[governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language)

[Parminder]

> It's not clear to me anymore who supports what because we keep talking
> about
> bits rather than a coherent and complete text. The process is causing
> undue
> confusion.

We are talking about three paras all this time which have been presented as
a unit a couple of times - by Meryem, by Ian and by me - latest asking
clearly your and Lees views on it. 

The rest of the statement is there in the full (email enclosed again), and
open to comment. (Few comments received on the rest of the statement.) So I
do not know what you are seeking here. (no, we still do not have  a wiki,
will look into that issue)

Please provide empirical evidence that it is
> only Adam and I, grumpy recalcitrant outliers, who are objecting. Thanks.

Please the email I just now sent to McTim. He said Ian's formulation is the
voice of reason. And Ian formulated the text clearly as an amendment over
Meryem's three paras (for more clarity see Ian email enclosed in my email to
Mctim, though Ian is free to clarify).

Lee wrote before he boarded the flight - " Meryem's formulation or Ian's is
close enough."

Ok, Suresh should still count as against the text, and you and Adam. I think
you have the evidence. Any one else you think has been opposing the text
clearly and I haven't included here. 

> I thought that the "Ian's formulation" that McTim and Lee supported was
> the
> one below, which is about softening the them at the expense of us line,
> not
> about the there are only three stakeholder groups thing.

Lee clearly speaks abt Ian's or Meryem's formulation. Ian explains his
amendments over an email where I have put the Merytem text with Ian's
amendment for comments. I take it to mean that Ian's formulation is the
whole amended text, and if anyone is agreeing with Ian's formulation minus
the surrounding text the onus on the person to say that. 

Parminder 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 8:28 PM
> To: Singh, Parminder; Governance; Peake, Adam
> Subject: Re: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language)
> 
> 
> On 2/20/08 3:20 PM, "Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net> 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.
> >
> > 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).
> 
> It's not clear to me anymore who supports what because we keep talking
> about
> bits rather than a coherent and complete text. The process is causing
> undue
> confusion.
> 
> For really the last time, I am opposed to "membership should (ideally)
> divided equally among governments, civil society and the business sector"
> with "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" as a vague fall back.  I've
> explained why several times.
> 
> I am not saving all the messages in this thread but unless I'm senile,
> McTim
> doesn't support the "there are only three stakeholders plus IOs" thing,
> nor
> does Suresh, Adam, or Lee.  Please provide empirical evidence that it is
> only Adam and I, grumpy recalcitrant outliers, who are objecting. Thanks.
> 
> I thought that the "Ian's formulation" that McTim and Lee supported was
> the
> one below, which is about softening the them at the expense of us line,
> not
> about the there are only three stakeholder groups thing.
> 
> BD
> 
> 
> On 2/19/08 9:02 AM, "Ian Peter" <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
> 
> > Just so its clear, my problem with "their current over-representation
> should
> > be corrected" is many fold.
> >
> > Firstly, it unnecessarily isolates people with whom we must work.
> >
> > Secondly, it suggests that everyone on MAG with a relationship with
> ICANN,
> > ISOC, or IETF is part of the same group and has the same relationship
> with
> > CS. I don't think that's true. Some participate here, some do not. Some
> have
> > legitimate non- profit and NGO associations, some don't.
> >
> > Thirdly, I think some of their representatives are far preferable to the
> > alternative which might be more governmental and business
> representatives. I
> > don't think it is for us to deny them a level of involvement.
> >
> > Which is why I prefer "their representation should not be at the expense
> of
> > broader civil society participation". That says it clearly for me,
> points
> > directly to where the balance needs to be corrected, and doesn't offend
> or
> > isolate.
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded message was scrubbed...
From: "Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net>
Subject: RE: [governance] Reconstituting MAG
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2008 22:26:24 +0530
Size: 121917
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080220/217d0765/attachment.eml>