[governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language)

[William Drake]

On 2/20/08 3:20 PM, "Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

> 
>> 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).

It's not clear to me anymore who supports what because we keep talking about
bits rather than a coherent and complete text. The process is causing undue
confusion.

For really the last time, I am opposed to "membership should (ideally)
divided equally among governments, civil society and the business sector"
with "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" as a vague fall back.  I've
explained why several times.

I am not saving all the messages in this thread but unless I'm senile, McTim
doesn't support the "there are only three stakeholders plus IOs" thing, nor
does Suresh, Adam, or Lee.  Please provide empirical evidence that it is
only Adam and I, grumpy recalcitrant outliers, who are objecting. Thanks.

I thought that the "Ian's formulation" that McTim and Lee supported was the
one below, which is about softening the them at the expense of us line, not
about the there are only three stakeholder groups thing.

BD


On 2/19/08 9:02 AM, "Ian Peter" <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:

> Just so its clear, my problem with "their current over-representation should
> be corrected" is many fold.
> 
> Firstly, it unnecessarily isolates people with whom we must work.
> 
> Secondly, it suggests that everyone on MAG with a relationship with ICANN,
> ISOC, or IETF is part of the same group and has the same relationship with
> CS. I don't think that's true. Some participate here, some do not. Some have
> legitimate non- profit and NGO associations, some don't.
> 
> Thirdly, I think some of their representatives are far preferable to the
> alternative which might be more governmental and business representatives. I
> don't think it is for us to deny them a level of involvement.
> 
> Which is why I prefer "their representation should not be at the expense of
> broader civil society participation". That says it clearly for me, points
> directly to where the balance needs to be corrected, and doesn't offend or
> isolate.


____________________________________________________________
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