[governance] Reconstituting MAG

[William Drake]

Hi Parminder,

I don't want to go around and around on the point, especially since the
concerns I've raised are more political/procedural than substantive.  But I
do think that the issue of defining the stakeholders in question is more
complex than your solution suggests; that a proper dissection of it would
take more time and broader dialogue than is possible now; that the consensus
for your approach is among a pretty small portion of the population reading
this thread; and that this may do more to deepen divides than anything else.
I hope I'm proven wrong on the last.  In any event, I would suggest a
different acronym than IABs, since one of them is the IAB, bit confusing.

Cheers,

Bill

On 2/13/08 11:43 AM, "Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

> 
> 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