<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Re: [governance] Reforming MAG</TITLE>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.3132" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY><SPAN class=031222416-12022008></SPAN><FONT face=Arial><FONT
color=#0000ff><FONT size=2>Some good points, Bill<SPAN
class=031222416-12022008> Drake</SPAN>, responses below<SPAN
class=031222416-12022008></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
</DIV>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 18px"><FONT face=Arial>> 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.<SPAN
class=031222416-12022008> <FONT color=#0000ff
size=2> </FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 18px"><SPAN class=031222416-12022008></SPAN><FONT
face=Arial><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=031222416-12022008> </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 18px"><FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT
size=2><SPAN class=031222416-12022008>Agreed, but this is a wording problem.
That's why I think the argument should hinge less on how many of each group
there are, but on a general case for reducing the size of the MAG. So we could
say, "make the MAG 20 people with the following proportions." no need to
single out any group as having "too many,"
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 18px"><FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT
size=2><SPAN
class=031222416-12022008></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 18px"><FONT face=Arial>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.<SPAN class=031222416-12022008><FONT
color=#0000ff size=2> </FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 18px"><FONT face=Arial><SPAN
class=031222416-12022008></SPAN></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 18px"><FONT face=Arial><SPAN class=031222416-12022008><FONT
color=#0000ff size=2>But WGIG was not in the same position as MAG. MAG is
supposed to "represent" the broader community and engage in continual
interface with it; WGIG was a stand-alone body that was charged to produce a
document on its own. WGIG was a one-shot creation; Mag is supposed to rotate
and be continuous. </FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT
face=Arial><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 18px"></SPAN></FONT></BODY></HTML>