[governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language)

[Meryem Marzouki]

Le 20 févr. 08 à 18:37, Jeanette Hofmann a écrit :

> 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.

ICC is a good example of non-commercial bodies representing  
commercial entities. And there are many others. Yet, no one (starting  
from ICC itself) would classify ICC as CS.

> 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.

Interesting that you're taking ISOC example when everyone else is  
rather thinking of ICANN and the like.
I see no problem with ISOC: it has always been participating in CS  
groups, until this new so-called "technical community" came up. And I  
don't want to enter here in discussions on whether ISOC participated  
or not to the lobbying that led to this. If there's recognition that  
there is CS, gov, biz, plus "International organizations having an  
important role in the development of Internet-related technical  
standards and relevant policies", and that ISOC choose to participate  
as CS, that would probably be accepted. If ICANN choose to  
participate as CS, first that would be ridiculous from their side,  
second that would lead to serious, and natural, opposition.

Meryem

> 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

____________________________________________________________
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