[governance] Reconstituting MAG

Milton L Mueller mueller at syr.edu
Tue Feb 19 08:40:56 EST 2008 

We seem to be refusing to face the fact that debates about
representation create an inherent push to expand the size of the MAG. If
the game is all about "being at the table" one can always make someone
happy by adding an additional representative. But this is a fool's game.
The MAG becomes progressively less effective and harder to keep
accountable as it expands in size. 

The purpose of the MAG is not to concoct some absurd quota system that
achieves a perfect alignment between the broad internet set of
stakeholder groups and MAG members. The purpose is to provide a point of
contact between involved stakeholder groups and the Secretariat and to
get some critical work done. Perhaps we should be thinking less about
representational formulas -- the MAG doesn't really vote anyway, does it
-- and more about what the MAG is supposed to do and how its composition
affects that


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net]
> Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 11:56 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Lee McKnight; suresh at hserus.net;
> ca at rits.org.br; Milton L Mueller
> Subject: RE: [governance] Reconstituting MAG
> 
> Lee
> 
> > Suresh, Parminder,
> >
> > I think it is a tactical error for CS to push away the international
> > Internet orgs. I would like us to lay claim to them all as meant to
> > serve global civil society's interests.   Of course when/if they
fall
> > short then there are grounds for criticism. Some might think of them
> > more as industry self-regulatory bodies, but we should be trying to
lay
> > claim to them ourselves, in my opinion. Even if there's sniping from
> > both sides.
> 
> Meryem has addressed some of the issues, but I will add a bit. Meryem
> argued
> that it is not about what interests they represent - dev country gov.s
> often
> represent 'development' interests better than some North based CS
> entities,
> that doesn't make them CS.
> 
> And the issue is also not of pushing away anyone either. My
organization
> works in field level development activity, we cant ever think of
pushing
> away governments for instance, but we don't include them in CS either.
> 
> > We all agree on the need for more CS representation in MAG 2.0
right?
> > So let's leave it at that, and raise the issue of whether the
tech/admin
> > orgs get their own category or not as an open question.
> 
> We all know that merely parroting known positions is not of any use.
We
> need
> to address issues contextually, and with facts, figures and number if
> possible. That is if we are really interested in any progress to be
made
> through any particular intervention.
> 
> The present context is of re-examining the MAG structure, composition
etc
> -
> and we must all focus on this fact - and as I said earlier, it appears
> rather odd to appeal to the MAG to clarify rules, quotas, membership
> criteria etc while also saying that we ourselves are hardly have any
> clarity
> on these - rather have next to no views. And that we also try not to
> discuss
> these things among us. This when in case of Internet org's
representation
> the major overlap/ confusion is vis a vis civil society
representation.
> 
> Parminder
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Lee McKnight [mailto:lmcknigh at syr.edu]
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 12:29 AM
> > To: suresh at hserus.net; governance at lists.cpsr.org; ca at rits.org.br;
Milton
> > Mueller
> > Subject: RE: [governance] Reconstituting MAG
> >
> > Suresh, Parminder,
> >
> > I think it is a tactical error for CS to push away the international
> > Internet orgs. I would like us to lay claim to them all as meant to
> > serve global civil society's interests.   Of course when/if they
fall
> > short then there are grounds for criticism. Some might think of them
> > more as industry self-regulatory bodies, but we should be trying to
lay
> > claim to them ourselves, in my opinion. Even if there's sniping from
> > both sides.
> >
> > We all agree on the need for more CS representation in MAG 2.0
right?
> > So let's leave it at that, and raise the issue of whether the
tech/admin
> > orgs get their own category or not as an open question.
> >
> > The concrete suggestion is to state clearly the need to increase CS
> > representation in MAG, which is already done, and leave the
coalescence
> > of the new category as an ongoing process. Which we want to have
happen
> > with CS objectives in mind.
> >
> > Lee
> >
> >
> >
> > Prof. Lee W. McKnight
> > School of Information Studies
> > Syracuse University
> > +1-315-443-6891office
> > +1-315-278-4392 mobile
> > >>> suresh at hserus.net 02/18/08 9:31 AM >>>
> > It wont - in fact it will never happen.  Given that this particular
> > group of
> > people considers various internet technical bodies "not CS", doesn't
> > like
> > the liberal ideology of quite a few people participating in such
bodies
> > ..
> > and even Jeremy seems to have a lot of misconceptions about the
level of
> > "governance"  the IETF, for example, can exercise.
> >
> > So, question: Has all the discussion on this multiple hundred post
> > thread
> > been, ultimately, useless, and aimed at proposing something that's
going
> > to
> > fall flat?
> >
> > 	srs
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Carlos Afonso [mailto:ca at rits.org.br]
> > > Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 6:25 AM
> > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller
> > > Subject: Re: [governance] Reconstituting MAG
> > >
> > > I am one of the ones who said I feel it won't happen, but added
that
> > if
> > > there is any reduction, it will not be on the governments' side.
This
> > > is
> > > UN, an intergovernmental body. They would prefer to enlarge it to
> > > accommodate our plea of more representation (if we had the
> > leverage...)
> > > rather than think of a reduction.
> > >
> > > --c.a.
> > >
> > > Milton L Mueller wrote:
> > > > I do support calling for reduction in the number. I do not
recall
> > any
> > > > real "opposition" to it, just people who think that it won't
happen.
> > > We
> > > > certainly cannot claim that there is consensus on the number 40,
> > > since
> > > > the preponderance of opinion as far as I can see is against that
> > > large a
> > > > number.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I also support those who warned you against getting involved in
> > > specific
> > > > numbers games and proportional quotas. It is enough to say that
CS
> > is
> > > > underrepresented.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > >
> > > > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net]
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 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.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > ____________________________________________________________
> > > 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

More information about the Governance mailing list