[governance] Reconstituting MAG

[Parminder]

Bill

I think that there has been some strong views on the list to resolve the
'technical community' issue. McTim is the only one who has had 'clear'
reservations but these are more to do with reducing the numbers of IAB reps,
than the semantics involved. (You separately have endorsed Adam's view that
we should ask for a reduced number of IAB reps). Now, one, even with McTim's
reservations a rough consensus can be called (though it will require
Vittorio to play a major role in it bec the principal contestations on this
issue have been between McTim and me). Two, I really think that McTim's
observations can be worked into a compromise statement which I propose
below. He himself explicitly says that he means a set of bodies/
organizations when he says 'technical community'. Others have the view that
it looks more like meaning technical expertise (as meant in my original
draft, asking for distributing such expertise across sectors, which part of
the draft has been supported by many whereby obviously they also share this
meaning of 'tech community').

The compromise statement makes separate provision for clear representation
of both the groups, also explaining what we mean by each. 

As for the time available, I know we don't have much of it, but we have done
statements in time shorter than this, and it is important to solve important
issues and make some clear positions to the MAG/IGF when we are it. A week
is a long time... I know people have only that much time to give it in a
day, but I think if we do put some collective time into this at this
important junction of crucial IGF consultations we can make it. Best of luck
to all of us :) 

Proposed para
(starts)

We are of the opinion that the MAG membership should be equally divided
among governments, civil society and the business sector. As for the
technical community's representation, there is some confusion in the way
this term is used. It is taken to mean technical experts by some, and the
bodies in-charge of Internet administration at present (ICANN, RIRs, IETF
etc) by others. The two are obviously very different meanings.
Representation of both these groups is important. We think that technical
expertise should be spread across government, civil society and business
sector constituencies, as we find technical experts in all these areas
working within each sector's scope of work and interests. An adequate
availability of technical expertise inside MAG should be an important
criterion among others while finalizing members from each of these sectors.

On the other hand, we are the opinion that the organizations/bodies that are
in charge of Internet administration currently (ICANN, RIRs, IETF etc)
should have a right to be represented as a distinct category, which not to
be confused with technical expertise, should be referred to as ' existing
Internet administration bodies' (IABs) and a clear separate quota of around
6 should be set for them. The rest of the number should equally be divided
among governments, civil society and the business sector. The
representatives of IABs will have the same standing as other members of the
MAG.

(ends)

This is quickly written text to enable us to move forward, and can be
improved a lot. I will try to integrate it with the proposed text given by
Ian. 

"On the issue of representation of technical community it is important to
appreciate that the above three way division is as per political
representation based on interests of, or representation of different
interests through these three traditional UN sectors. However, we appreciate
the importance of the involvement of representatives of existing Internet
administration bodies, and recommend that a block of say six representatives
should be included, separate to the allocations mentioned above. While
appreciating that the term "technical community" has sometimes been used to
describe this necessary representation, we do not believe that technical
expertise is the primary requirement for this group or the basis on which
they should be selected.


Parminder 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 3:16 PM
> To: Governance
> Subject: Re: [governance] Reconstituting MAG
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On 2/12/08 6:32 PM, "Lee McKnight" <lmcknigh at syr.edu> wrote:
> 
> > 3) But agreeing on new definitions of 'technical community' or CS or
> pretty
> > much anything in 2 weeks time is going to be hard to achieve on a
> listserv;
> > maybe worth trying but more important is to get most of Parminder's
> draft
> > tuned by rough consensus hopefully so it can go forward as our
> collective
> > views.
> 
> Right, as demonstrated by the McTim/Parminder exchange.  Less than two
> weeks
> to the consultation, lots of issues outstanding and not being worked
> through, and presumably we'd want the secretariat to post a caucus
> statement
> to the website prior, meaning next Thursday-Friday latest.  With no
> consensus likely, if people feel we simply must address this now, the only
> option would be to use the voting mechanism, so several days for that
> would
> have to be factored in, meaning the draft would have to be complete by
> Monday or so (and if I recall an earlier message from Avri correctly, the
> system used for our prior vote isn't available).  And if we do manage to
> vote, then what?  Let's say we release a statement saying that the caucus
> decided by a vote of 12 to 8 or whatever that henceforth the people who
> refer to themselves and are referred to by others as the technical
> community
> should now be called the "current IG dispensation' group" (Guru) or the
> "representatives of existing Internet administration bodies" (Ian)?  What
> do
> we expect to happen in consequence?
> 
> This is not "self-censorship," Meryem, I'm just asking what sort of
> process
> and outcome is envisaged on this.  And on the other issues covered in
> Parminder's draft, some of which are more tractable both here and in the
> larger environment.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Bill
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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