[governance] Reconstituting MAG

[Parminder]

> 46 members (my count).  Plus 2 chairs (at the moment) and 12 special
> advisers.
> 
> 7 from 46.
> 
> Adam


Thanks, Adam. We instinctively know you will correct us in such details,
which allow us to indulgence ourselves in not doing our homework. :)

In fact I was just now thinking that the numbers of 11 or so of int orgs, 20
plus of gov and around 7 each of CS and PS just did not look right for a
total of 40. 

Parminder 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 1:45 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder
> Subject: RE: [governance] Reconstituting MAG
> 
> >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