[governance] Reconstituting MAG

[Ken Lohento]

Hi all

I can see that the discussion on the the internet technical community is 
very lively... my two cents on these discussions.

I acknowledge the great and unique impact of that community on the past 
and on-going development of the internet but my personal point of view 
is that we cannot consider that community as a fourth stakeholder group 
which deserves equal representation in the MAG, like the classic  more 
or less well defined three types of stakeholders. Mainly because this 
group of people is/can be already present in all the others, like 
academia. In the same time, we can't say they won't be formally and 
specifically part of the MAG, due to the key role they play and have in 
relation to IG.

A proposal is that we have a group of Technical IG Advisers (TIGAs :-) 
as we have other advisors. If we have 40 members for the MAG, 4 TIGAs 
may be appointed/included and the other stakeholders will provide 12 
each (ideally).

(Maybe it's appropriate now to redefine what CS is. Not along with this 
discussion, if not we might waist time (regarding the adoption of a 
text). Because there are many concepts of CS and the old classic 
definition is no more totally valid since some private sector 
stakeholders may claim there are within the CS.)

Other comments on the renewal of the MAG (reaction to the text Parminder 
proposed on 11 February):

I agree it's good to recommend the Secretariat to use "MAG" instead of 
"AG"; that IGF Secretariat funds at least 5 least developed and 
developing country stakeholders for open consultations; agree that the 
working methods and decision making procedures of the MAG should be more 
clearly defined; I like the idea of having working groups within the 
MAG. I would even propose that starting from now, half of the MAG 
members should rotate each year, but maybe 1/3 is wiser. SG Advisers in 
the MAG's role and the status of their contributions in MAG discussions 
should also be more clearly precised. Having only one Chair and a 
second  deputy Chair (from the host country) is a good option.

Finally I think funding participation of *all* CS members and developing 
country private sector members of the MAG is required.

Regards

Ken L
____________________________________________________________
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