[governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language)

Tue Feb 19 11:59:27 EST 2008

I agree 100% with bill here. And the opposition to this seems to range from
naïvete all the way to the usual politicking.

When there seems to be broad enough consensus on this issue OUTSIDE this
group - which, like it or not, has a very small element of CS with an
overly ICANN focused view of things .. and indeed, where there's limited CS
consensus even here given the opposition expressed by others than McTim / I
(Ian Peter and Bill Drake for example) -

I would suggest, again, that you stop tilting at windmills. Or at least at
this particular windmill.

We've wasted several hundred emails + several hours of work that, as Bill
suggests, could have been spent polishing a concise draft that reads well
as a statement from the floor.

Remember - those international internet orgs you mention got their stake by
participating, and in several cases, by building this. Walking in and
laying claim to this as a matter of right?  Yes, you do have a stake. When
that stake is supposed to be gained by ignoring or marginalizing groups and
people with a meaningful stake gained through active participation and
building of the systems you're asking to get governance (and even
oversight) of?

	suresh

William Drake [19/02/08 15:39 +0100]:
>Hi,
>
>As fun as this is, this will have to be my last time around on this issue,
>other things pressing and diminishing returns.  For you as well P, the time
>spent on long emails would be better spent polishing a concise draft that
>people might be able to agree on, methinks.
>
>On 2/19/08 2:40 PM, "Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>I've written multiple messages explaining my thinking, that it's pointless
>now to be arguing there's not a fourth grouping, particularly when the logic
>of the argument is a bit fuzzy and there's not much chance it will be
>accepted.  And insisting there are only three but there should be a "special
>allocation" for the fourth that doesn't exist doesn't change that.
>
>On 2/19/08 2:35 PM, "Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
>>>> 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
>
>My question was a logical extension of your comment.  Your question is not a
>logical extension of mine.  Why waste our time on rhetorical games?
>
>> 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.
>
>So the rule is valid only for future selections but wouldn't have been for
>past ones.  Ok...
> 
>> 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).
>
>I'm not the one arguing that people from other groupings should be crammed
>into the CS category in what should be a straightforward caucus statement,
>so the burden of defining who would be subject to said cramming falls on
>you, not me.  Why do I have to argue your position rather than mine?
> 
>> Yes we need to take a differentiated view, but not a NO view. I admitted
>
>Again, I don't agree this is needed 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,
>
>I was initially, in WGIG and here circa 2004, dubious about establishing a
>fourth category precisely because of the sort of ambiguities we're debating
>now.  But, I said, what's done is done, I can't see MS consensus on
>disestablishment so this is a waste of time right now.  I also said it's an
>issue that would merit further analysis and dialogue in the future,
>including in conjunction with TC types.  I'm sorry if you feel this isn't
>clear enough and merits many more hours of email but I disagree.
>
>> 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.
>
>I didn't read Adam's statement as meaning that we had to give precise
>numbers, but rather as one of principle, which I agree with and hope the
>leadership will move toward without us presuming to tell them precisely how
>many bodies of each type there should be.
> 
>> 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...
>
>Sorry to disappoint you with my lack of ambition.  If you prefer, stick with
>an elaborately rococo text that the caucus cannot agree on in the next three
>days.  
> 
>> 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...
>
>This particular formulation is, yes.
> 
>> 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.
>
>So fine, pick fights as ITfC reflecting your priorities and interests and do
>a caucus statement that reflects the more diverse opinions here.
>
>On 2/19/08 2:57 PM, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
> 
>>> 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, this is unfair and unhelpful. The point should be obvious. ICANN
>> and other IOs _already have_ governance authority under the present
>> regime, and IGF is supposed to be relatively independent of them. People
>> who are employees and Board members of those organizations often have a
>> vested interest in protecting them from criticism or change. I have no
>> problem with including a few people from ICANN+ on the MAG in order to
>> have their voice present. But the idea that somehow the MAG will be
>> completely insulated from and ignorant of their perspective unless the
>> deck is stacked with them is not realistic.
>
>I don't see how it's unfair and unhelpful, it flows directly from what P
>said re: people who participate (not staff or board members), stakeholders
>would have to think carefully about nominating people too close to these
>processes.   I'm not advocating stacking the deck in favor of them (?), I'm
>just saying leave the category thing alone for now.  I take it you don't
>agree, fine.  
>
>One my long ago points remains: the more elaborate the statement, the more
>possibilities for disagreement.  Right now we have a highly variable
>geometry of stances across issues.  I don't know how they can be reconciled
>in the time remaining.
>
>Basta,
>
>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