[governance] Reconstituting MAG

[Milton L Mueller]

I like Meryem's amendments and think that they make the points we want to make while avoiding getting into the quote game. 

Let's go with that. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Meryem Marzouki [mailto:marzouki at ras.eu.org]
> Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 1:43 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] Reconstituting MAG
> 
> Parminder, thanks for your patience with us all!
> 
> Let me consider your latest proposal:
> 
> > .  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 Agenda's
> > 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.
> 
> > . There are some views that a smaller MAG may be more effective.
> > However if we go by the present membership of MAG which is 40, 6
> > should be a good number for representing Internet organizations.
> > Out of the remaining 34 seats civil society should be entitled to
> > 11 seats. There are seven civil society members at present in a MAG
> > of 40, an anomaly which should also be corrected in this round of
> > rotation of members. Obviously, this cannot happen if we replace
> > each retiring member with one from the same stakeholder group. Full
> > civil society representation is necessary to ensure legitimacy for
> > this new experiment in global governance.
> 
> What about this:
> 
> . 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,
> 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.
> 
> Best,
> Meryem
> 
> Le 18 févr. 08 à 19:14, Parminder a écrit :
> 
> >
> >> I'm still of the opinion that it's not a good idea to mention any
> >> number (including for the overall MAG size. Why saying that we find
> >> 40 a good number? Let's not mention anything about this in this
> >> caucus statement, and some people may raise the issue in their own
> >> name during the meeting).
> >
> > I am removing the part on '40 is  a good number'. But pl see my
> > email to
> > Milton - if we do not any give numbers, and just say appropriate
> > number for
> > Int orgs and appropriate number for CS, they will say yes, we will
> > give you
> > appropriate numbers... Nor are we ready to say give us one fourth,
> > bec we
> > think Int orgs are represented as a special group.
> >
> >
> >> Finally: I really prefer your previous statement. This one seems too
> >> much detailed, entering too much into numbers and case studies, and
> >> diluting the main issue. Moreover, I'm afraid it's inconsistent: you
> >> say "TA also rightly recognizes international organizations involved
> >> in IG as a stakeholder category", then you want to give them less
> >> seats than other stakeholders.
> >> EITHER they're a stakeholder, and they should be given as many seats
> >> as other stakeholders OR they aren't a stakeholder - rather
> >> organizations that have to be represented in addition to the normal
> >> stakeholder for reasons we've already discussed on this list: their
> >> difference in nature, their transversality, etc. -, and they should
> >> be given a limited number of seats (preferably less than true
> >> stakeholders:))
> >> I hardly see any other option.
> >
> > Right. I will remove reference to speaking about stakeholder
> > category for
> > Int orgs and just say they need to be represented.
> >
> >
> > Something like
> >
> >
> >   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 Agenda's
> > 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.
> >
> > Instead of (as present)
> >
> >   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 Agenda's
> > 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 as a
> > separate
> > stakeholder group in the MAG. Their current over-representation
> > however
> > should be corrected in the envisaged process of rotation of members.
> >
> > Parminder
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Meryem Marzouki [mailto:marzouki at ras.eu.org]
> >> Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 10:59 PM
> >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> >> Subject: Re: [governance] Reconstituting MAG
> >>
> >> Hi Parminder and al.
> >>
> >> Le 18 févr. 08 à 14:24, Parminder a écrit :
> >>
> >>> Milton, Meryem, McKnight and others who have reservation on the
> >>> number 40 - do you want the sentence 'We think that 40 is a good
> >>> number for MAG members' struck off. I  am unable to specifically
> >>> call for reducing the number since there seems to be considerable
> >>> opposition to this.
> >>>
> >>> Some members seemed in favor of putting some mathematics in the
> >>> statement to make a clear case for increased number for CS.  For
> >>> this reason I do have to go by the present number 40, in this part
> >>> of the statement. Meryem, you wanted me not to quote the number
> >>> that can be reserved for the International Internet orgs reps - but
> >>> I have gone by the number 6 which a few of us quoted, because that
> >>> allows me to complete the calculations for the asked for CS
> >>> numbers. In any case this number is clearly against a total of 40,
> >>> so there can be no confusion about how this number may be
> >>> interpreted.
> >>>
> >>
> >> I'm still of the opinion that it's not a good idea to mention any
> >> number (including for the overall MAG size. Why saying that we find
> >> 40 a good number? Let's not mention anything about this in this
> >> caucus statement, and some people may raise the issue in their own
> >> name during the meeting).
> >> We may perfectly address CS representation through percentages and
> >> keep focusing on the *main* issue, i.e. to have equal proportions
> >> among the 3 stakeholders. So: yes to mathematics, no to bargaining:)
> >>
> >> Moreover, my opinion is that Internet organizations rep. shouldn't be
> >> qualified as 'stakeholders', but as organizations that need to be
> >> involved. So, 1/3 gov, 1/3 biz, 1/3 cs (stakeholders), plus a
> >> reasonable number of major global Internet org rep, plus IGOs
> >> involved in the field, and you're set.
> >>
> >> another clarification: 'One third of MAG members should be rotated
> >> every year' means 1/3 rotation inside each stakeholder group, right?
> >> Shouldn't this be made clearer? Just in case..
> >>
> >> Finally: I really prefer your previous statement. This one seems too
> >> much detailed, entering too much into numbers and case studies, and
> >> diluting the main issue. Moreover, I'm afraid it's inconsistent: you
> >> say "TA also rightly recognizes international organizations involved
> >> in IG as a stakeholder category", then you want to give them less
> >> seats than other stakeholders.
> >> EITHER they're a stakeholder, and they should be given as many seats
> >> as other stakeholders OR they aren't a stakeholder - rather
> >> organizations that have to be represented in addition to the normal
> >> stakeholder for reasons we've already discussed on this list: their
> >> difference in nature, their transversality, etc. -, and they should
> >> be given a limited number of seats (preferably less than true
> >> stakeholders:))
> >> I hardly see any other option.
> >>
> >> Best,
> >> Meryem
> >>
> >> ____________________________________________________________
> >> 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
____________________________________________________________
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