[governance] Reconstituting MAG

[Meryem Marzouki]

Le 12 févr. 08 à 08:15, Parminder a écrit :

>
>> 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.

Strongly agree too. Not only this (conceptually as well as  
politically) much needed clarification would be useful for the IGF,  
but for other arenas, including intergovernmental organizations that  
are currently making some steps towards "inclusion" of non-gov, non- 
business actors. And, wherever these efforts are undertaken to  
include civil society, the "technical community" as an additional  
stakeholder is now mentioned. We have to avoid this very dangerous  
slippery slope.
[Note that sometimes there are also tentatives to include "academia"  
as a stakeholder per se. This generally rather occur is arenas  
traditionally focusing on cultural issues, e.g. Unesco. Although this  
shoudn't be ignored, it has less consequences, specially since  
"academia" could easily be merged (back) with civil society.]

We have two main objective arguments to advance this clarification:
1. internet administration bodies exist, are well identified as  
organized bodies (be they incorporated or not), and can be  
*represented*. In addition, their number (less than 10) is manageable.
2. as Parminder has clearly explained, "Technical community’s  
presence is based on the requirement of necessary expertise, and  
therefore is of a different nature." So the technical expertise, as  
well as any other kind of expertise, is transversal not only to any  
organization or body in the IG field, and is present inside all  
stakeholders (governments, business, internet administration bodies,  
civil society). This means that the technical expertise does not need  
to be a requirement at the global arena level, but at the stakeholder  
level, leaving up to each stakeholder to include technical expertise  
when found necessary.

Back to the MAG issue specifically, and regarding Adam's concern that  
it would be difficult to thin down the MAG because of government  
representation. If there's one stakeholder that is well organized,  
it's the governmental stakeholder, no doubt in this. Governements may  
follow their well defined structuration following the UN regions, and  
there are 6 of them.

Otherwise, the MAG can only get bigger, per the equal division  
between stakeholder requirement, and based on the so-called "equal  
footing" claim of the IGF.

Meryem____________________________________________________________
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