[governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language)

[William Drake]

Parminder, Meryem,

On 2/18/08 7:14 PM, "Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
  
>   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 Agenda¹s
> 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.

I'm tired and want to make sure I understand what you are advocating.
Leaving aside the "what to call them" question (I suspect they, governments,
and business will continue to say technical community---it's the category
being used for the OECD summit as well), I'm wondering about the grounds for
the definitional boundaries.  When you say they are not stakeholders but
rather something else, is the they in question only people who actually work
for said entities, like in secretariats?  Paid employment is the determining
factor rather than activities and outlook, so for example with respect to
the current mAG we'd mean only the people who are on the payrolls of
registries, standards bodies, ISOC, and ICANN?  And that anyone else who
simply participates in said orgs (and processes, like IETF) or even has a
pro bono leadership position therein is to be allocated among government,
industry, and CS?  It's a little awkward to talk about individuals (luckily
some are here, so I hereby apologize in advance for invoking your names),
but thinking from concrete examples, the caucus would then be saying that
Alex and George (as an advisor) are henceforth declared to be CS, whereas
Patrick and Des (advisor) are to be private sector, and so on, irrespective
of their views, activities, affiliations, self-identifications, etc?  And
also that anyone who gets paid by government, PS, or CS but is heavily
involved in ICANN, ISOC, IETF, whatever, should henceforth be nominated by
one of the three UN stakeholder groupings and be counted from their "seat
allocations"?  If this is right, and were somehow to be followed, how might
this affect mAG composition?

Sorry for being dim, thanks for clarifying.

Bill





____________________________________________________________
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