[governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language)

Adam Peake ajp at glocom.ac.jp
Wed Feb 20 11:57:01 EST 2008 

At 7:50 PM +0530 2/20/08, Parminder 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.


There's might be some agreement, but sorry not from me.  Not to all 
the statement.

I would like to see a full version of the statement rather than a few 
paragraphs (and do appreciate all your work.)


>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).
>
>I wonder why we may think this is not the time to mention this when it is
>being discussed in MAG, as per its list transcripts. When MAG is discussing
>it why are we not ready to considerer the matter at all. And when the
>presented occasion is about speaking about MAG, its categories, levels of
>representation, legitimacies etc.
>
>
>Anyway, I am putting below the formulation as it stood after Ian's
>amendments, bec some may have missed parts of it.
>
>
>(starts)
>The rules for membership of the MAG, including in terms of representation of
>different stakeholders, should be clearly established, and made open along
>with due justifications.


I am not sure I understand.  What would you want such rules to say? 
(for example, what would you write if you were the secretariat 
responding positively to the sentence  you suggest above?)


instead how about something like:

In the interest of transparency and understanding the 
responsibilities of MAG members, when making appointments to the MAG 
we ask the secretary general to explain which interested group 
(stakeholder group [press release tends to use "interest"]) that 
person is associated with.


Reason: This is still a group appointed by the secretary general as 
his advisors, we can't demand he justify why he appoints people to 
advise himself.  Unless we challenge the notion of it being an 
advisory group that advises him in convening the IGF (which we could 
do...)


>Full civil society representation is necessary to
>ensure legitimacy for this new experiment in global governance.


What do you mean by "full"?


>. There are seven civil society members at present in a MAG of 40, an
>anomaly which should be corrected in this round of rotation of members.


How about:

Civil society has been under represented in the multistakeholder 
advisory groups appointed in 2006 and 2007, this anomaly should be 
corrected in this round of rotation and a fair balance of members 
between all stakeholders assured. (I'd be happy to add: At least one 
quarter of the MAG membership must be drawn from Civil Society.)


>We think that as per Tunis Agenda's multi-stakeholder approach, membership
>should (ideally) be divided equally among governments, civil society and the
>business sector.


I disagree. I think it is progress to see the emergence of a new 
stakeholder group in the IGF.  I have no problem with the 
technical/admin Internet organizations being a separate group in the 
IGF. I just do not want them to continue to be over represented.


>. We also agree that 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. However, their
>representation should not be at the expense of broader civil society
>participation.
>


Again I disagree. And I think I may also be confused...  The 
technical/admin Internet organizations are not "International 
organizations" in the sense the label's used in UN. And if they were 
they would typically be observers not members.  Either way, it 
doesn't make sense to me.

Grumpy recalcitrant outlier'ish thanks,

Adam



>
>
>>  -----Original Message-----
>>  From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp]
>  > Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 5:28 PM
>>  To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; William Drake
>>  Subject: Re: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language)
>>
>>  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

More information about the Governance mailing list