[governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language)

[Guru]

Dear Jeanette,

In an earlier mail you say, quote

"As I have probably said before, I think we should stick to 3 groups (govs,
biz, cs) instead of adding another group. My reason for this is pragmatic.
The more distinct groups, the more complex the task to represent and balance
them, and also the more arbitrary the rules of inclusion and exclusion. For
example, should environmental effects become an important governance issue,
how would we justify the exclusion of respective stakeholder groups from the
MAG? What we need is broad categories that can be filled flexibly reflecting
changing needs in terms of skills and interests. This is why I agree with
Parminder's suggestion to distribute (technical) experts among the
stakeholder groups. The fact that many technical experts wear indeed several
hats makes this a rather easy thing to do. Patrik Faltstroem, a present
member of the MAG, could be there in a government ticket, an IETF or a
business ticket. This is true for many other technical celebrities as well".

Subsequently you mention that the discussion should be stopped since we
won't reach consensensus on the above position. So as I understand, while on
substance you are for having 3 categories, on process you think that it may
be difficult to to achieve consensus due to limited time.

My view is that discussions on fundamental issues as these are always on ...
Well if we don't achieve consensus then we don't have this in the IGC
statement :-) , but these discussions will help us get a better clarity on
different positions amongst IGC members, and where people are coming from,
what are the principles their positions are based on etc. At the same time I
do find it quite strange to keep asserting that now is not the time ... When
MAG itself is discussing its composition and changes required, CS is not
willing to do the same!

In an earlier mail to McTim I had raised the basic doubt I still have -
What is the principle for interpreting 'Technical community' as two very
distinct sets at the same time - 
1. people who have participated in the creation and running of the Internet
- Loius Pouzin, Mc Tim, Vincent Cerf et al and 
2. a set of organizations that are part of the current IG.  

The second definition treating a group of organizations who make policy as
'community' is itself a rather major political problem since the distinction
between those who govern and those who are governed is lost. Can someone
enlighten me on this basic issue please.. 

Regards
Guru
-----Original Message-----
From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 8:37 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Adam Peake
Cc: William Drake
Subject: Re: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language)

I agree with both Bill and Adam. I explained why some days back.
We should really stop this discussion as it is clear for days that we won't
reach consensus beyond the statement expressed below.
jeanette

Adam Peake 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
> 
> 
> 
>> 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

____________________________________________________________
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