[governance] Reconstituting MAG

[Qusai Al-Shatti]

 --- Message Header --- 

The following message was sent by Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> on Tue, 12 Feb 2008 14:55:16 +0900.

> My problem with the technical community isn't 
> that they are represented, but there are too 
> many.  11 or 12 I think, with only 6 or 7 from 
> private sector and civil society respectively. 
> And I think people generally recognize a close 
> alignment between the private sector and 
> technical community (it is certainly apparent 
> inside the MAG.)  So I would rather see a 
> rebalancing, for example with perhaps the tech 
> community dropped to 5 or 6 of the roles McTim 
> mentions represented (ISOC is to all intent and 
> purposes .ORG, why two standards community... 
> though a personal preference would be a couple of 
> RIRs...)  With civil society increased by 3 or 4 
> and private sector by 2 or 3.
> 
> About the overall number, I think it will be 
> difficult to get below 40. And 40 is not ideal 
> but workable.
> 
> Adam

Thank you Adam for making a key point here. If we looked at the MAG work and the preparations for the IGF meetings including the work on the meetings program, we will find out that CS & private sector contributed far more than governments. This is why we would like to see first a rebalance rather than a rotation with increasing representaion of CS and private sector by the numbers you have mentioned. 

Regards,

Qusai Al-ShattiAt 7:52 AM +0300 2/12/08, McTim wrote:
> >hi,
> >
> >kudos for the draft.  Comments inline:
> 
> 
> agree: Parminder, thanks.
> 
> snip
> 
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>  -         Its membership should be divided equally between governments,
> >>  civil society, and business sector.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >and the technical community
> >
> 
> 
> I agree -- more below
> 
> >  >
> >>  -         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 sectors. Technical community's
> >>  presence on the other hand is based on the requirement of necessary
> >>  expertise, and therefore is of a different nature. This is also clear from
> >>  the language of relevant paragraphs of TA. This may not be construed as
> >>  undermining the importance of the technical community. The expertise
> >>  provided by this community should be appropriately divided between all the
> >>  three sectors, and the expertise criteria should be given due importance at
> >>  the time of final selection.
> >>
> >
> >I think this might backfire in re; getting the kind of CS folk that
> >you (and some others on the list) seek.  To get adequate
> >representation on the MAG for the technical community, most of those
> >"slots" would need to come from CS side, so at a minimum, I would say
> >that we (as CS seeking expertise) would want;
> >
> >1 ICANN staff (currently T. Swinehart)
> >1 ISOC staff (representing users) (currently Matt Shears)
> >1 (non-profit) gTLD person (.org?, no rep as of now IIRC)
> >1 (non-profit) ccTLD person (currently Emily Taylor/Chris Disspain)
> >1 NRO/numbering community person (currently AA)
> >1 IETF person (IETF) (currently Pat Fältström)
> >1 W3C person (currently Daniel Dardailler)
> >
> >This would give adequate "clue", but take up about half of the CS
> >"slots", leaving 6 or 7 (if divided equally) for academics and other
> >NGOs working in this space.  Is that enough for the "human rights,
> >ICT4D, intellectual property, international trade and global
> >electronic commerce, access to knowledge, and security" (quote from
> >our charter).
> >
> >Business interests may appoint one or two Inet community folk, but I
> >don't think Gov'ts will (perhaps ITU persons already in Geneva, but
> >they probably don't think of themselves as internet technical
> >community folk).
> 
> 
> I don't want to get into an argument about where 
> members of the technical community might drag 
> members from (FWIW I think most are private 
> sector oriented not civil society, being non 
> profit isn't relevant, however not easy to pigeon 
> hole), but for sure it will be from civil society 
> and private sector in some measure.  So we likely 
> loose out.
> 
> The advisory group isn't a creation of the Tunis 
> Agenda and referring to the early paragraphs as 
> strict rules for its design doesn't make sense. 
> The MAG, it's design, came from contributions to 
> the first series of consultations 2 years ago, 
> the multistakeholder advisory group + chair and 
> secretariat is the interpretation those 
> consultations put on the instruction to 
> "establish an effective and cost-efficient bureau 
> to support the IGF, ensuring multistakeholder 
> participation."
> 
> My problem with the technical community isn't 
> that they are represented, but there are too 
> many.  11 or 12 I think, with only 6 or 7 from 
> private sector and civil society respectively. 
> And I think people generally recognize a close 
> alignment between the private sector and 
> technical community (it is certainly apparent 
> inside the MAG.)  So I would rather see a 
> rebalancing, for example with perhaps the tech 
> community dropped to 5 or 6 of the roles McTim 
> mentions represented (ISOC is to all intent and 
> purposes .ORG, why two standards community... 
> though a personal preference would be a couple of 
> RIRs...)  With civil society increased by 3 or 4 
> and private sector by 2 or 3.
> 
> About the overall number, I think it will be 
> difficult to get below 40. And 40 is not ideal 
> but workable.
> 
> Adam
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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