[governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language)

[Meryem Marzouki]

Le 20 févr. 08 à 17:02, Suresh Ramasubramanian a écrit :

> Either treat them as part and parcel of CS. Or give them a stake  
> equal to
> that of CS, and work closely together with them.

So both options are agreeable to you, and thus the current writing of  
the IGC statement is agreeable too, as you mentioned in your previous  
mail.

> Don’t treat them as enemies, or "the other side". Don’t marginalize  
> their
> stake and crowd them out of MAG.

Let's not confuse the exchange of individual arguments and individual  
positions that we have had till now, with the common outcome, which  
is the IGC statement.

> And remember that the technical community
> cuts across all 3 classic stakeholder communities and is going to be
> difficult for you to split between those communities.

But this is precisely what we're saying from the begining!! And the  
consequence is that they couldn't be part or parcel of just one  
stakeholder. This is exactly what the statement says.

> For example - I personally run the antispam operations at a large  
> ISP (70
> million ++ users).  So - business. I consult for the ITU in  
> developing a
> botnet mitigation toolkit (business, sort of .. not int.org but  
> working
> with), I run www.apcauce.org which organizes technical and public  
> policy
> workshops on spam and internet abuse in the asiapac region (so CS).
> Neither fish, flesh nor fowl as you can see.  And still, if you  
> were to ask
> me, I would say that I claim a perfect right to be part of CS in  
> this -
> which is why I am expending time and effort here

But this is about you, as an individual. As already explained many  
times on this list, especially by Parminder, there's no problems with  
individuals. We're discussing representatives of Internet  
organizations here.

> I could care less about the wording as long as it is acceptable,  
> and not
> aggressively targeted at marginalizing other stakeholders' valid,  
> legitimate
> stakes.

As you've just clarified that this wording is acceptable to you, it  
must be clear now that it is not "aggressively targeted at  
marginalizing other stakeholders' valid, legitimate stakes."

> Hope I make myself clear.

Yes, very clear. Thanks!

Best,
Meryem

>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Meryem Marzouki [mailto:marzouki at ras.eu.org]
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 7:54 AM
>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> Subject: Re: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language)
>>
>> Jeanette,
>>
>> What I can read from your previous post of Feb 12 is this excerpt:
>> "As I have probably said before, I think we should stick to 3 groups
>> (govs, biz, cs) instead of adding another group."
>> So, could please clarify in which sense you agree with Bill, who's
>> saying that he's opposed to "membership should (ideally) divided
>> equally among governments, civil society and the business
>> sector" (with the rest of the paragraph).
>>
>> Is it that, in the end, you are of the opinion that ICANN and other
>> members of the so-called "technical community" are CS organizations,
>> and thus should be counted as such in terms of number of members of
>> the MAG?
>>
>> I'm also asking the same question to Bill and Adam. And Suresh. I
>> know McTim is clear on this: for him, the answer is yes. I haven't
>> seen Lee agreeing on this (in his last email he said "Meryem's
>> formulation or Ian's is close enough.").
>>
>> Meryem
>>
>> Le 20 févr. 08 à 16:07, Jeanette Hofmann a écrit :
>>
>>> 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
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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