[governance] Reconstituting MAG

[Lee McKnight]

Meryem,

I agree they're different. I'm just saying whatever their true nature and purpose, for recognition at the global level they have to at least claim they're serving general and not particular interests. Noone's proposing individual private firms and trade associations as deserving special treatment by IGF right. So if that's all they are then they don't deserve a seat at the global table.  

I'm not suggesting we agree with the status quo, I'm saying we raise the issue of the international tech community/admin orgs and say a special category is needed.  So they don't count against the CS quota but hopefully are often on the same side.

You see where I'm going with MAG 2.0: intl orgs + CS = 50% (roughly); biz + govts = 50%. 

I don't imagine we will get consensus on this formulation before the consultation, and therefore agree with you it's best to take numbers out as much as feasible.   

Lee

Prof. Lee W. McKnight
School of Information Studies
Syracuse University
+1-315-443-6891office
+1-315-278-4392 mobile
>>> marzouki at ras.eu.org 02/18/08 2:09 PM >>>

Le 18 févr. 08 à 19:59, Lee McKnight a écrit :

> Suresh, Parminder,
>
> I think it is a tactical error for CS to push away the international
> Internet orgs. I would like us to lay claim to them all as meant to
> serve global civil society's interests.   Of course when/if they fall
> short then there are grounds for criticism. Some might think of them
> more as industry self-regulatory bodies, but we should be trying to  
> lay
> claim to them ourselves, in my opinion. Even if there's sniping from
> both sides.

That's not the point. The point is that they're not a stakeholder,  
because they're of a different nature. As such, some (and sometimes)  
serve CS interests, others serve business interests or (some)  
governments interest.

> We all agree on the need for more CS representation in MAG 2.0 right?
> So let's leave it at that, and raise the issue of whether the tech/ 
> admin
> orgs get their own category or not as an open question.

You rather mean a closed question? Because not addressing this issue  
means that we agree with the statu quo.

____________________________________________________________
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