[governance] [3 of 6] How best to nominate the MAG Chair?

[Eric Dierker]

Wow Jefsey this is really good stuff.  No sarcasm no wink --- just plain admirable writing and thinking. It is deep and fundamental.  I hope others will read and think as you are making me.
 
Thankyou
Eric

--- On Tue, 6/15/10, JFC Morfin <jefsey at jefsey.com> wrote:


From: JFC Morfin <jefsey at jefsey.com>
Subject: Re: [governance] [3 of 6] How best to nominate the MAG Chair?
To: "Eric Dierker" <cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net>, governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Jeremy Malcolm" <jeremy at ciroap.org>
Date: Tuesday, June 15, 2010, 12:56 AM


At 01:12 14/06/2010, Eric Dierker wrote:

(mine in italics)
--- On Sun, 6/13/10, JFC Morfin <jefsey at jefsey.com> wrote:



I am afraid you are missing the fact that this is among MAG reps. 


Not at all. MAG Members are not in any way chosen for their ability to be chairs.

They are chosen for grosso modo understanding what is discussed. This is enough.





Because I am not legitimate judging who would actually do better. What counts is not who is "better", but if we have a position. That anyone from our community consensually agrees with. A Chair does not advocate and does not pursue  a personal agenda. He represents a consensus. Thay guy will be far more credible and legitimage that one brillant specialist pushing what everyone knows to be his pet idea.

If one accepts the idea that all people can intuitively lead then you are right. 

The mistake you do is to mix chairmanship and leadership. One is a function, the other is a talent. This mix-up is very American "Republican". The British Queen chairs, but do not leads. Everybody is familiar that all the eldest babies born in the Windsor familly will do a reasonable king/queen. No one expect it to be a leader.  Same for most of the Govs round the world. Look at the German President.




Why do technical engineering folks think that because they are good at that --- what other people train and educate for,, engineers can just naturally do well?? It is a confounding and arrogant attitude that hurts Internet Governance. The total lack of respect for other disciplines.

I miss you point here.




 2 points where this is clear above 

-- If the Chair does not adopt the consensus as his personal agenda then he cannot do his job. 

No. If the chair does not respect the rough consensus. The internet would not exist otherwise. (cf. the way IETF works).




And - doing the job "better" is treated here like all idiots can lead - 

You confuse to lead and to chair.




it is just social and therefor anyone can do it. These positions evidence disdain for governance not support of. It is ok to hate politicians, it is ok to think that all in "government" are corrupt and useless as tits on a bull -- but it is not ok to work on governance with that approach.

I am afraid you have several "a priori" here. If you want to discuss governance, you have to approach it in a neutral manner. And start from the basic question: what is governance about? to permit billions of people to autonomously freely best use the Internet along with their personal agenda. And then proceed. This will make you address the Chair and the MAG (if such a thing should exist) in due time, in a coherent perspective with your own thoughts and the Internet culture (which by the way is deeply and fastly changing with the young and progressive integration [this is no more "consideration"] of multiplication in addition to growth in its development scheme (IDNA2008, IAB Draft on IDNs, my appeal) to match diversity. Let understand that what ICANN is about (cf. State Department) is class IN domain names. Users, i.e. including what is currently tagged as "civil society" have 65,000 others. This is in the code, i.e. in the Constitution. Today, the
 ISOCANN culture uses only two presentations (default and extended names (xn)); there are billions of them for us to use.

In such a context, leaders with personal agenda are certainly not people we need as chairs. Governance is about "net keeping". Net keepers must not feel otherwise than the servants of the "net users/owners": i.e. all of us. Their charisma is to be one of us in order to best illustrate us. One does not decide anything by vote after convincing Reps. One try to write a consensus from what billions of people consent.

jfc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100615/6cc4db33/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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t