[governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language)

[Guru]

I think the point has been repeatedly made by Suresh and others that CS
should not  treat the technical community as enemies. But I did not see any
posting which suggested any such thing, even in spirit. On the contrary the
position has been clearly that:

Technical experts (yourself, Mc Tim et al) can get represented in MAG as
members of Government or Business or CS, depending on your affiliations and
your views, goals and activities.

Internet Governance organizations such as ICANN, RIRs etc should definitely
be part of the MAG structure/process, without them discussions on IG will be
futile.  It has been reiterated by many who are for the draft as it stands
at present. 

The problem that has been raised (again repeatedly) is that the second group
cannot be considered part of CS. They can come in under a distinct label but
honestly imo, it is quite ridiculous to keep asserting that ICANN is CS. 

Regards,
Guru

Btw I don't think any group can be considered as 'enemies' that defeats the
very conception of 'multistakeholderism' - nor do we rush to give them CS
seats on bodies where CS seeks representation :-)

-----Original Message-----
From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 9:33 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Meryem Marzouki'
Subject: RE: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language)

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.

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

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

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

Hope I make myself clear.


> -----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
> 
> 

____________________________________________________________
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