[governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language)

[William Drake]

Milton,

FWIW I've always heard them referred to in IGF as TC, and of course it does
reduce the number of seats for CS, as do other asymmetries.  It would
certainly be appropriate for a statement to say that there's a very
significant imbalance in stakeholder group representation in the current mAG
with CS being conspicuously underrepresented relative to others, and that
this should be corrected in the refresh.  Saying that gets across our
immediate concern clearly without having to get into questioning who besides
CS gets to be at the table in precisely what numbers and what they should be
called.

Cheers,

BD


On 2/20/08 11:10 AM, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com]
>> 
>> Can you point out to me where the IGF secretariat has perceived that
>> entities (word chosen to avoid the current discussion of whether they
>> are IOs or not) such as ICANN, RIR and IETF are CS?
> 
> Formal statements? Of course not, Secretariat bureaucrats are too
> careful for that. So I answer your question with another one: If the
> 9-10 I* organizations are not counted as CS, what are they counted as?
> And where is it stated anywhere what they are counted as? And if they
> are considered a separate "technical community" then by definition
> giving them that status as a stakeholder group on a par with CS reduces
> the number of CS people on the MAG, does it not? 


____________________________________________________________
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