[governance] Reconstituting MAG

[Parminder]

> Parminder,
> 
> I'm not going to refute each of your points, as I can't really
> understand them (I understand each word separately, but the way you've
> strung them together makes them indecipherable to me) NB this is not a
> personal insult, it's just that our perspectives are so opposed that
> we are talking past each other.
> 
> so to save further agony to the other 300+ people on the list, I will
> just state:
> 
> 1)  I doubt you will get consensus on this list for removing the 4th
> stakeholder group from the MAG (or reducing it).

McTim

We are not asking so much for reducing or removing anyone, but for clarity
of 'naming', and this is not merely an empty semantic exercise but with a
good purpose as we have argued. (in the last part of this email I show how
you yourself use these terms in an unclear manner, but in manner of deriving
a strategic 'legitimising' advantage) 

And if you think it is a useless exercise to consider the matter of
technical community representation it may be of some significance to note
that this discussion is also going on within the MAG (pl see the details of
MAG elist deliberations at
http://intgovforum.org/AGD/AG_Discussion_Thread.pdf ). The discussion also
goes into examining the meaning of this term. If MAG can discuss this issue,
IGC as a CS deliberation and advocacy group has even better reasons to
discuss it. Avoiding these discussion serves the status quo, which is as
political a stance as persisting with them.

> 2) If the IGC does recommend to the MAG to remove the 4th stakeholder
> group, they will ignore this recommendation (and laugh at us).

Have you heard the laughter when they hear about some CS group's fantasy of
completely ungoverned and unregulated Internet. Since when has CS started to
be mindful of being laughed at. Pl give some more cogent arguments. 

> 3) If we do #2, we risk alienating the "Internet technical community"
> (this is not my term BTW). If they have so much "power", why won't
> they just "take their ball and go home".  They don't need the IGF/IGC,
> but the IGF certainly needs them.

I am interested to know whose term is it, and what it is supposed to mean.
'Who needs whom' is a vocabulary of power, and I don't want to engage with
it. Though it throws subtle suggestions about whose side one may be on. On
the other hand I do not know how you get this impression of such great power
of these institutions - don't forget governments are still by far the most
powerful group. Do you have any idea what US gov can do in day to ICANN?
Now, if they don't do it, this is because of existence of some intricate
network of soft powers. We have to be strategic, but CS in its submissions
will be as little afraid of alienating government (US gov, for instance) as
the internet governing establishment. 

> If we want enhanced cooperation, we as CS IGC have to start
> approaching the level of cooperation shown by the Inet community.

I am very conscious of the level of cooperation given by ICANN plus to any
process other than that which is controlled by it. And if they have at all
participated, then under what pressure. The mere inclusion of CIRs as a
discussion agenda is a recent example. BTW, thanks for advising IGC on
behalf of the internet community. 

Here again I am at a loss to know if this 'int community' you refer is the
user community (in which case, I do not understand what cooperation do you
speak of) or the 'internet tech community' (as per your definition
yesterday) in which case why do you keep using the term inter-changeably
even when you had clarified that Internet community now includes all
internet users and 'internet tech community' is described by you as the set
of organizations listed by you. Do you not think they are very very
different groups. Doesn't the use of the term internet community
interchangeably with the set of these organizations cause huge problems.
What is the purpose for persisting with this confusion, when it can be
avoiding by some means we are suggesting here. Does this 'confusion' not
give some strategic advantage to some sections/ groups?

So once again, to ask a specific question, pl clarify what do you mean by
the ' the level of cooperation shown by the Inet community'. I have tried to
make the questions as comprehensible as possible. 

Parminder 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 6:10 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder
> Subject: Re: [governance] Reconstituting MAG
> 
> Parminder,
> 
> I'm not going to refute each of your points, as I can't really
> understand them (I understand each word separately, but the way you've
> strung them together makes them indecipherable to me) NB this is not a
> personal insult, it's just that our perspectives are so opposed that
> we are talking past each other.
> 
> so to save further agony to the other 300+ people on the list, I will
> just state:
> 
> 1)  I doubt you will get consensus on this list for removing the 4th
> stakeholder group from the MAG (or reducing it).
> 
> 2) If the IGC does recommend to the MAG to remove the 4th stakeholder
> group, they will ignore this recommendation (and laugh at us).
> 
> 3) If we do #2, we risk alienating the "Internet technical community"
> (this is not my term BTW). If they have so much "power", why won't
> they just "take their ball and go home".  They don't need the IGF/IGC,
> but the IGF certainly needs them.
> 
> If we want enhanced cooperation, we as CS IGC have to start
> approaching the level of cooperation shown by the Inet community.
> 
> /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