[governance] Reconstituting MAG

[Parminder]

> This paragraph has lost the recommendation that the position of co-
> chair (or deputy chair, as you have it - I would prefer a co-chair)
> rotate between the stakeholder groups.  It's important not to lose
> that, even if you don't extend it to both chairs as I would.

Jeremy 

Ok, I will keep this point open. 

However I do personally think that when we are making the removal of gov
co-chair point, making this point of rotating the main chair as well, will
dilute the impact of the co-chair point. And the co-chair point is somewhat
more plausible to be considered especially since the CCBI and some others
have also made a similar point. But this is only one viewpoint, mine. Others
can comment on this...

Parminder 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au]
> Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 5:21 AM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder
> Subject: Re: [governance] Reconstituting MAG
> 
> On 18/02/2008, at 1:56 AM, Parminder wrote:
> 
> > .         We are of the opinion that in keeping with the multi-
> > stakeholder nature of the MAG, there should only be one chair,
> > nominated by the UN SG. The host country should be able to nominate
> > a deputy chair, an arrangement that would be helpful in context of
> > various issues of logistics for the annul IGF meetings. In any case,
> > we will like to understand the division of work and responsibility
> > between the two chairs, in the present arrangement? It may be too
> > late to move over to this suggested arrangement for the New Delhi
> > meeting, especially if the Indian government representative has
> > already taken over as the co-chair, but we can take a decision now
> > about the post-Delhi phase.
> 
> This paragraph has lost the recommendation that the position of co-
> chair (or deputy chair, as you have it - I would prefer a co-chair)
> rotate between the stakeholder groups.  It's important not to lose
> that, even if you don't extend it to both chairs as I would.
> 
> > .         (Alternate text for the above point since CSTD is an inter-
> > governmental body and there is nothing very exciting about it. But
> > every organization including IGF should have an annual report.) MAG
> > should prepare an annual report for the IGF. This report should
> > mention IGF activities and performance for the year against relevant
> > parts of the TA which lays out its mandate, and also outline plans
> > for the year ahead.
> >
> 
> I like the alternate text.
> 
> I didn't respond separately to the two suggested themes, but that was
> because I was (busy and) happy with them.  I am personally of the view
> that the proposed EC theme and last year's CIR theme can be wrapped
> together, if the CIR topic is to be focussed at the institutional level.
> 
> On the other hand I would not be averse to a particular substantive
> policy issue on ICANN's agenda (perhaps whether the issue of city
> gTLDs raises any legitimate global public policy concerns) being
> discussed intensively in a separate plenary session and the report of
> that session being delivered to ICANN.
> 
> --
> Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com
> Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor
> host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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