that there really are four
>classifications, and the technical community is a stakeholder in itself. I
>don't think that is going to change this time around, and it certainly was a
>consideration in first round MAG appointments. A case in point being your
>own appointment Raul - to me absolutely worthy and I hope you are
>re-appointed - but your nomination did not come from this civil society
>list. Nor did those of the ISOC, ICANN, and other technical community reps
>on the MAG).
>
>
>If you acknowledge the reality of a fourth stakeholder in IGF, you can
>understand why some civil society members may not want part of its limited
>number of seats going to representatives of another group. So in fact this
>whole debate really reflects whether a fourth stakeholder group exists or
>does not exist - not some conspiracy to deny basic human rights on the
>grounds of employment as has been characterized.
>
>Looks to me from MAG representation and documentation from IGF meetings that
>the fourth group does exist, has nominated candidates in the past, and will
>again this time. (BTW if anyone here can point me to the open transparent
>processes via which ISOC, ICANN and other technical community nominations to
>this or last round of MAG were made, I'd be very interested to have a look!)
>
>An alternative of course to the current lobbying by all parties to increase
>their share of the spoils is to have three strict divisions, three official
>forums, and then insist that ISOC ICANN and the like nominate via one or the
>other. They of course would not be happy with this. Nor should they. The
>ISOC representation might be debatable if we have nothing better to do, but
>RIR representation and ICANN representation to me should be a given.
>
>As agreed earlier by this Caucus after the last round of discussions on
>this,
>
>"We agree that the organizations having an important role in Internet
>administration and the development of Internet-related technical standards
>should continue to be represented in the MAG. However, their representation
>should not be at the expense of civil society participation".
>
>That I believe was the intention of those NomCom people who advocated this
>position. As stated in the report, not everyone agreed. Now its up to the
>Caucus to determine whether it wants to adopt a policy position here.
>
>
>Ian Peter
>Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd
>PO Box 10670 Adelaide St Brisbane 4000
>Australia
>Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773
>www.ianpeter.com
>www.internetmark2.org
>www.nethistory.info
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Raul Echeberria [mailto:raul at lacnic.net]
>> Sent: 25 May 2008 23:50
>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> Subject: RE: [governance] Nomcom and conflict of interest
>>
>> 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
>> Internal Virus Database is out of date.
>> Checked by AVG.
> > Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 269.23.2/1392 - Release Date: 4/22/2008
>> 3:51 PM
>
>____________________________________________________________
>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
____________________________________________________________
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
More information about the Governance
mailing list