[governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language)

[Meryem Marzouki]

Bill,

Do I understand correctly that what you're arguing is that,  
basically, IGC statement on MAG membership should state that "CS is  
under-represented"? We should better write a standard statement,  
then, to be used at each IGF consultation meeting. The good thing is  
that it would be consensual and always true (by any definition of CS  
on earth and over time).

"Tout ça pour ça!", as we say in French.. (something like "much ado  
about nothing", but not carrying exactly the same level of surprise  
and disappointment)
What an achievement after 5 years of WSIS and 2 years of IGF!  
Congratulations.

Best,
Meryem

Le 19 févr. 08 à 11:02, William Drake a écrit :

> Parminder,
>
> On 2/19/08 8:16 AM, "Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
>> 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
>
> If responding to that's the motivation then we're wasting limited  
> time here.
> It's not a real issue or being considered elsewhere.
>
>> TA calls them international organizations. So we have ground to  
>> build on.
>
> I think you need a more differentiated view of "them."  ICANN is an  
> IO in
> terms of the TA (not necessarily a source of eternal wisdom, but  
> whatever),
> but what about IETF, a ccTLD registry, or NANOG, ARIN, CERT/ 
> CC...it's not
> entirely obvious that the IO category captures all the orgs/ 
> collaborations
> involved in administrative functions that include the development and
> application of rule systems of inter/trans-national scope.
>
>> And that’s the normal UN usage, and we as CS can try to align our  
>> usage with
>
> It's not obvious to me that UN practice in other issue-areas is by
> definition dispositive. The IG architecture and issue space is  
> complex and
> has some fairly unique attributes.  How best to conceptualize these  
> is an
> interesting question that merits deeper analysis and dialogue; I  
> don't think
> your responses to my questions resolve the conundrums, sorry.  Hence,
> insisting that we adopt a particular meta-answer now is to me  
> premature and
> a total distraction from the main point, which should be to simply  
> say that
> CS is underrepresented on the mAG.  It also amounts, or may be  
> perceived to
> amount, to picking an unnecessary fight with a substantial range of  
> actors
> with whom we should be trying to build bridges rather than fetishizing
> differences.
>
>> 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
>
> I have never hid that I have issues with the propensity of some  
> (well, one)
> org to imply that there's a world-wide hard consensus on all issues  
> among
> tech people and that it singularly represents their singular views;  
> that
> holders of the purported singular views should be viewed as  
> essentially
> sovereign and singularly qualified to know what's right in all  
> cases; and
> that governments and CS people who have the temerity to disagree on  
> anything
> are simply not "clueful."  I think it's been evident by the reactions
> elicited these stances are unhelpful to global dialogue, collective
> learning, and consensus building.
>
>> 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.
>
> I didn't say that I supported the first draft.  My position on the
> definitional issue is that it's complex (as evidenced by McTim's fuzzy
> math), unsettled, and unnecessary to resolve now, and that a caucus
> statement purporting to do so based the assent of a very small  
> number of
> people will not have much credibility or influence or be particularly
> advantageous.
>>
>> 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
>
> Even if those stakeholders do little things like, oh, developing and
> operating the Internet?  We're going to claim they're less  
> deserving of
> representation than a small number of activists?  To be honest,  
> this seems a
> bit arrogant and deluded.  I'd rather just say CS is  
> underrepresented than
> get into proposing what we think is an acceptable level of  
> representation
> for some other grouping and ask the IGF and UN leadership to find a  
> better
> balance.
>
>> 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.
>
> Too closely?
>
> So under your scheme, the caucus would have to think carefully about
> nominating people who, say, have played roles in ICANN, e.g.  
> NomCom, ALAC,
> GNSO....?  When did the caucus become the Spartacus Youth League, I  
> missed
> it...
>
> From your subsequent post:
>
>>
>> I must ask Lee and Bill if they do or do not agree with Meryem's
>> formulation.
>>
>> 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.
>
> Yes
>
>> . There are seven civil society members at present in a MAG of 40, 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.
>
> No
>
>> . 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.
>
> No
>
>> ( 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"
>
> Yes
>
>> (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
>
> I don't recall proposing that we say they should have precisely  
> six, if I
> did I misspoke.  I prefer not to give numbers at all and say we're
> underrepresented.
>
> Best,
>
> 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