[governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language)
Parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Wed Feb 20 13:37:57 EST 2008
(apologies for too many emails)
Adam
> There's might be some agreement, but sorry not from me. Not to all
> the statement.
I did say that Bill and you did not agree. But I see your later emails. I
want clarity on the precise point of your disagreement - is it that what you
call 'tech community' should be referred to by that name and not as
international or internet organizations. That's what I make out. Fine, only
can you please answer my oft asked question about how can we use the same
term 'tech community' in two completely different meanings in the same
discourse. And how can a set of organizations be called community - in which
case what would we call those who are subject to the governance/ polices of
these orgs (which group is generally, in normal political science called
community).
> >The rules for membership of the MAG, including in terms of representation
> of
> >different stakeholders, should be clearly established, and made open
> along
> >with due justifications.
>
>
> I am not sure I understand. What would you want such rules to say?
> (for example, what would you write if you were the secretariat
> responding positively to the sentence you suggest above?)
I was following what we asked for in our 07 statements - that " the
proportionate representation of stakeholder groups and the cross-cutting
technical and academic communities, was not openly and transparently
discussed prior to its appointment" meaning it shd be openly discussed.
And that "rules and the quotas for representation from each stakeholder
group" should be "openly established".
I could list some others thing Id expect the secretariat to list, But a
little later.
> In the interest of transparency and understanding the
> responsibilities of MAG members, when making appointments to the MAG
> we ask the secretary general to explain which interested group
> (stakeholder group [press release tends to use "interest"]) that
> person is associated with.
Yes, that shd be done.
> Reason: This is still a group appointed by the secretary general as
> his advisors, we can't demand he justify why he appoints people to
> advise himself.
But you said MAG is something which came bottom up as a result of the first
consultations. You are contradicting yourself here.
Unless we challenge the notion of it being an
> advisory group that advises him in convening the IGF (which we could
> do...)
Yes, pl see the later part of the statement, we do challenge the mere
advisory nature of MAG, and what to see some independent identity/ authority
of it.
> >. We also agree that 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. However, their
> >representation should not be at the expense of broader civil society
> >participation.
> >
>
>
> Again I disagree. And I think I may also be confused... The
> technical/admin Internet organizations are not "International
> organizations" in the sense the label's used in UN. And if they were
> they would typically be observers not members. Either way, it
> doesn't make sense to me.
The inter-gov bodies are different. Para 35 uses the term international
bodies that make Internet related standards and policy. Quite an apt term I
think for ICANN and other such orgs in the global space.
Parminder
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 10:27 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder; 'William Drake'
> Subject: RE: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language)
>
> At 7:50 PM +0530 2/20/08, Parminder 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.
>
>
> There's might be some agreement, but sorry not from me. Not to all
> the statement.
>
> I would like to see a full version of the statement rather than a few
> paragraphs (and do appreciate all your work.)
>
>
> >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).
> >
> >I wonder why we may think this is not the time to mention this when it is
> >being discussed in MAG, as per its list transcripts. When MAG is
> discussing
> >it why are we not ready to considerer the matter at all. And when the
> >presented occasion is about speaking about MAG, its categories, levels of
> >representation, legitimacies etc.
> >
> >
> >Anyway, I am putting below the formulation as it stood after Ian's
> >amendments, bec some may have missed parts of it.
> >
> >
> >(starts)
> >The rules for membership of the MAG, including in terms of representation
> of
> >different stakeholders, should be clearly established, and made open
> along
> >with due justifications.
>
>
> I am not sure I understand. What would you want such rules to say?
> (for example, what would you write if you were the secretariat
> responding positively to the sentence you suggest above?)
>
>
> instead how about something like:
>
> In the interest of transparency and understanding the
> responsibilities of MAG members, when making appointments to the MAG
> we ask the secretary general to explain which interested group
> (stakeholder group [press release tends to use "interest"]) that
> person is associated with.
>
>
> Reason: This is still a group appointed by the secretary general as
> his advisors, we can't demand he justify why he appoints people to
> advise himself. Unless we challenge the notion of it being an
> advisory group that advises him in convening the IGF (which we could
> do...)
>
>
> >Full civil society representation is necessary to
> >ensure legitimacy for this new experiment in global governance.
>
>
> What do you mean by "full"?
>
>
> >. There are seven civil society members at present in a MAG of 40, an
> >anomaly which should be corrected in this round of rotation of members.
>
>
> How about:
>
> Civil society has been under represented in the multistakeholder
> advisory groups appointed in 2006 and 2007, this anomaly should be
> corrected in this round of rotation and a fair balance of members
> between all stakeholders assured. (I'd be happy to add: At least one
> quarter of the MAG membership must be drawn from Civil Society.)
>
>
> >We think that as per Tunis Agenda's multi-stakeholder approach,
> membership
> >should (ideally) be divided equally among governments, civil society and
> the
> >business sector.
>
>
> I disagree. I think it is progress to see the emergence of a new
> stakeholder group in the IGF. I have no problem with the
> technical/admin Internet organizations being a separate group in the
> IGF. I just do not want them to continue to be over represented.
>
>
> >. We also agree that 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. However, their
> >representation should not be at the expense of broader civil society
> >participation.
> >
>
>
> Again I disagree. And I think I may also be confused... The
> technical/admin Internet organizations are not "International
> organizations" in the sense the label's used in UN. And if they were
> they would typically be observers not members. Either way, it
> doesn't make sense to me.
>
> Grumpy recalcitrant outlier'ish thanks,
>
> Adam
>
>
>
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 5:28 PM
> >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; William Drake
> >> Subject: Re: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language)
> >>
> >> 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
More information about the Governance
mailing list