[governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language)

[Parminder]

Bill

> > . 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

Can you pl help me understand your negative response to this. I thought that
has been the general stance of civil society throughout. Especially when in
the next para we do make special allocation for internet organizations.

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