[governance] Reconstituting MAG

[Ian Peter]

Perhaps now and in this response is the time to clarify what is meant by
technical community. The relevant paragraph might be

"On the issue of representation of technical community it is important to
appreciate that the above three way division is as per political
representation based on interests of, or representation of different
interests through, these three sectors. Technical community’s presence on
the other hand is based on the requirement of necessary expertise, and
therefore is of a different nature. This is also clear from the language of
relevant paragraphs of TA. This may not be construed as undermining the
importance of the technical community. The expertise provided by this
community should be appropriately divided between all the three sectors, and
the expertise criteria should be given due importance at the time of final
selection."

Perhaps we can say something like

"On the issue of representation of technical community it is important to
appreciate that the above three way division is as per political
representation based on interests of, or representation of different
interests through these three traditional UN sectors. However, we appreciate
the importance of the involvement of representatives of existing Internet
administration bodies, and recommend that a block of say six representatives
should be included, separate to the allocations mentioned above. While
appreciating that the term "technical community" has sometimes been used to
describe this necessary representation, we do not believe that technical
expertise is the primary requirement for this group or the basis on which
they should be selected. 

Indeed, if it is purely technical knowledge which is required, roles of
Special Advisers might be more appropriate, and persons with great technical
knowledge such as Louis Pouzin and Robert Kahn who have no direct
association with Internet administration bodies should be considered. For
the representatives of existing Internet administration bodies, however, we
believe the suggestion that they should be chosen on the basis of how large
and diverse a community they connect to might be appropriate, along with the
role of the organisation they represent"

Anyway that’s a suggestion - I think we should address this issue one way or
another and I'm sure some better words can be found.



Ian Peter
Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd
PO Box 10670 Adelaide St  Brisbane 4000
Australia
Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773
www.ianpeter.com
www.internetmark2.org
www.nethistory.info
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] 
Sent: 12 February 2008 18:15
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Ian Peter'; 'McTim'
Subject: RE: [governance] Reconstituting MAG


> Clearly the contentious issue here is the representation of the "technical
> community" (many of whom are not very technical at all so it is a misnomer
> in itself). It might be better to call them representatives of current
> internet administration bodies if we want more accuracy and want to
> include
> people like Chris Disspain and Matt Shears under this heading.

Very Much Agree, Ian. We would have a done the IG arena some very useful
service if we questioned the term' tech community' in the manner you have
suggested and clarify its meaning and usage. 

As indicated in my email, we should propose that the current IG bodies
should be given a separate quota of around 6 because I do think they should
be represented in the MAG. Only this confusion is best done away with.

So we know that the tech community as selected for the MAG is a different
category than the count of them that McTim made for this list.  However, I
don’t know what criteria he used in counting tech community members on this
list. Can you please clarify, McTim.

Parminder 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 11:00 AM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'McTim'; 'Parminder'
> Subject: RE: [governance] Reconstituting MAG
> 
> Clearly the contentious issue here is the representation of the "technical
> community" (many of whom are not very technical at all so it is a misnomer
> in itself). It might be better to call them representatives of current
> internet administration bodies if we want more accuracy and want to
> include
> people like Chris Disspain and Matt Shears under this heading.
> 
> The dilemma here needs to be addressed carefully. We should remember that
> people like Francis Muguet and Louis Pouzin (the latter very worthy of a
> "technical community" tag) have set up a separate mailing list and have
> begun to caucus separately largely because they felt that this main list
> had
> been taken over by representatives of this unclearly named and identified
> group.
> 
> What's clear is that it is not in our interests for civil society to be
> irreconcilably split on this. Equally, it is not good for civil society to
> be dominated by people whose interests are primarily to maintain a status
> quo or to protect the power base of existing bodies without necessarily
> giving due consideration to proposals for change.
> 
> However, the worst possible outcome would be for the sometimes passionate
> debates between those who support and/or represent existing bodies, and
> those who see a need for change, to stop. I think the exchange of views
> here
> is important, and at times we may need to put forward CS positions which
> indicate that there are differing viewpoints in CS on some issues. In
> fact,
> the issue of "technical community" involvement may be one such case.
> 
> 
> Ian Peter
> Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd
> PO Box 10670 Adelaide St  Brisbane 4000
> Australia
> Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773
> www.ianpeter.com
> www.internetmark2.org
> www.nethistory.info
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com]
> Sent: 12 February 2008 15:53
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder
> Subject: Re: [governance] Reconstituting MAG
> 
> hi,
> 
> kudos for the draft.  Comments inline:
> 
> On Feb 11, 2008 8:53 AM, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> On Feb 11, 2008 8:53 AM, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > We appreciate the transparency measures

