[governance] Re: Nomcom and conflict of interest

[Milton L Mueller]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net]
> 
> RIRs are operated on a not for profit basis, are membership driven
> organizations .. 

So is the international trademark association (INTA), and the American
Petroleum Institute. But both are commercial groups and they would be
fully represented by the business stakeholder group. Legal status of the
organization (profit-nonprofit) is less relevant here than the purpose
of the organization. NCUC in ICANN has made this distinction between
commercial purposes and noncommercial (civil society) entities for
years, and no one complains about it. 

RIR's membership is predominantly, though not exclusively, composed of
commercial hosting companies and ISPs -- the most common consumers of IP
address blocks. But there are also govt agencies and CS groups. RIRs are
better thought of as multi-stakeholder regulatory organizations, not as
CS, business or govt. Within the framework of IGF and the Tunis Agenda,
they fit squarely in the category of "international organizations" along
with ICANN. So of course RIRs and ICANN, like other international
governance organizations such as OECD or ITU, will be and absolutely
should be represented in the MAG and in panels, etc. -- as IOs.

> The problem is that people who think the technical community doesn't
> belong here seem to hold very firmly to the traditional "3 stakeholder

> groups" idea as well.

There is no inconsistency there, as far as I can see (although that
debate is not one I take a great deal of interest in). As many others
have said, and as Avri pointed out, technical community can be
considered a cross-cutting group that is present in civil society,
business, and government. So it is quite possible for people in e.g.,
IETF, ISOC, or NANOG to be nominated by civil society groups such as IGC
as their representative, if the individuals gain the trust and support
of IGC members. They could also be nominated by business and govt. E.g.,
Stefano Trumpy, who I guess we would classify as part of the technical
community, is Italy's official rep. on the GAC. 

> And the other problem is that they just don't realize that spurning
> technical expertise, in policy discussions on a technical resource (so
> that
> such governance spans a boundary traditional civ soc groups may not
have
> adequate experience with at all), they are shooting themselves in the
> foot.

I have not heard anyone say that we should exclude technical expertise.
The issue is organizational conflict of interest. 

On a related note: I think the case of Bertrand de la Chapelle, which
Suresh keeps bringing up, is a perfect example of the rationality of
Parminder's position and the irrationality of Suresh's position.
Bertrand is indeed a "friend of civil society" in many respects and
participated alongside us in WSIS. But he is currently a direct
delegate/employee of the French government, and so his activities in IGF
are fully constrained by French govt policies and directives, whatever
he thinks personally. So to suggest that we as CS could even consider
nominating him to be our representative is just crazy. I am sure
Bertrand would be the first to recognize the "potential conflict of
interest" and to understand the inappropriateness of such a nomination. 

____________________________________________________________
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