[governance] Reconstituting MAG

[Ian Peter]

I think there is more consensus than meets the eye here. I think what we all
seem to agree on is

1. CS agrees that there should be representatives of current internet
governance institutions on the MAG. 
2. Somewhere around 6 representatives (if MAG levels stay the same) seems a
proper level for this group
3. Some CS members have misgivings about the accuracy of the term technical
community to describe this representation
4. CS feels that civil society is under-represented on the current MAG
5. There is a range of views within CS as to whether the representation for
current internet administration groups should be drawn equally from
traditional stakeholder groups (government, business, civil society) or
treated separately.

I think we are close to a very good statement - is it possible to see a
recompilation?

 
-----Original Message-----
From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] 
Sent: 14 February 2008 03:36
To: 'William Drake'; 'Governance'
Subject: RE: [governance] Reconstituting MAG


 
> 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; 

But we will never discuss these things in leisure. The time for renewal of
MAG, when the issue and meaning of tech community is being discussed even
inside MAG, I think is the perfect time for discussing this issue. Why
postpone it. I consider it politically one of the most important issue to
discuss, especially when the community confusion/ overlap is mostly with CS.

Other matters in th statement can be decided even when we keep discussing
this issue. I don't see any other time coming which will be especially good
for this discussion. Other than, of course, if we put it to vote. Which in
my opinion we should if it remains inconclusive for the open consultations. 

that the
> consensus
> for your approach is among a pretty small portion of the population
> reading
> this thread;

I saw only McTim having some objections, and no other clear objection
(correct me if I am wrong). If others have objection they need to come out
and say it. Playing coy wont work, because we are trying to accomplish
important caucus business and other people have out their views out on the
matter. It will of course be helpful if stating ones position is accompanied
with some amount of rationale and if necessary some minimum degree of
engagement with others who may have some differing views. That in my view is
how this caucus should be functioning. 


 and that this may do more to deepen divides than anything
> else.

Well, don't have much to say on this. That way we will not discus anything
for the fear of deepening divides, and divides will stay and the caucus will
continue to be politically ineffective.

> I hope I'm proven wrong on the last.  

Me too hopes. 

In any event, I would suggest a
> different acronym than IABs, since one of them is the IAB, bit confusing.

This is wide open. Suggestions welcome.
> 
> 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

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.4/1275 - Release Date: 12/02/2008
15:20
 

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.4/1276 - Release Date: 13/02/2008
09:41
 

____________________________________________________________
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