..  (here we can mention our
> > appreciation for the new measures, as well as our suggestions how best
> to
> > take them forward, which are being discussed in  a separate thread.)
> 
> fine
> 
> >
> >
> >
> > On the issue of the renewal of MAG we have the following points to make.
> >
> >
> >
> > -         First of all we urge the secretariat to use the full name
> 'MAG',
> > instead of AG, at least in the official documents. There is a lot in a
> name,
> > and the multistakeholder part is the most important characteristic of
> this
> > body.
> >
> >
> 
> ok
> 
> >
> > -         The number of MAG members should be around 40, and one third
> of
> > them should be rotated every year.
> >
> 
> I think it is an unwieldy number.  I would prefer 20, but could
> stretch to 30 (still too big imho). I understand that it will be
> unlikely to move off 40 tho.
> 
> >
> >
> > -         Its membership should be divided equally between governments,
> > civil society, and business sector.
> >
> >
> 
> and the technical community
> 
> 
> >
> > -         On the issue of representation of technical community it is
> > important to appreciate that the above three way division is as per
> > political representation based on interests of, or representation of
> > different interests through, these three sectors. Technical community's
> > presence on the other hand is based on the requirement of necessary
> > expertise, and therefore is of a different nature. This is also clear
> from
> > the language of relevant paragraphs of TA. This may not be construed as
> > undermining the importance of the technical community. The expertise
> > provided by this community should be appropriately divided between all
> the
> > three sectors, and the expertise criteria should be given due importance
> at
> > the time of final selection.
> >
> 
> I think this might backfire in re; getting the kind of CS folk that
> you (and some others on the list) seek.  To get adequate
> representation on the MAG for the technical community, most of those
> "slots" would need to come from CS side, so at a minimum, I would say
> that we (as CS seeking expertise) would want;
> 
> 1 ICANN staff (currently T. Swinehart)
> 1 ISOC staff (representing users) (currently Matt Shears)
> 1 (non-profit) gTLD person (.org?, no rep as of now IIRC)
> 1 (non-profit) ccTLD person (currently Emily Taylor/Chris Disspain)
> 1 NRO/numbering community person (currently AA)
> 1 IETF person (IETF) (currently Pat Fältström)
> 1 W3C person (currently Daniel Dardailler)
> 
> This would give adequate "clue", but take up about half of the CS
> "slots", leaving 6 or 7 (if divided equally) for academics and other
> NGOs working in this space.  Is that enough for the "human rights,
> ICT4D, intellectual property, international trade and global
> electronic commerce, access to knowledge, and security" (quote from
> our charter).
> 
> Business interests may appoint one or two Inet community folk, but I
> don't think Gov'ts will (perhaps ITU persons already in Geneva, but
> they probably don't think of themselves as internet technical
> community folk).
> 
> In any case, it seems likely that 40 will be the number, it also seems
> unlikely that there will be consensus in the MAG to remove the 4th
> stakeholder group.
> 
> as for this list, I am counting ~50 of ~300 individuals on the list as
> being Inet "technical community" folk, I doubt there will be consensus
> here to remove the 4th stakeholder group either.
> 
> >
> >
> > -         We are concerned at the over-representation of governments in
> the
> > MAG, and under-representation of civil society. We think this should be
> > corrected at the time of the present rotation. For this purpose the
> > selection process will have to not just go by getting a new member from
> the
> > same sector as the one who is retiring, which will only replicate the
> > present lopsidedness of the MAG.
> >
> 
> fine
> 
> >
> >
> > -         Stakeholder representatives should be selected based on
> > appropriate processes of self-selection by stakeholder groups. We do
> > appreciate that it is difficult to recognize any one stakeholder entity,
> or
> > even a given set of them, as completely representing the whole of that
> > particular stakeholder group. This complicates the process of selection,
> > especially in the case of civil society and business sectors, and makes
> for
> > some scope for the final selecting authority exercising some amount of
> > judgment.  However, the exercise of such judgment should be done in a
> > completely transparent manner. Deviations from the self-selection
> processes
> > of stakeholder groups should be kept to the minimum and be defensible,
> and
> > normally be explained.
> 
> no objection
> 
> >
> >
> >
> > -         We find interesting the recommendation of a few members of the
> > technical community that "AG members should be chosen on the basis of
> how
> > large and diverse a community they connect to (which is different than
> > "represent")". We very much agree with this, and will like to further
> > explore the implications of this criterion.
> >
> 
> ok, I guess. potential can o worms tho.  For example, the govt of
> India could claim to "connect to" every single person in India,
> IT4Change and ISOC India could try to make the same claim.
> 
> Can't wait to hear MM explain why this is a "trick" tho ;-).
> 
> On his point that "most technical people work for business", well I
> have written often and extensively on this list that those people
> participate in IG fora NOT as employees of a business, but (like
> myself) as individuals, concerned mostly with the health and
> well-being of the network (security and stability in I* speak). This
> is probably more true in the numbering and standards bodies than in
> the domain side, but there are still loads of folk who participate in
> domain side IG stuff trying to better the Internet rather than their
> employers bottom line.
> 
> All in all, there are many tens (or hundreds) of thousands of
