[governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language)

[Meryem Marzouki]

[Disclaimer: This is not intended to be part of the discussion on the  
IGC statement, as we seem to be entering into a general, though very  
interesting, discussion on MAG members capacity/status]

Bill,

The good thing in becoming tired is that, at the end of the process,  
you put the finger on the very paradox (or is it the original sin?)  
of the IGF (and, before IGF, WGIG): participants, starting from MAG  
members, are supposed to be participating in their individual  
capacity, while at the same time being selected as "representatives"  
of a given stakeholder.

Without  any intention to talk about any particular individual, and  
also apologizing in advance to them, let's simply take the list of  
current MAG members and see how they are listed with their respective  
affiliations on the IGF website. For each of them, let's ask  
ourselves to which stakeholder they're supposed to belong, only by  
reading their affiliation. And we'll find that the answer in not so  
obvious for many of them, and not only for the so-called technical  
community.
Meryem

Le 18 févr. 08 à 20:58, William Drake a écrit :

> 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 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.
>
> 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