[governance] Reconstituting MAG

[Jeremy Malcolm]

On 12/02/2008, at 3:53 PM, Parminder wrote:

> I am willing to consider a separate
> category of 6-7 'institutional members' (representing existing IG
> institutions) in the MAG, and the rest of the numbers equally  
> divided among
> three stakeholder groups (gov, CS, business sector). I seek your and  
> other
> members response to this proposal.

This can be justified if they are equated to the intergovernmental  
"observers" (whom as the latest MAG discussion thread document  
indicates do rather more than observe).  Since the TA sometimes talks  
of intergovernmental organisations as a fourth stakeholder group, but  
at other times talks of "international organisations" (which are  
clearly intended to refer to other IG institutions), there is merit in  
treating the two groups the same.

The implications of this are that the IG institutional members could  
be excluded from civil society's quota of MAG members, which would  
automatically mean a larger number for traditional non-technical civil  
society.  Any IG institution that can demonstrate its interest would  
be able to send a representative to the meetings without specific  
limit of number, but subject to the discretion of the Chair, as is the  
case for intergovernmental representatives at present.

But if we did that there would also be merit in, as Milton says,  
reducing the fixed stakeholder positions so that there would be closer  
to 40 all together, including observers and advisers.

-- 
Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com
Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor
host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'


____________________________________________________________
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