> volunteer person hours put in annually on "IG" work by people who
> participate in fora operated by non-profit organisations. These
> technical people may be "technically" employed by businesses, but that
> doesn't mean they aren't involved in CS activities.
> 
> >
> >
> > -         All stakeholders should be asked to keep in mind the need to
> > adequately represent diversity in terms of gender, geography, and, where
> > applicable, special interest groups.
> >
> >
> 
> fine
> 
> >
> > -         The role and necessity of the Special Advisors should be
> > clarified, as also the criteria for their selection. Adequate diversity
> > should be represented in the selection of Special Advisors as well.
> >
> 
> ok
> 
> >
> >
> > -         We are of the opinion that in keeping with the multi-
> stakeholder
> > nature of the MAG, there should only be one chair who is nominated by
> the
> UN
> > SG. The host country should be able to nominate a deputy chair, an
> > arrangement that would be helpful in context of various issues of
> logistics
> > for the annul IGF meetings. In any case, we will like to understand the
> > division of work and responsibility between the two chairs, which is the
> > present arrangement?  Does the UN nominated chair has the central
> > responsibility of MAG's interface with the UN SG (which, in its present
> > configuration is MAG's principal role/ responsibility) and the host
> country
> > chair of managing IGF meeting logistics? How much role does the host
> country
> > chair have in substantive issues? Does not too much of an substantive
> role
> > for the host country chair seen together with the fact that IGF is an
> open
> > meeting place where the host country will in any case be over-
> represented
> > skew the balance of the IGF. It is also to note that a constant
> government
> > chair is an inappropriate arrangement for a MS body. It may be too late
> to
> > move over to this suggested arrangement for the New Delhi meeting,
> > especially if the Indian government representative has already taken
> over
> as
> > a co-chair, but we can take a decision for following a new arrangement
> for
> > the 2009 meeting onwards.
> 
> ok
> 
> >
> >
> >
> > With 2 years of experience behind us, we would like to have a greater
> > clarity of the mandate, role and structure of the MAG. Does MAG have any
> > substantive role at all apart from the responsibility of arranging the
> > annual IGF meetings? For instance, inter alia, would it not be an
> > appropriate role for it to discuss how well is the IGF fulfilling its
> Tunis
> > mandate? If the MAG does not examine this issue, who is supposed to do
> it?
> > Is it left entirely to the secretariat and the UN SG to do so?
> >
> 
> ok
> 
> >
> >
> > We will like MAG to examine its own internal processes for greater
> > effectiveness. One possibility is to divide work among a couple of
> working
> > groups. We will like to see some introspection in the MAG about
> improving
> > its decision making processes, or generally, its processes for
> delivering
> > substantive outputs. It may, rather should, base such outputs on open
> > consultation for process related issues, and on the IGF itself for
> > substantive matters, but there needs to be an adequate process of
> > formalization of these by the MAG.
> >
> 
> no objection
> 
> >
> >
> > IGF submits an annual report to the UN ECOSOC Commission on Science and
> > Technology for Development. Does MAG have any role in writing this
> report?
> > If not, why so? In real spirit of a multi-stakeholder body we think that
> an
> > annual assessment of IGF should be prepared by the MAG itself, and not
> just
> > by the UN SG's office. In this context, it will also be appropriate that
> the
> > annual report gives information/ assessment as per different parts of
> > paragraph 72 of TA which lays out the mandate of the IGF. We very much
> look
> > forward to such a report which we understand should be ready by the
> > Information Week events in May, 2008. It should also revisit the overall
> > spirit of the TA, and the imperatives that it sought to address in the
> area
> > of IG, in making its assessment report for the IGF.
> >
> 
> ok
> 
> >
> >
> > We will also like to know if the IGF has any plans or possibility for
> > inter-sessional work? Also, how does IGF relate to national and regional
> > level IGFs, which have begun to be take shape in some places? Will IGF
> like
> > to directly encourage such entities, which are strongly multi-
> stakeholder,
> > modeling themselves on the IGF, which will also be in accordance to
> relevant
> > parts of Tunis Agenda for WSIS follow up activity at regional and
> national
> > levels.
> >
> 
> ok
> 
> >
> >
> > Greater financial support for the IGF, through untied public funds, is
> one
> > of the central imperatives for improving the effectiveness, and
> > consequently, the meaningfulness, of the IGF. We understand that a
> meeting
> > among potential funders is being held in Geneva around the February
> > consultations on this issue, and we look forward to some positive
> results
> > from that meeting.
> >
> >
> >
> > IGF should also fund the participation of at least 5 members of civil
> > society from developing and least developed countries to ensure
> meaningful
> > participation in its open consultations.
> >
> 
> Do you mean participation in MAG open consultations, or participation
> in the MAG itself?
> 
> >
> >
> > (Closing thank you stuff 
)
> >
> >
> >
> > (ends)
> >
> 
> --
> Cheers,
> 
> McTim
> $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.2/1271 - Release Date:
> 11/02/2008
> 08:16
> 
> 
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.2/1271 - Release Date:
> 11/02/2008
> 08:16
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.2/1271 - Release Date: 11/02/2008
08:16
 

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.2/1271 - Release Date: 11/02/2008
08:16
 

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance