<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Re: [governance] Reforming MAG</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<FONT FACE="Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:18.0px'>Hi Milton,<BR>
<BR>
I wouldn’t suggest not advocating something solely on the grounds that it won’t be accepted, but I would suggest that political viability ought to at least be part of the calculation when deciding what it’s worth spending time and collective reputation on. It’s true that there’s a bit of an implied double standard in that, but double standards are hardly new here (e.g. govts et al have complained in the past about how long and how forcefully CS people have spoken in consultations etc, but they’re free to go on and on advocating non-starters etc); comes with being the weakest kids in the sandbox. <BR>
<BR>
On the particular issue of govt reps, I guess my point is that IGF suffers from a low level of real commitment to the process from many (attendance, political engagement, financial support). And I’d just be a little cautious in framing proposals that can be read like, let’s replace some you guys with more of us; the draft says,<BR>
<BR>
> We are concerned at the over-representation of governments <BR>
> in the MAG, and under-representation of civil society. We think this <BR>
> should be corrected at the time of the present rotation. For this <BR>
<BR>
Full stop. Not sure how that binary would scan in Beijing, Moscow, Brasilia, Cairo, Buenos Aires, Riyadh, etc. but I suspect not so well. Maybe it’d be better to blur the issue a little and make it not just about us, e.g. by proposing rough proportions per group we’d think it better to shoot for...?<BR>
<BR>
I don’t see why 40 is inherently inefficient and unaccountable if it’s the right 40 and there are clear procedures and everyone shows up, in all senses. WGIG was 40 and it worked fine, and the government participants participated, at least in the F2F, and some did online too. But make a case that size matters and we should go to the wall on it and let’s what people think. But we have a lot of disparate points to reach closure on quickly, and we’re trying to do it on a list..<BR>
<BR>
Cheers,<BR>
<BR>
BD<BR>
<BR>
PS: Might help keep conversations clear if when you reply you keep the From line of the person you’re responding to. <BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
On 2/12/08 3:54 PM, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:18.0px'> <BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:18.0px'> <BR>
<BR>
<HR ALIGN=CENTER SIZE="3" WIDTH="100%"> <BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<I>Number and Composition of MAG Members.</I> While I understand the rationale for Milton and McTim suggesting a radical reduction in numbers, I suspect it’s a non-starter on political grounds and support Parminder’s wording on size and rotation. <FONT COLOR="#0000FF"> <BR>
</FONT> <BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN><FONT COLOR="#0000FF"><FONT SIZE="4"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:24.0px'>Strongly disagree, you make a much better suggestion below</SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE='font-size:18.0px'> <BR>
</SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE='font-size:18.0px'> <BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<FONT COLOR="#0000FF"> </FONT>On the other hand, it would seem that some don’t contribute much to the dialogue and that their presence has not translated into financial and political support for IGF. Would it be sensible to add a sentence or so suggesting a slight reduction in the context of overall rebalancing and that we’d hope that only governments that are prepared to attend and actively contribute would seek to be represented? <FONT COLOR="#0000FF"> <BR>
</FONT> <BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN><FONT COLOR="#0000FF"><FONT SIZE="4"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:24.0px'>This would be very sensible. Just eliminate the word "slight" so that we can agree. <BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><SPAN STYLE='font-size:18.0px'> <BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN><FONT COLOR="#0000FF"><FONT SIZE="4"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:24.0px'>We've been through this before, but I fail to understand why so many people decide in advance that you can't ask for what you want because other people may block it politically. That never seems to stop other stakeholders from asking for what they want. We have a duty to ourselves and to the public interest to ask for the right thing. If it gets blocked politically, then so be it. But at the very least it puts pressure on those playing political games with the MAG composition.<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><SPAN STYLE='font-size:18.0px'> <BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN><FONT COLOR="#0000FF"><FONT SIZE="4"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:24.0px'>There are important efficiency and accountability reasons to reduce the size of the MAG substantially. We should and must assert them. We lose nothing by doing so and may gain. <BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><SPAN STYLE='font-size:18.0px'> <BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN><FONT COLOR="#0000FF"><FONT SIZE="4"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:24.0px'>On the issue of "technical community" representation, Ian noted, and the point was basically conceded or agreed by all, that these are representatives of current Internet administration bodies. It would be perfectly sufficient to have a representative of ICANN, IETF, and one RIR (not three -- they are all the same politically!!) via the NRO to cover these. If you want 6 of them (and thus a 30-person MAG instead of 15-20) then pick two from each category, making sure that, e.g., ICANN reps include SSAC and not just two staffers. ISPs should definitely be represented too, but clearly they are business interests as well as Internet administrators. But be aware that ISOC is the parent organization of IETF and virtually every major figure in ICANN and RIRs are members and supporters of ISOC, so don't talk as if adding ISOC to an ICANN-IETF-RIR panel is adding anything different rather than just padding the numbers. In many respects ISOC, as a nonprofit association, is more akin to civil society even though it consistently refuses to play with CS.<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><SPAN STYLE='font-size:18.0px'> <BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN><FONT COLOR="#0000FF"><FONT SIZE="4"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:24.0px'>Note the double standards one gets into. We are told that we "must" have 20 governments because there are regional differences among them, and political/cultural/economic differences within the regions. Well, that's true also of ISPs, ISOC, civil society, and so on. We can and we must challenge this, even if the governments have the raw power to not listen to it. <BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><SPAN STYLE='font-size:18.0px'> <BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<I>Inter-sessional Work and Mandate. </I>To me these are key topics. I’m glad Parminder touched them, but I’m not sure a series of questions on each is the most effective approach. I wonder whether it’d be possible for us to positively state the case for something, e.g. a MAG-linked but more open WG (I think we once endorsed WGs, know I did, and APC did more recently...) <FONT COLOR="#0000FF"> <BR>
</FONT> <BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN><FONT COLOR="#0000FF"><FONT SIZE="4"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:24.0px'>and IGP, in its early paper "Building an IG Forum" for the first consultation.</SPAN></FONT></FONT><SPAN STYLE='font-size:18.0px'> </SPAN><FONT COLOR="#0000FF"><FONT SIZE="4"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:24.0px'>Agree with Bill's comments here. <BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><SPAN STYLE='font-size:18.0px'> <BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN><FONT COLOR="#0000FF"><FONT SIZE="4"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:24.0px'>I think we should also insist that in creating workshops and plenaries for the annual Forum, the Secretariat and MAG must ensure diversity of viewpoints and air fully the real policy debates that are going on. No more workshops full of content regulation advocates telling each other how right they are to censor the Internet, while next door there are a bunch of free expression advocates telling each other how right they are to oppose it. That's useless. The critical internet resources panel I was on in Rio was poorly balanced; that should not happen again. <BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><SPAN STYLE='font-size:18.0px'> <BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:18.0px'> </SPAN></FONT>
</BODY>
</HTML>