[governance] Reconstituting MAG

[Adam Peake]

>I must ask Lee and Bill if they do or do not agree with Meryem's
>formulation.


I'm not sure if I agree or not with all the 
recent email (sorry, busy day, not read it 
all...)  but one thing:

>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. Full civil society representation is necessary to
>ensure legitimacy for this new experiment in global governance.
>
>. There are seven civil society members at present in a MAG of 40,


46 members (my count).  Plus 2 chairs (at the moment) and 12 special advisers.

7 from 46.

Adam



>an
>anomaly which should be corrected in this round of rotation of members.
>We think that as per Tunis Agenda’s multi-stakeholder approach, membership
>should be divided equally among governments, civil society and the business
>sector.
>
>. We also agree that [Intergovernmental organizations having a facilitating
>role in the coordination of Internet-related public policy issues and]
>International organizations having an important role in the development of
>Internet-related technical standards and relevant policies should continue
>to be represented in the MAG. However, their current over-representation
>should be corrected.
>
>( I personally suggest that the part within brackets be removed)
>
>
>And their views on Ian replacing the last sentence
>
>"However, their current over-representation should be corrected."
>
>With
>
>"However, their representation should not be at the expense of broader civil
>society participation"
>
>(my personal view, as first stated by Adam and supported by Bill, is that
>they are really over-represented and perhaps we shd mention the fact. In
>fact both of them, and I concur, seem to prefer giving a specific number 6
>as the appropriate quota for them. In these interventions people do not take
>notice of generalities, and it is better to say clear pointed things. Ian's
>formulation may be too general which everyone can accept in principle
>without it making any change whatsoever on the ground.)
>
>(so, I still prefer mentioning over-representation, and mentioning the
>number 6).
>
>
>Parminder
>
>
>
>>  -----Original Message-----
>>  From: Meryem Marzouki [mailto:marzouki at ras.eu.org]
>>  Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 4:04 AM
>>  To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>  Subject: Re: [governance] Reconstituting MAG
>>
>>  Lee,
>>
>>  Le 18 févr. 08 à 20:37, Lee McKnight a écrit :
>>
>>  > Meryem,
>>  >
>>  > I agree they're different. I'm just saying whatever their true
>>  > nature and purpose, for recognition at the global level they have
>>  > to at least claim they're serving general and not particular
>>  > interests.
>>
>>  As you may have noticed, I'm not entering this debate: some of them
>>  serve the general interest, other serve particular interest. That
>>  could also be claimed about some CS org, after all, or even to some
>>  governments. Thus, the point is not to qualify each of them, saying
>>  that this tech org rather serve general interest while that one is
>>  serving some private interest.
>>
>>  They just need to be there, but not as a stakeholder (with equal
>>  repartition of seats as we're asking for), but as organizations ad
>>  hoc to the field. I've already said this, but let me repeat that if
>>  we were discussing a global governance forum on say, environment,
>>  then we would find again gov, biz, cs + environment-related ad hoc org.
>>
>>  > So they don't count against the CS quota
>>
>>  They do, currently
>>
>>  > but hopefully are often on the same side.
>>
>>  Again, that's not the point I'm afraid.
>>
>>  > You see where I'm going with MAG 2.0: intl orgs + CS = 50%
>>  > (roughly); biz + govts = 50%.
>>
>>  :) or is it :( ?!
>>
>>  ____________________________________________________________
>>  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

____________________________________________________________
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