[governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language)

Parminder parminder at itforchange.net
Tue Feb 19 08:35:24 EST 2008 

> > 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...

Bill ,why don’t you tell us your views on these boundaries upfront. Are you
fine with the ICANN chair and CEO sitting in for CS... and I used the
present tense - "in case the person IS too closely associated with..." which
excludes people as you say "have played roles in ....". In fact I gave an
example of a CS person working on a substantial gov committee and then
coming back to CS role/ identity.

There must be some limit to the extent of association of a person with these
int orgs that will make us not agreeable to making that person a CS nominee.
Are you saying that there is no such limit in your mind. Well, I didnt know
that.  And if there is some limit whatsoever does it make us Sparatacus YL
(whatever it is).

> > 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.
>

Yes we need to take a differentiated view, but not a NO view. I admitted
many times in the last few days that the new int orgs are unique in many
ways (that’s why are for instance less definitive about individuals playing
some degree of overlapping roles). And if "international organizations"
doesn’t not capture them all (though these regional/ national level orgs can
be represented through their global association etc, wherever possible) this
is the reason we are using the term internet organizations.  

> 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,

I didn’t say you supported the first draft. What you said was, to quote "...
while I always argued for the position reiterated in Parminder’s draft..."
So I just asked you to pl clarify what are these positions that you always
argued. Because I am really not able to make them out from these posting,
and in case nothing seem remotely close to my draft. So will again ask -
what are these positions that you say you always argued, which as per the
context, I understand have to do with tech community's identity and
representation vis a vis fo CS, which you seem to have abandoned since the
'ship has set sail'. 

> 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.

Interestingly, my first draft never said anything about the
over-representation of Int orgs, in fact it spoke of over-representation of
governments.  To which your response was.

"At this point I’m inclined to support Adam’s view",

(and you quoted Adam as)
> My problem with the technical community isn't 
> that they are represented, but there are too 
> many.  11 or 12 I think, with only 6 or 7 from 
> private sector and civil society respectively. 
> And I think people generally recognize a close 
> alignment between the private sector and 
> technical community (it is certainly apparent 
> inside the MAG.)  So I would rather see a 
> rebalancing, for example with perhaps the tech 
> community dropped to 5 or 6 of the roles McTim

So, you apparently agreed to mention over-representation and also perhaps a
number which would be appropriate representation. I changed my text as per
Adam's response and your endorsement of it. 

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.

As Meryem said just saying CS in under represented and there should be a
better balance is, well... 

And if you think that this discussion, and a possible statement, on the
nature and representation and legitimacies and proportions of different
groups that should constitute MAG, which is the centerpiece of  a new global
governance body, when this body's structure is officially being discussed is
a 'total distraction', sure, it is up to us to choose our priorities...

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.

Building bridges does not mean forgetting one own priorities and interests.
I don’t think Indian gov will be too amused wit the ITfC's input on MAG
chair issue asking for host country to only have  a deputy chair, but we
think it addresses a bigger issue. Bridges are fine without compromising the
interests we represent.

And speaking of brides we need also be cognizant what these positions and
attitudes of ours do to the bridges that we need to be more interested in
building - with the wider CS constituencies. Have you given consideration to
that in the context of the matter of the present discussion? I remain very
worried on that count. 

Lastly coming back to the matter of a caucus statement
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.

I am going to count only those who respond to this discussion, which is
going on for a long time now, and not those who for whatever reason choose
not to. I understand that you have stated that some otherwise active members
(I don’t know whom you are referring to) are not responding to this
discussion. I can understand that someone doesn’t agree with something in
the statement etc but not to respond to the discussion, what does it mean.
Is this discussion itself below the dignity of those who refuse to
participate in it. CS activity is based on open dialogues, and at no point I
saw this discussion go to the levels that will make it anyway really
unpleasant for anyone to participate. So, as I said I have  a lot of people
giving constructive views, I have counted 2 people who have this ICANN is CS
view and are generally not inclined to any references to int org
representation. Yes, today Lee came in with the view that we may avoid
mentioning anything about int orgs representation, and I am now seeing that
you also look inclined to that view. 2 people's dissent was fine, but yes
with Lee and your input today it looks difficult for this part of the
statement to get into any kind of a shape for consensus. But I figure we
will still be trying.

Parminder 




Parminder 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 3:33 PM
> To: Singh, Parminder; Governance; Marzouki, Meryem
> Subject: Re: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language)
> 
> 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 that¹s 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
> don¹t
> > know why it doesn¹t 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 don¹t 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 Agenda¹s 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

More information about the Governance mailing list