[governance] Reconstituting MAG

[Parminder]

I myself was confused, and a google search didn't clarify much. But I
thought that referring to a national/ state political thinking to
characterize the dominant thinking of global tech community would be
completely out of place, so I gave quarters to Suresh's comments and took
them to refer to the dominant thinking associated with tech community called
'Californian ideology' which for all its fault is at least seen as an
international phenomenon. 

Parminder 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 9:46 PM
> 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


____________________________________________________________
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