[governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language)

[Parminder]

Bill

> Milton,
> 
> FWIW I've always heard them referred to in IGF as TC

My problem is that the tc (technical community) term as used here conflicts
frontally with its usage in Tunis agenda as well as used in IGC's earlier
statements (last year), where this category is referred to as cross-cutting.
I don't think it is a small issue that the same term is used with two
entirely different meanings in a discussion where we are trying to establish
who should be represented in MAG and in which manner, by what rules, quota
etc. 

Why are we just avoiding this issue, when it stares un in the face,  I am
completely unable to understand. 

And when this dual use is not entirely innocent and in this regard I quote
you in a recent email

" 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"

Do you think this dual use of the term tc has nothing to do with the manner
in which the propensity you have some issues with gets expressed and
legitimized.

If you are concerned about this issue, why no views on this dual use of the
'tc' term, especially now when there seems to be an almost consensus
(personal view) on the Ian's formulation. Especially also when you tell us
that you once had strong views on this issue. Just trying to understand your
position...

Parminder 



> -----Original Message-----
> From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 4:15 PM
> To: Mueller, Milton; Governance; Avri Doria
> Subject: Re: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language)
> 
, 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