[governance] Reconstituting MAG

[Meryem Marzouki]

Hi Parminder and al.

Le 18 févr. 08 à 14:24, Parminder a écrit :

> 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.
>

I'm still of the opinion that it's not a good idea to mention any  
number (including for the overall MAG size. Why saying that we find  
40 a good number? Let's not mention anything about this in this  
caucus statement, and some people may raise the issue in their own  
name during the meeting).
We may perfectly address CS representation through percentages and  
keep focusing on the *main* issue, i.e. to have equal proportions  
among the 3 stakeholders. So: yes to mathematics, no to bargaining:)

Moreover, my opinion is that Internet organizations rep. shouldn't be  
qualified as 'stakeholders', but as organizations that need to be  
involved. So, 1/3 gov, 1/3 biz, 1/3 cs (stakeholders), plus a  
reasonable number of major global Internet org rep, plus IGOs  
involved in the field, and you're set.

another clarification: 'One third of MAG members should be rotated  
every year' means 1/3 rotation inside each stakeholder group, right?  
Shouldn't this be made clearer? Just in case..

Finally: I really prefer your previous statement. This one seems too  
much detailed, entering too much into numbers and case studies, and  
diluting the main issue. Moreover, I'm afraid it's inconsistent: you  
say "TA also rightly recognizes international organizations involved  
in IG as a stakeholder category", then you want to give them less  
seats than other stakeholders.
EITHER they're a stakeholder, and they should be given as many seats  
as other stakeholders OR they aren't a stakeholder - rather  
organizations that have to be represented in addition to the normal  
stakeholder for reasons we've already discussed on this list: their  
difference in nature, their transversality, etc. -, and they should  
be given a limited number of seats (preferably less than true  
stakeholders:))
I hardly see any other option.

Best,
Meryem

____________________________________________________________
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