[governance] Re: Nomcom and conflict of interest

[Parminder]

Sorry, McTim, on not coming in on the debate you want on defining some kind
of criteria about choosing or not choosing persons having a close and
central association with a body involved with administration of the internet
and making policy regarding it. For some reasons I have not had much time in
the last few days, but now my services are entirely available to you. I have
always asked for such issues to be more extensively discussed by this group,
and welcome your eagerness to do this debate. 

(I am speaking here in my personal capacity. However I must also tell that I
was not part of any decision-making process of the recent nomcom, nor privy
to their discussions.)

Before anything else, can we frame the issue in the right terms and
language? There is no exclusion of any body or organization for holding any
kind of views - so you may please stop repeating that. The issue is of
defining who and which groups can or cannot be representing CS because of
structural properties associated with an organization and the situation of
specific individuals vis a vis that organization.

First, about the implicated organizations. These are those organization that
are involved in policy making, especially directly in those areas of policy
making, which an civil society organization, especially an advocacy
organization, that IGC is inter alia described as by the charter, seeks to
influence. There is an obvious possible conflict of interest in making
policy (and representing such policy positions) and seeking to influence it
as an advocacy group, (and seeking accountability in and of policy making
process, which is another important aspect of CS activity). 

Second, about the specific persons that may be implicated. These are those
who are centrally and closely associated with these organizations. Here, at
times, some amount of judgment may need to be made on case to case basis,
but to illustrate the point, for instance, a CEO of such an organization
will be difficult not to be considered to be closely and centrally
associated with it. And there will be other positions which will fall in
this category. Such persons cannot be expected to do anything other than
represent and defend the policy positions of the said organization, and it
would indeed be a breach of their duty and responsibility to do otherwise.
This doesn't allow them to publicly profess any view different from the
policy made by the organization, or what may otherwise be its policy view on
any subject, much less do advocacy around it. Though it is not normally
difficult to decide who such persons and positions in an organization may
be, in case of real doubt one possible way to go may be to seek an
self-declaration that the person doesnt feel bound to stand by and defend
the policies and/or policy views of any organization with which the person
may seem to have some association, and that she/he finds it perfectly fine,
if she/he so feels, to speak and advocate, publicly and actively, against
these polices and/or policy views. 

I will request that we stick to discussing the above criteria for choosing
CS and IGC reps, of course with ones reasons and justifications either way. 

While on the subject, in your statements about enhanced cooperation (I also
apologize that I need to answer some of your questions on this issue, which
I will do sometime soon), if I got you right, you hold that these bodies,
which have been called as Internet administration bodies (we may choose
another name, if you prefer) already make all the Internet related policy
that ever needs to be made. This I understand is your logic why there needs
to be no other process of enhanced cooperation. Am I right! IGC's charter is
also clear that we seek to influence Internet related polices. So if we, to
take an illustrative instance, get CEOs of bodies that do all the Internet
policy that is ever needed as representatives of one of the main CS
organizations doing advocacy etc in the area of Internet policy, I am sure
many will wonder what really is going on.

Also, and I have asked it before, would you then also find it fine to
nominate some government officials (who may hold views close to those
generally held  by CS, whatever that may mean) or, if you will be better
persuaded by another example, the ITU chief, or someone from the director's
office, as CS/ IGC's rep... If not, why so, in light of your apparent
insistence that other internet policy making bodies and persons centrally
associated with them be so treated. I know you may not like ITU all that
much, but that's really beside the point. Otherwise wouldn't you just be
excluding an organization because of the views you think it holds, something
you have been speaking against all the while.

Thanks

Parminder  
 


____________________________________________________________
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