[governance] Reconstituting MAG

Wed Feb 13 13:24:23 EST 2008

Parminder,

The text is closer to acceptable than I thought you could get at this
stage, congrats for that : ) A few comments below:

First, as was noted, IAB has a several decades old, particular meaning
in Internet circles. It is therefore problematic as an acronym. I
suggest IAO, for Organization; wikipedia says it also is a gnostic
demi-god, Hawaiian for 'dawn,' and was oh yeah the acronym for DARPA's
now defunct Information Awareness Office ; ). Seriously, you need
another acronym.

Second, tactically I am not sure we as CS want to be advocating more
quotas and categories. Usually we're all for openness and inclusiveness
right.  On other hand recognizing the landscape and clearly thinking
through definitions is a good thing, so I could be convinced otherwise,
but for now I think civil society's interests are best served by being
co-equal in the phrase 'government, business, and civil society.'  At a
more granular level who should be in MAG, roles and functions of
Internet governance, etc, then sure more categories and clearly
understanding roles and interests is helpful.

More important, I want to know what MAG is going to be in future, which
is the main point of your note.  So I agree it is good to raise the
issue of MAG composition and function going forward, but I suggest we
propose a process for deliberation and adjustment over the coming year,
to be reported and discussed in New Delhi.  Like the 'future of igf'
session last time but focused a level below at the precise structure and
purpose, and composition of the MAG, and its role in various proposed
activities of the IGF.  Which results in, gasp, a report, before or
after IGF.

Maybe a report from Wolfgang in his 'special advisor' capacity, maybe an
IGF working group appointed by Kummer, whatever, something concrete and
legally and administratively sound.  Not that the emails and your note
aren't fine and informative for what they are, but we're sort of talking
IGF (and MAG) constitutional principles here. And yeah I know the point
of the upcoming consultation is to gather views, but I think this is a
bigger deal not settled in 1 consultation. Or 1 IGC rough consensus doc.

Lee

Prof. Lee W. McKnight
School of Information Studies
Syracuse University
+1-315-443-6891office
+1-315-278-4392 mobile
>>> parminder at itforchange.net 02/13/08 5:43 AM >>>

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

____________________________________________________________
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