[governance] Re: Nomcom and conflict of interest

[Parminder]

> > Just to make sure, I take it that those who profess the above line, will
> > have no problem nominating a government official (esp someone directly
> > dealing with an area of policy IGC engages with) as IGC's rep to MAG,
> and
> > for other positions/ places. And that they are ready to freely consider
> any
> > such person as CS.
> 
> IF they sign the charter, they MUST be equal.

Thanks for supporting the relevance of signing the IGC charter. However, we
do nominate CS persons who are not IGC members, so this cannot be a
condition. 

I am not sure what aspect of the charter you have repeated referred to as
violated in nomcom's decision...

I must also draw your attention to the fact that the preambular para of the
charter

"The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) was originally created by individual
and organizational civil society actors who came together in the context of
the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) to promote global public
interest objectives in Internet governance policy making."

does have important significance in deriving the meaning of CS as used by
us, if it is not otherwise clear (to a sufficient level of 'working
clarity'). There was some context in which the CS term has been used in the
WSIS, and the way the CS engaged with WSIS used it. (It is also significant
to note that ICANN, RIRs etc were registered as private sector and not CS in
the WSIS process.  Apparently, they didnt think they were CS, so why be more
loyal than the king).

So when the charter keeps mentioning the term 'civil society' everywhere, it
is operating within some understanding of the term within which the
membership para you quote is situated. 

All the paras before the membership paras clearly keep stating that it is a
civil society group, which will mean with civil society persons'
membership....

And the objective 8 refers to 'collaboration with other stakeholders' which
clearly means (if there could at all be any doubt otherwise, which I don't
think there is the least scope for)  that there are other stakeholders who
are not CS (this is getting too much really even to try and argue, I really
think the distinction is quite clear, and I just cant understand what is
being meant really by saying there may be no distinction between CS,
private/ business sector and government sector).....

Parminder 



> -----Original Message-----
> From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com]
> Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2008 7:31 PM
> To: Parminder
> Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Suresh Ramasubramanian; Milton L Mueller;
> Vittorio Bertola
> Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Nomcom and conflict of interest
> 
> On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 8:24 PM, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> > If that is the case, then it should be dealt with on an individual
> >> > basis in the NomCom, OR we change the charter to exclude govt/PS/$.
> >>
> >> That's my point. Excluding them as a class is just not on. Picking
> >> specific
> >> examples like Bertrand, or Stefano, or the Nigerian IT secretary, or
> >> whoever
> >> else isn't a very valid reason for such exclusion.
> >>
> >>       srs
> >
> > Just to make sure, I take it that those who profess the above line, will
> > have no problem nominating a government official (esp someone directly
> > dealing with an area of policy IGC engages with) as IGC's rep to MAG,
> and
> > for other positions/ places. And that they are ready to freely consider
> any
> > such person as CS.
> 
> IF they sign the charter, they MUST be equal. The Charter says:
> 
> "Membership
> 
> The members of the IGC are individuals, acting in personal capacity,
> who subscribe to the charter of the caucus. All members are equal and
> have the same rights and duties."
> 
> The NomCom said;
> 
> "Candidates employed by Internet Governance Organisations
> Another matter that emerged was whether to accept candidates who are
> full time employees of existing Internet governance organizations -
> irrespective of their civil society credentials. Some members believe
> that the issue is really of primary identity of the person - if a
> person is a fulltime employee of IG organization then though they may
> have progressive views, they can not be said to be having CS
> credentials."
> 
> This is a gross disregard of the above text in the charter AND is
> clearly a "political" statement.  Your political view that policy
> making bodies can't be CS seems to have seeped into the NomCom
> somehow.
> 
> I don't see the caucus as "political" at all.  It SHOULD NOT be IMO.
> 
> --
> Cheers,
> 
> McTim
> $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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