[governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language)

[Jeanette Hofmann]

Hi Guru,

I see I wasn't really clear in my comments. What I meant is that 
_ontological_ dicussions on what exactly constitutes civil society won't 
lead anywhere and looks like a waste of time to me. I referred to 
academic debates to emphasize this point.

In my view, civil society constitutes an umbrella term that covers in 
the broadest sense non-governmental and non-commercial entities. 
However, it is impossible to draw clear lines for all the border cases 
such as non-commercial bodies representing commercial entities, etc. So, 
  civil society is a useful term in the context of the composition of 
advisory groups but it is a much less useful term when we are searching 
for clear categories that help distinguishing between the caucus and 
ISOC and similar bodies.
jeanette
Guru wrote:
> Dear Jeanette,
> 
> In an earlier mail you say, quote
> 
> "As I have probably said before, I think we should stick to 3 groups (govs,
> biz, cs) instead of adding another group. My reason for this is pragmatic.
> The more distinct groups, the more complex the task to represent and balance
> them, and also the more arbitrary the rules of inclusion and exclusion. For
> example, should environmental effects become an important governance issue,
> how would we justify the exclusion of respective stakeholder groups from the
> MAG? What we need is broad categories that can be filled flexibly reflecting
> changing needs in terms of skills and interests. This is why I agree with
> Parminder's suggestion to distribute (technical) experts among the
> stakeholder groups. The fact that many technical experts wear indeed several
> hats makes this a rather easy thing to do. Patrik Faltstroem, a present
> member of the MAG, could be there in a government ticket, an IETF or a
> business ticket. This is true for many other technical celebrities as well".
> 
> Subsequently you mention that the discussion should be stopped since we
> won't reach consensensus on the above position. So as I understand, while on
> substance you are for having 3 categories, on process you think that it may
> be difficult to to achieve consensus due to limited time.
> 
> My view is that discussions on fundamental issues as these are always on ...
> Well if we don't achieve consensus then we don't have this in the IGC
> statement :-) , but these discussions will help us get a better clarity on
> different positions amongst IGC members, and where people are coming from,
> what are the principles their positions are based on etc. At the same time I
> do find it quite strange to keep asserting that now is not the time ... When
> MAG itself is discussing its composition and changes required, CS is not
> willing to do the same!
> 
> In an earlier mail to McTim I had raised the basic doubt I still have -
> What is the principle for interpreting 'Technical community' as two very
> distinct sets at the same time - 
> 1. people who have participated in the creation and running of the Internet
> - Loius Pouzin, Mc Tim, Vincent Cerf et al and 
> 2. a set of organizations that are part of the current IG.  
> 
> The second definition treating a group of organizations who make policy as
> 'community' is itself a rather major political problem since the distinction
> between those who govern and those who are governed is lost. Can someone
> enlighten me on this basic issue please.. 
> 
> Regards
> Guru
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu] 
> Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 8:37 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Adam Peake
> Cc: William Drake
> Subject: Re: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language)
> 
> 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