[governance] Reforming MAG

[Jeanette Hofmann]

Hi, I agree with Bill's suggestion below:

 >  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...?

The numeric share of a group doesn't translate directly into influence 
on the forming of opinions on the MAG. Quite a few government reps 
hardly participate in the discussions. The contributions of a group are 
much more important than a few members more or less. This is why I think 
it is sufficient to refer to the principle of balanced or equal 
composition.

As I have probably said before, I think we should stick to 3 groups 
(govs, biz, cs) instead of adding another group. My reason for this is 
pragmatic. The more distinct groups, the more complex the task to 
represent and balance them, and also the more arbitrary the rules of 
inclusion and exclusion. For example, should environmental effects 
become an important governance issue, how would we justify the exclusion 
of respective stakeholder groups from the MAG? What we need is broad 
categories that can be filled flexibly reflecting changing needs in 
terms of skills and interests. This is why I agree with Parminder's 
suggestion to distribute (technical) experts among the stakeholder 
groups. The fact that many technical experts wear indeed several hats 
makes this a rather easy thing to do. Patrik Faltstroem, a present 
member of the MAG, could be there in a government ticket, an IETF or a 
business ticket. This is true for many other technical celebrities as well.

jeanette



> 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,
> 
>>  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 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...?
> 
> 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..
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> BD
> 
> PS: Might help keep conversations clear if when you reply you keep the 
>  From line of the person you’re 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 it’s a non-starter on political
>         grounds and support  Parminder’s wording on size and rotation.
> 
>          
>          
>         Strongly disagree, you make a much better suggestion  below
> 
>          
>          
>         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?
> 
>          
>          
>         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.
>          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...)  
> 
>          
>          
>         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.
> 
>          
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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