[governance] Update on Candidates for MAG Nominees

Mawaki Chango kichango at gmail.com
Tue Nov 19 08:17:20 EST 2013 

On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian
<suresh at hserus.net>wrote:

> It is absolutely certain that other civil society organizations will
> definitely propose their own nominees (whether or not they're members of
> that organization) who they feel will best represent civil society.
>

Not only that, but even if this space was the only one submitting a slate
of nominees, not all of them will necessarily make it to the end as I
understand UN at whatever level has the final say. So, on that at least, we
should chill (unless there is a campaign I'm not aware of being waged to
the attention of the IGF Secretariat.)

Now, regarding the practices of other constituencies such as business, one
needs to understand the difference there is between us. Business
stakeholders have always operated that way, not just with the MAG but with
other bodies such as ICANN and particularly the GNSO council, the same
individual advocating for commercial interests for at least 10 years (if
not more in the broader ICANN). Businesses have trade associations and even
professional lobbyists they are willing to fund to do this kind of job for
them. They don't care much about pluralism and representation *per se* as
as much as they want to make sure their interests are taken care of by an
able, well-connected, experienced, skillful individual who can get that
done. It's like when they recruit for a job. If they find that individual
available --among the handful number of people in their ranks who could fit
the profile for the job-- they are happy to keep him or her for life,
especially if there is only one spot to fill (otherwise there'd be room for
some variations on the edges.)

That's the model, as I see it. I'm not ruling anything out or in by saying
this. If that's the model we want for CS, it is a conversation we may have,
I think, either before people being nominated or after the selection
process. My understanding so far has been that CS is so diverse and
pluralistic that we are bit more touchy than business on representation and
legitimacy (only heaven knows how many lines have been written here in
contention about those two notions!) So my assumption would have been --and
has been-- that a robust and diverse competition always is a good thing for
the legitimacy (and political capital, so to speak) of whomever will come
out of the process in the end as our selected candidates and be appointed
on the MAG or wherever. So that a variety of people stepping forward and
willing to expose themselves in the process, reinforcing its legitimacy by
demonstrating its continuous openness and pluralism, would be a good thing
to welcome and even to encourage. Instead what I have been seeing or
reading sounds like a willingness to bully people out of the nomination
list, suggesting that they would not be up to the task and therefore they
shouldn't be nominated. I know nobody actually said that, but those are
plausible implications and if only for that, I still find it regrettable.

The models above are two startlingly different models. I get it that CS
also needs to be effective, impactful. Is the businessfication of CS the
only answer we've got? No mention of mentoring, no experience-sharing, or
capacity-building (since we like that one so much)? Or capacity-building
only works so well as to get people behind us professional CS, or when
there are donors who want us to tell people what they want them to tell
their governments to do? As I suggested, there might be ways to get the
best of both worlds without presuming or suggesting that there are only
about half-dozen people or so in this Caucus who can speak out in a context
such as the MAG and can speak to TA para. 72.

Cheers,
mawaki


>
> What, who, why is not as material, Fouad - if we object to certain people
> being on the MAG, then we invite counter objections to other long standing
> civ soc members staying on the MAG which would rather not be raised, I hope
>
> --srs (iPad)
>
> > On 18-Nov-2013, at 16:53, Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Btw, even if all these people apply on their own from their
> > organizations, they are equally valid and IGC comes in the equal
> > balance of all civil society. For example, IGC can propose 20 people
> > and 200 other CS orgs can also propose 20 people or more on their own
> > an will be equally evaluated......so doesn't matter much does
> > it....there is no template...nor was one created.
> >
> >> On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 3:51 PM, Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> I guess you might be unaware of who, what, when, why.......
> >>
> >> On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian
> >> <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
> >>> Fouad Bajwa [18/11/13 15:01 +0430]:
> >>>
> >>>> It is critical that some of our MAG colleagues are kept in there and
> >>>> not rotated. I don't know if we noted it or not but there are private
> >>>> sector MAG members continuously on the MAG and have never been rotated
> >>>> off. This is one of the objections that should be raised loudly.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Sorry but why?  If civil society MAG people should be kept on and not
> >>> rotated, why should private sector MAG members be treated differently?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Regards.
> >> --------------------------
> >> Fouad Bajwa
> >> ICT4D and Internet Governance Advisor
> >> My Blog: Internet's Governance:
> http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/
> >> Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Regards.
> > --------------------------
> > Fouad Bajwa
> > ICT4D and Internet Governance Advisor
> > My Blog: Internet's Governance: http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/
> > Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> > To be removed from the list, visit:
> >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >
> > For all other list information and functions, see:
> >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/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
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20131119/66c7baa0/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/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

More information about the Governance mailing list