[governance] Regarding Membership Criteria for Future Members

[Eric Dierker]

As one with a generally different point of view regarding activity on this list and membership, I think that Ian is spot on.  The interest in my mind would simply be to "codify" or make certain this inclusive and fair minded approach.  
 
I think that the major players involved in Internet Governance are a bit too elitist and benevolent dictator types for me.  I would like to see direct and large scale voting and polling on even the slightest of issues and representation.  But the way this list and group, as a group have behaved is very clearly open and inviting to individual positions and out of the box thinking.  Say no more than they welcome even me.
 
All this congratulatory back slapping around here drives me nuts.  But truth be told, Ian has done a great job keeping the membership and list participation open and diverse. The rules can always be bent to meet an agenda -- Ian has stayed on course only bending them in the direction of good governance.
 
Your a very good outreach person, Fouad, please keep it up.
 
Eric

--- On Tue, 12/8/09, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:


From: Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
Subject: Re: [governance] Regarding Membership Criteria for Future Members
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Fouad Bajwa" <fouadbajwa at gmail.com>
Date: Tuesday, December 8, 2009, 12:16 AM


Hi Fouad,

There are two things here.

Firstly the discussion on the list here has always been open to anyone. I
think personally that is a good thing and we should encourage more non civil
society people to post here are share their views with us. The discourse on
a more open list would I think be very valuable. So in terms of discussion
and presence on list, I think there should be no requirements or restriction
based on status. That I think is a good way for us to be.

But as regards membership.

Our Charter states clearly:

"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."

I personally see nothing in the Charter that prohibits a government
employee, Bill Gates, Rupert Murdoch, Barack Obama, Osama Bin Laden or
anyone being a member providing they subscribe to the charter. I also see
nothing in the Charter that says a government employee, private sector
employee, or entrepreneur should be treated differently to any other member
should they choose to affirm the Charter.

Perhaps it should be different, but to my reading it isn¹t.

That's as regards membership. Of course Nomcoms and electors within our
membership may choose to take into account such factors as those you raise
in determining suitability for office. That's entirely appropriate and has
happened in the past.

I know others see it differently, but I personally don't have an issue with
governmental or private sector employees being members per se. But it is
something that might be worth clarifying and discussing in the future.

Ian




> From: Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa at gmail.com>
> Reply-To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa at gmail.com>
> Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 04:50:34 +0500
> To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
> Subject: [governance] Regarding Membership Criteria for Future Members
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> I wanted to ask our experienced peers for some advice regarding
> membership of the IGC. I have been promoting IGC membership in the
> world around including any meeting regional or international that I
> attend. I have also encouraged a lot of people in the DiploFoundation
> network to join the IGC that belong to Civil Society, research or
> academia.
> 
> However, I have one small question to ask, as IGC represents the Civil
> Society in the Internet Governance Forum, can government
> representatives and private sector be member of the IGC? Does personal
> capacity mean that government and private sector people can join the
> IGC and access the Civil Society led IG discourse as well as
> participate in the consensus oriented proceedings as well as take
> their objectives/goals/agendas to the IGF while representing their
> governments and companies?
> 
> I know I am confused a bit but again I have to be clear here. Thank
> you in advance for your comments!
> 
> --
> Regards.
> --------------------------
> Fouad Bajwa
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20091207/8f485bcf/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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