[governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language)

[Jeanette Hofmann]

Meryem Marzouki wrote:
> 
> Le 20 févr. 08 à 17:37, Jeanette Hofmann a écrit :
> 
>> Meryem Marzouki wrote:
>>> 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).
>>
>> I said also this:
>>
>> This discussion on how to properly define civil society won't lead 
>> anywhere as there is as yet no common definition of the term.
> 
> Well, that's true since the 18th century. Or even since the Romans and 
> the Greeks, if we really want to include all understandings over time.
> But can't we at least stick to the modern acception of this concept, the 
> Gramscian one? (BTW, I find it quite relevant, in terms of CS as being 
> the sphere where consent can be manufactured.. and challenged as well). 
> I understand IGF and the like is quite a post-modern construct, but 
> still, am I asking for too much?

The sad truth is that either we use a broad definition that doesn't help 
much in terms of describing the relationship between the techical 
community and the caucus or we try for a more specific definition that 
we won't agree upon. Ontological discussions are tiresome and often 
distructive.
> 
> [...]
>> I think what really matters is substantive proposals for the next IGF 
>> meeting. As usual, we all got wound up in procedural matters instead.
> 
> Do you mean that these procedural matters - transparency, 
> accountability.. in one word democracy - are futile? And that we should 
> all be acting simply as experts/advisors/consultants/entrepreneurs?

no. I mean that we spend too much time on arguing about exact form of 
participation and not enough time on what we actually want to achieve by 
participation.
> 
>> Precisely because the causus is composed of such a broad variety of 
>> people, it constitutes a very good space to try out ideas for main 
>> sessions or workshops. Why don't we make better use of it?!?
> 
> Because the IGF is not simply yet another conference or workshop? Or at 
> least shouldn't be? And is supposed to be a global intergovernance forum 
> instead?
> 
> But back to your position w.r.t. IGC statement: am I right in 
> understanding your position as "status quo is fine" and "let's get busy 
> with other matters"?

no, Meryem, this is not an adequate interpretation of what I have been 
saying.
jeanette
> 
> 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
____________________________________________________________
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