[governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language)

[Suresh Ramasubramanian]

Wonderful question, and it is one that I've been wondering about too.
That's just not going to happen, and Parminder's work risks being entirely
wasted if it sticks on this point.

Limiting MAG size and trying to impose quotas or even claim quotas is
counter productive

Trying to ignore the technical community and group them / split them like
this is entirely naïve and impractical, as Bill Drake's email below shows,
patently.

Calling for increased representation of CS - which is the goal here - and
putting forward suitable nominees for this - will get a lot more traction.

	suresh

> -----Original Message-----
> From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch]
> Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 11:59 AM
> To: Singh, Parminder; Governance; Marzouki, Meryem
> Subject: Re: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language)
> 
> 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

____________________________________________________________
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