[governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language)

[Jeanette Hofmann]

Meryem Marzouki wrote:
> 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).

I said also this:

This discussion on how to properly define civil society won't lead 
anywhere as there is as yet no common definition of the term.

and this:

The numeric share of a group doesn't translate directly into influence 
on the forming of opinions on the MAG. Quite a few government reps 
hardly participate in the discussions. The contributions of a group are 
much more important than a few members more or less. This is why I think 
it is sufficient to refer to the principle of balanced or equal 
composition.

I think what really matters is substantive proposals for the next IGF 
meeting. As usual, we all got wound up in procedural matters instead.

Precisely because the causus is composed of such a broad variety of 
people, it constitutes a very good space to try out ideas for main 
sessions or workshops. Why don't we make better use of it?!?
jeanette
> 
> 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