[governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language)

[Parminder]

> 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.

And if I have not got your point right, and you are merely wondering if who
pays should be the main identity defining characteristic, I think who pays
is important and can never be lost sight of, but if substantive activity is
carried out as a part an specific organization within its overall role and
mandate and representing its interests (and not specifically of the paying
party) than a person can be said to come from that organization, and be
presented accordingly in MAG. In any case this is a decision to be taken by
the concerned org if they will put forward the said person as their rep, and
thereby counted in their quota. And whether the person is a rep of the pay
master, it is the decision of the pay master, and according considered in
that category/ quota.

As I said these are complex issues and while we can have some overall
principles they may still be needed to be sorted out at specific levels.

Parminder 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 12:46 PM
> To: 'William Drake'; 'Governance'; 'Marzouki, Meryem'
> Subject: RE: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language)
> 
> 
> > 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


____________________________________________________________
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