[governance] Update on Candidates for MAG Nominees
Thomas Lowenhaupt
toml at communisphere.com
Tue Nov 19 09:47:40 EST 2013
As the former chair of a MAG NomCom, I read with delight the detailed
description of the ideal candidate:
1. Regular contributor to civil society networks including the IGC
2. Consultative style with members of civil society networks including
the IGC
3. Knowledge of/ previous experience with IGF, including remote
participation
4. Knowledge of the UN system
5. Able to communicate the diverse range of issues, views and perspectives
held by civil society.
6.Able to devote the time, resources and effort necessary to contribute
constructively to MAG deliberations
7. Willing and able to report and update civil society networks
including the IGC on issues and progress
My only addition would be that the NomCom also be cognizant of gender
and geographic balance.
More broadly, commenting on the most enlightening Mawaki / Suresh
conversation, I'd suggest that the more we highlight and detail the
sophisticated criteria and vetting process carried on by the IGC's
NomCom, the more likely IGC nominees are to be accepted.
Best,
Tom Lowenhaupt
On 11/19/2013 8:24 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> You raise some of the most interesting questions I have seen on this
> specific topic for a long, long time.
>
> I would say that a middle path is that we pick someone who is policy
> focused, able and professional NGO type, so able to work on the issue
> practically full time, get funding to go to a series of conferences ..
> however, that individual must not have a political ax to grind or a
> set worldview shaped by that ax.
>
> We need a consensus builder and good communicator in the role, who
> morever has a background in UN and other intergovernmental and cross
> stakeholder group activities on cybersecurity.
>
> --srs (iPad)
>
> On 19-Nov-2013, at 18:47, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com
> <mailto:kichango at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian
>> <suresh at hserus.net <mailto: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
>> <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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
>> <mailto: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 <mailto: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/20131119/3184532d/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