[governance] Reforming MAG

[William Drake]

Hi Milton,

I wouldn¹t suggest not advocating something solely on the grounds that it
won¹t be accepted, but I would suggest that political viability ought to at
least be part of the calculation when deciding what it¹s worth spending time
and collective reputation on.  It¹s true that there¹s 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 they¹re free to go on and on
advocating non-starters etc); comes with being the weakest kids in the
sandbox.  

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 I¹d just be a little cautious
in framing proposals that can be read like, let¹s replace some you guys with
more of us; the draft says,

> 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

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 it¹d be better to blur the issue a little and make it not just about
us, e.g. by proposing rough proportions per group we¹d think it better to
shoot for...?

I don¹t see why 40 is inherently inefficient and unaccountable if it¹s 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 let¹s what people
think.  But we have a lot of disparate points to reach closure on quickly,
and we¹re trying to do it on a list..

Cheers,

BD

PS: Might help keep conversations clear if when you reply you keep the From
line of the person you¹re responding to.



On 2/12/08 3:54 PM, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

>  
> 
>>  
>>  
>> 
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> Number and Composition of MAG Members.  While I  understand the rationale for
>> Milton and McTim suggesting a radical reduction  in numbers, I suspect it¹s a
>> non-starter on political grounds and support  Parminder¹s wording on size and
>> rotation.  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> Strongly disagree, you make a much better suggestion  below
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  On the other hand, it  would seem that some don¹t 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
>> we¹d hope that only  governments that are prepared to attend and actively
>> contribute would seek to  be represented?
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> This would be very  sensible. Just eliminate the word "slight" so that we can
>> agree. 
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> 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.
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> 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.
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> 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.
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> 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. 
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> Inter-sessional Work and Mandate. To me these are key  topics.  I¹m glad
>> Parminder touched them, but I¹m not sure a series of  questions on each is
>> the most effective approach.  I wonder whether it¹d  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...)
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> and IGP, in its early  paper "Building an IG Forum" for the first
>> consultation. Agree with Bill's comments  here.
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> 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.
>>  
>>  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080212/2db4698c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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