[governance] A shame for the EC

[Norbert Bollow]

Andrea Glorioso <andrea at digitalpolicy.it> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 3:36 PM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
> > Indeed. And she's legally obligated to give the reasons (when the
> > question is formally asked) why such a scandalous person was chosen
> > instead of conducting a more normal kind of search for a well-qualified
> > and suitable person to fill this role:
>
> I'm not sure you saw my email in which I pointed to the blog post in which
> Neelie Kroes reacted to the various comments on this matter. It is here:
> 
> http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/neelie-kroes/no-disconnect-response-issue/
> 
> In there, you will see that the main reasons why she made this decision
> are that, in her view, Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg:
> 
>    - "is capable of coming up with and delivering excellent ideas"
>    - has "international outlook and contacts to help us push these issues
>    forward"
>    - "understands the highly relevant security and foreign affairs world"

She is giving what seems to be some valid arguments in his favor.

But I don't find what seems to me the key question, the one that I
was referring to above (perhaps without descibing it in enough
detail): Why was a person chosen who is burdened by (1) a rather fresh
public scandal and who is (2) furthermore burdened by in the past
having taken positions that are rather offensive to many of those
activists for whom "part of Karl-Theodor’s role will be to reach out
to those people, to ensure that their work gets the proper support
and recognition.", and why was there not what I would consider a
normal process of searching for a well-qualified and suitable person
e.g. by means of a public job offer?

> You, like everyone else, have of course the right not to agree with this
> assessment. But suggesting that she is not providing her reasons for
> taking such decision, as you seem to do; or that there must be some
> other obscure reason for it, as others have done, seems a bit over
> the top to me.

She is giving reasons, but as far as I can see, what I see as the
main question (described above) remains unanswered.

If others agree that this is an important, so far unanswered
question then maybe it should be pursued in a way that gives it
at least a bit more weight than what from Mrs. Kroes' perspective
is probably mainly a big noise of nearly-incomrehensible discontent.

> I would also like to stress that, as it is clear both in the press
> release and in the blog post, Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg is an
> *advisor*. He will not take decisions, which remain in the hands of
> Neelie Kroes and, where appropriate, the College of European
> Commissioners, other public authorities, the private sector and
> other stakeholders.

If I read Mrs Kroes' blog post correctly, Mr zu Guttenberg is
intended to have a key role in the information flow from activists
and experts an extremely important topic area (about which I
personally care very much) into the EU's decision-making processes.

I think that Mrs Kroes deserves to be highly commended for creating
this advisory position, and for her desire to fill it with a highly
skilled person.

Maybe she is even right to weigh Mr. zu Guttenberg's positive
qualities higher than what quite a few people including myself see
as negative or even offensive aspects of this decision. (Thinking
about it, her point about the relevance of the "security and foreign
affairs world" *might* turn out to be a valid reason to appoint Mr
zu Guttenberg rather than someone with e.g. an activist background.)

But quite independently of that question, I still think that it would
be important to shine some light on the question of due process or
lack thereof in the choice of such advisors:

* Was the question of reputational risk for the Commission's efforts
  "to promote internet freedom globally" adequately considered?

* Was the question of reputational risk for the experts to whom Mr
  zu Guttenberg is intended to reach out adequately considered?

* Is the overall process for filling important advisory positions, and
  for deciding what kind of compensation is offered to prospective
  advisors, adequate?

Among these questions, the third is the most important IMO, and I am
particularly doubtful about the wisdom of governance institutions
having financially unpaid but important positions that involve a lot
of work. With regard to the first two of these points, I'd be satisfied
with a simple "yes or no" answer, but the third IMO merits some
in-depth discussion.

Greetings,
Norbert
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

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