[governance] Re: Nomcom and conflict of interest

[Suresh Ramasubramanian]

> 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.

Unless you're trying to regulate those organizations that doesn't constitute
a conflict of interest at all.  And if you are trying to regulate those
organizations, that's not what the mandate of the IGF is.

> as an advocacy group, (and seeking accountability in and of policy
> making process, which is another important aspect of CS activity).

There's nothing at all preventing CS people - I must say informed CS people
- from participating in the  long running, open and democratic policy making
processes of those organizations.  Trying to get the IGF to supplant all
these is a non starter.

 
> Second, about the specific persons that may be implicated. These are
> those who are centrally and closely associated with these organizations.
Here,

This is sheer doublespeak, for all that it repeats itself over 10 paragraphs
of text that I plowed through in your email.

The position of the nomcom was to specifically exclude all members of those
orgs from this process.  Which is entirely contrary to your assertion that
this is a decision based on specific people and any conflicts of interest
they may have or declare.

> 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

Others asked too, citing the example of Bertrand de la Chapelle.  My
response was - and it is entirely in accordance with the charter - that if a
person has CS cred, he is CS, whoever his current employer may be, and is
not disqualified from standing for the simple reason that his employer is X.
As long as he can satisfy an unbiased nomcom that any conflicts of interest
he may have are resolvable, and as long as he is better than the other
candidates on the ballot, he should then be elected.

The current nomcomm's actions are entirely contrary to the letter and spirit
of the charter. And your example (ITU chief) or someone else's example (IT
secretary of Nigeria.. that was Milton, wasn't it?  Nice card to play there)
are obvious strawmen.

Can you please try to make your roundabout and circular arguments a bit more
concise?  Saves us all time having to read them through before rebutting
them.

	suresh

____________________________________________________________
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