[NCUC-DISCUSS] NomCom Review

[Raoul Plommer]

Look at Facebook in China
<https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/nov/23/facebook-secret-software-censor-user-posts-china>.
It's throwing its human right principles out of the window, to get access
to the chinese marketplace. We, in the NCSG community, have given them the
possibility to DO business in the first place, with our pesky whining of
freedom of speech and privacy for the last hundreds of years. That's
allowed them to do business in a society where people can express
themselves according to the restrictions set by the governments. I think
there could easily be registries and registrars bowing down to the human
rights restrictions for making business, set by China, making them all our
opponents in the coming battles.

This is why they should be giving more credit to us as an SG. We are proven
to foster freedom and equality, that makes businesses and states flourish.
Especially losing the academic seat is outrageous, for it's really the most
consistent constituency that is based on peer-reviewed research. I think
I'd be happy with getting that one back, on top of the NPOC seat.

-Raoul

On 25 November 2016 at 09:22, Raoul Plommer <plommer at gmail.com> wrote:

> First there's, let's say philosophical, abstract level, where Raoul's
>> point is obvious: commercial actors are by definition motivated by
>> money, thus not only can be bought but have already been bought.
>>
>> Second, on the level of individual level it is clear, as Matt et al
>> have pointed out, people's motivations are complex and variable,
>> and cannot be reduced to simple money/other division.
>>
>> But for the present purpose, trying to increase our representation
>> and to improve the influence of non-commercial interests, the former
>> is what we should be talking about. It's not the motivations of
>> individuals but what they represent that matters there.
>>
>
> Yes, this is exactly what I meant and I'm glad someone else articulated
> it, to drive the point home. If we really think about the future of the
> internet governance, is it really fair, that the GNSO only allocates one
> seat out of seven in NomCom for non-commercial interests? I think not. We
> should be a far more powerful stakeholdergroup, for we have all the
> individuals' interests at stake. The other collectives are fighting for
> their bottomline.
>
>
>>
>> Despite of the complexity of the motivations of individual business
>> constituency's representatives, we cannot assume they will also keep
>> non-commercial interests in mind so we don't need to worry about that.
>>
>
> Yes, I have no doubts that our individual interests can be very complex
> but the NCUC's mandate is clear. This is what I meant, when I said that
> "only a few constituencies can't be simply paid off". Which,
> retrospectively, was me trying to be as succinct as possible, but
> apparently failed in doing so.
>
> I also side with Rafik, for focusing on the process and operating methods
> of NomCom but I do think we should really be doing both; getting another
> seat AND making NomCom more transparent in what it does and how it reaches
> its decisions. These two do not exclude each other but in fact, gives us
> another attacking vector for improving the current situation.
>
> -Raoul
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20161125/7966fcd4/attachment.html>