[governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language)

[Parminder]

> I agree with Bill.
> 
> I think we should simply be arguing CS has been under-represented for
> the past two years and we wish to see a fair rebalancing as new
> members of the MAG rotate in.
> 
> Adam

I thought there was some agreement on Ian's formulation, after McTim and Lee
agreed to it.

I am still not able to understand if your and Bill's problem is that the
formulations as developed earlier(finally, Ian's) was unlikely to get rough
consensus, or you are expressly against mentioning the fourth stakeholder.
(Ian already removed references to its over-representation, something which
you, Adam, mentioned in the first place). 

I wonder why we may think this is not the time to mention this when it is
being discussed in MAG, as per its list transcripts. When MAG is discussing
it why are we not ready to considerer the matter at all. And when the
presented occasion is about speaking about MAG, its categories, levels of
representation, legitimacies etc. 


Anyway, I am putting below the formulation as it stood after Ian's
amendments, bec some may have missed parts of it. 


(starts)
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.

. 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 Agenda's multi-stakeholder approach, membership
should (ideally) be divided equally among governments, civil society and the
business sector.

. We also agree that 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
representation should not be at the expense of broader civil society
participation.




> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 5:28 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; William Drake
> Subject: Re: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language)
> 
> I agree with Bill.
> 
> I think we should simply be arguing CS has been under-represented for
> the past two years and we wish to see a fair rebalancing as new
> members of the MAG rotate in.
> 
> Adam
> 
> 
> 
> >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
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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