[governance] Reconstituting MAG

[Parminder]

> 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).

I am removing the part on '40 is  a good number'. But pl see my email to
Milton - if we do not any give numbers, and just say appropriate number for
Int orgs and appropriate number for CS, they will say yes, we will give you
appropriate numbers... Nor are we ready to say give us one fourth, bec we
think Int orgs are represented as a special group.


> 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.

Right. I will remove reference to speaking about stakeholder category for
Int orgs and just say they need to be represented.


Something like


  The rules for membership of the MAG, including in terms of representation
of different stakeholders, should be clearly established, and made open
along with due justifications. We think that as per Tunis Agenda’s
multi-stakeholder approach, ideally membership should be divided equally
among governments, civil society and the business sector. However, we agree
that Internet organizations should continue to be represented in the MAG.
Their current over-representation however should be corrected in the
envisaged process of rotation of members.

Instead of (as present)

  The rules for membership of the MAG, including in terms of representation
of different stakeholders, should be clearly established, and made open
along with due justifications. We think that as per Tunis Agenda’s
multi-stakeholder approach, ideally membership should be divided equally
among governments, civil society and the business sector. However, we agree
that Internet organizations should continue to be represented as a separate
stakeholder group in the MAG. Their current over-representation however
should be corrected in the envisaged process of rotation of members.

Parminder 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Meryem Marzouki [mailto:marzouki at ras.eu.org]
> Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 10:59 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] Reconstituting MAG
> 
> 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


____________________________________________________________
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