[governance] Reconstituting MAG

[Ian Peter]

I think Meryem's proposed wording is as close as we are going to get, i.e.

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. Full civil society representation is necessary to
ensure legitimacy for this new experiment in global governance.

. There are seven civil society members at present in a MAG of 40, an
anomaly which should be corrected in this round of rotation of members.
We think that as per Tunis Agenda’s multi-stakeholder approach, membership
should be divided equally among governments, civil society and the business
sector.

. We also agree that [Intergovernmental organizations having a facilitating
role in the coordination of Internet-related public policy issues and]
International organizations having an important role in the development of
Internet-related technical standards and relevant policies should continue
to be represented in the MAG. However, their current over-representation
should be corrected.

(I do have problems with the last sentence but am prepared to wear it - it's
not that they are over-represented so much but that they are replacing CS
representation that concerns me)

Ian Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: Lee McKnight [mailto:lmcknigh at syr.edu] 
Sent: 19 February 2008 06:37
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; marzouki at ras.eu.org
Subject: Re: [governance] Reconstituting MAG

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

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.7/1285 - Release Date: 18/02/2008
05:50
 

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.7/1285 - Release Date: 18/02/2008
05:50
 

____________________________________________________________
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