[governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language)

[Adam Peake]

>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?


No.  In the IGF I think they should continue to 
be considered as separate stakeholder (or 
interest) group.

But I consider they are currently over 
represented in the MAG (I also think govt over 
represented), so there should be a rebalancing to 
favor civil society in particular as CS is 
clearly under represented.

Adam



>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