[governance] Reconstituting MAG

[Suresh Ramasubramanian]

Both these seem equally distasteful to quite a few people I see here. But
yes, my comment was in the context of prevailing silly valley political +
social + economic thinking.

Not the Hollywood variety thereof.

thanks
srs

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 8:16 AM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Suresh Ramasubramanian'; 'Parminder'
> Subject: RE: [governance] Reconstituting MAG
> 
> Hmmm...
> 
> Separated by a common language...
> 
> Suresh seems to be using the term "California Liberal" to refer (as US
> folks
> often do) to the propensity of certain highly visible Californians to
> support the liberal/left Democrats (Barbara Streisand for example);
> Parminder seems to be using the term "Californian Ideology"/"neo-
> liberals"
> (following Bradbrook and others and as folks in LDC's often do) to
> refer to
> the "neo-liberalism" (of the (Milton) Friedmanite/Boys from Chicago)
> strand
> of "libertarianism" found particularly among certain folks from Silicon
> Valley.
> 
> (or have I got that wrong somewhere...
> 
> MG
> 
> -----Original Message-----c
> From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net]
> Sent: February 18, 2008 6:31 AM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Carlos Afonso'; 'Milton L Mueller'
> Subject: RE: [governance] Reconstituting MAG
> 
> 
> It wont - in fact it will never happen.  Given that this particular
> group of
> people considers various internet technical bodies "not CS", doesn't
> like
> the liberal ideology of quite a few people participating in such
> bodies ..
> and even Jeremy seems to have a lot of misconceptions about the level
> of
> "governance"  the IETF, for example, can exercise.
> 
> So, question: Has all the discussion on this multiple hundred post
> thread
> been, ultimately, useless, and aimed at proposing something that's
> going to
> fall flat?
> 
> 	srs
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Carlos Afonso [mailto:ca at rits.org.br]
> > Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 6:25 AM
> > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller
> > Subject: Re: [governance] Reconstituting MAG
> >
> > I am one of the ones who said I feel it won't happen, but added that
> > if there is any reduction, it will not be on the governments' side.
> > This is UN, an intergovernmental body. They would prefer to enlarge
> it
> > to accommodate our plea of more representation (if we had the
> > leverage...) rather than think of a reduction.
> >
> > --c.a.
> >
> > Milton L Mueller wrote:
> > > I do support calling for reduction in the number. I do not recall
> > > any real "opposition" to it, just people who think that it won't
> > > happen.
> > We
> > > certainly cannot claim that there is consensus on the number 40,
> > since
> > > the preponderance of opinion as far as I can see is against that
> > large a
> > > number.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I also support those who warned you against getting involved in
> > specific
> > > numbers games and proportional quotas. It is enough to say that CS
> > > is underrepresented.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > >
> > > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Milton, Meryem, McKnight and others who have reservation on the
> > number
> > > 40 - do you want the sentence 'We think that 40 is a good number
> for
> > MAG
> > > members' struck off. I  am unable to specifically call for reducing
> > the
> > > number since there seems to be considerable opposition to this.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Some members seemed in favor of putting some mathematics in the
> > > statement to make a clear case for increased number for CS.  For
> > > this reason I do have to go by the present number 40, in this part
> > > of the statement. Meryem, you wanted me not to quote the number
> that
> > > can be reserved for the International Internet orgs reps - but I
> > > have gone
> > by
> > > the number 6 which a few of us quoted, because that allows me to
> > > complete the calculations for the asked for CS numbers. In any case
> > this
> > > number is clearly against a total of 40, so there can be no
> > > confusion about how this number may be interpreted.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > 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