[governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language)

[Parminder]

> I'm tired and want to make sure I understand what you are advocating.

OK let me try to clarify.

But since the complexities of these discussions are seen by most, rightly
so, in relation to the urgency to get the statement finalized, I must also
mention the real issue that holding this up.

Some members (very very few - 2 as per my present count) keep insisting
ICANN is CS. This view is coming in the way of framing one part of the
statement. I myself have a problem with the statement if IGC is to admit
that we indeed are not clear if ICANN is CS. That’s a bottom-line issue for
many of us here. And this in the context when we are asking for
clarification of various terms and rules about MG. 


> 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), 

TA calls them international organizations. So we have ground to build on.
And that’s the normal UN usage, and we as CS can try to align our usage with
one side or the other as in our views suits our interests. So once again, it
is not about whats already happening, but also what we want to do. I don’t
know why it doesn’t bother you that tech community means all techies whether
they support ICANN plus or not, and the same term is used to mean ICANN plus
as organizations, and its reps include lawyers and managers. And that this
confusion is deliberately used to create the impression of a sovereign
community that exercises power but is not responsible to others.

I'm wondering about the grounds
> for
> the definitional boundaries.  

Before I clarify further you did indicate in the first response to the first
draft of the statement - particularly against the para which dealt with
definitional boundaries - that you have always argued on lines similar to
what was drafted. Can I request clarification on what are your own views on
these definitional issues that you used to argue.


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?  

I myself am not very particular about saying they are NOT stakeholders.
Meryem insisted, on the grounds that they are ad hoc parties since the issue
here is IG, and there will be similar ad hoc parties requiring
representation if we were, for instance, speaking about environment, or
health. In fact since these Int orgs actually do policy I consider them as
another category of gov institutions, and am ready to include them as
stakeholders. I don’t think though by very fact of admitted someone as a
stakeholder one is necessarily entitled to an equal quota. Meryem wants to
stick to normal UN etc stakeholder nomenclature of stakeholder, and I think
she has some good reason for it.

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?  

I think first of all it is not so much about individuals. The main problem
is about some people here insisting that ICANN as an institution is civil
society. I think it is possible to see this as a different problem than of
sorting out where X person or Y belongs, due to multiple hats and such
issues. So, to repeat, the statement and all ensuing discussion has only
addressed the issue of whether ICANN plus institutions themselves are CS,
and not gone into sorting out issues about specific individuals. 


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?  

The issue of individuals is at a different level, and not unique to Int
orgs. It happens so often with gov's and less often with private sector. In
gov.s, CS members, in any democracy, participate in committees upon
committees - which are of varying nature. Some advisory, some of more
executive functions, some very centrally policy making and /or executive....
every CS person and her networks and connected groups take different stances
depending on the situation. But yes there are times when a person clearly
excuses herself of CS role and identity, which she may at a later time come
back to.  

As Dan commented in an email yesterday negotiating complexities is a routine
matter in social-political arena, and it is not always fruitful to seek
simple solutions. 

So, in the same way as we deal with the CS person's participation in gov
issue we can deal with CS persons participation in Int Orgs issue. Basic
principles are the same - how centrally involved one is with the power
structure of the concerned governance organization (governments or Int org).
About the names you mention I do not know of their role enough to comment on
their status, and neither is up to me to make the identity distinction in
specific cases. But yes the concerned person, and her network and groups
will have to do some thinking in case the person is too closely associated
with a policy making body. 

> irrespective
> of their views, activities, affiliations, self-identifications, etc?  

Meryem has clarified that views are the not the main thing here. Don’t you
know some gov (or private sector) people with progressive views - more than
of many CS people. About activities - yes, if one is doing a lot of
different activities we have to figure out which one is primary (in
connection to the context), but if policy making and/or executive function
in a gov body is a major activity, then we have to think about the CS role/
identity of that person. About affiliations - that’s for the concerned group
to decide, we can try to do it for IGC. About self-identification - in
complex situations this becomes an important parameter - but it has
exceptions, for instance a member of a gov body in a repressive country
trying to sit in CS bodies invoking self-identification. There can be other
kinds of exceptions. 

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"?  

No, I am fine with they coming in ICANN plus's quota and representing them.
Who said anything to the contrary? I think you may be confusing tech
community, on one hand, as we describe as a cross-cutting category (as we
did in 07 statements, and in the first draft in the present process) where
we mean all techies whosoever, and Int tech community (also often called
tech community), on the other hand, by which is meant int orgs... a good
proof that it is important that this confusion be avoided by using clearly
different names for these two very different categories, isn’t it.  

If this is right, and were somehow to be followed, how
> might > this affect mAG composition?

I am not ready to deal with MAG composition as a statistical issue. I place
it within the broader issue of MAG structure, role, legitimacy,
representative-ness etc. and this is the issue under consideration, and if
it is not, we want it to be. Again, when you say used to argue about tech
community on the same lines as the first draft I wonder to what end and
purpose you did these arguments. 

And if we are not ready to examine these issues we will be doing it at our
own peril. 

Parminder 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 1:29 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