[governance] MAG meeting - proposal for a non gov screening body

[McTim]

On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 8:40 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
>
> The second important element to report from the MAG meeting  has to do with
> the process of selection of MAG members.
>
> It was agreed early in the meeting that governments have their established
> ways to select members to UN kind of bodies, and thus the discussion here is
> only about selection of non-gov members.
>
> The MAG did discuss the need for more openness, transparency etc. The
> general discontent with what is called the 'blackbox' approach was
> discussed. While general observations were made about increasing openness,
> transparency etc, which are all very welcome, the main 'possible'
> operational improvement that got discussed, and I understand will be
> recorded in the outcomes from the MAG meeting that will be conveyed to the
> UN SG, is as follows:
>
> It relates to a body of non gov stakeholder persons, including ex MAG
> members (the intention seems to be that it will largely if not exclusively
> be ex MAG members), who will 'look at' recommendations from various
> stakeholder groups, and apparently finalize the list, which then
> (apparently) will be rubber stamped by the concerned UN authority, with a
> possible last check by the concerned authority.

Is this documented anywhere?

>
> On the surface it look all very good, but I have a great problem - in fact a
> non-negotiable one - with CS nominations being checked and decided on by
> private sector and technical community.

Wouldn't the inverse be true as well?  Do biz folk have an issue if CS
vets/decides on them?


We all know what will happen.
I kept
> opposing this proposal as being completely unacceptable to most in civil
> society. Though I was 'assured' that this will not operate as a possible
> veto by private sector and technical community on possible CS members, and
> that the 'finalisation' of the list will 'only' be as per express criteria,
> chiefly, geographic balance, I am quite sure that this will operate in a
> manner that will systematically exclude CS nominees that are 'perceived' as
> 'extreme' (I can give examples of how such systematic exclusions already
> work in IGF space when such "MS" bodies  make 'persons' related decisions).


Please do, as I am not aware of any.


-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
____________________________________________________________
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