[governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language)

[Jeanette Hofmann]

Parminder wrote:
> Jeannette
> 
>> 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.
> 
> But this doesn’t mean that there are no basic principles at all for what we
> call as CS - excluding government bodies for instance. And if we examine the
> basis of this logic we can see that it rests on the separation of those (or
> that) who governs from the governed (and CS is supposed to give
> participation, accountability seeking etc space for the governed vis a vis
> the governors). 

Yes, I agree. The term gets its meaning from seperating it from other 
entities or practices. But in my view, the concept is characterized by a 
certain fuzzyness that is quite helpful to keep it alive.
> 
> Would that logic not also extend to any body that does governance (IG bodies
> arguably do governance), to separate these bodies from those on whom this
> governance impinges...

In the 1990s, the idea of "self-governance" seemed to include civil 
society organizations. And in ICANN's eyes, it still does.

  You find no problem with not separating these in the
> IG spaces? But then why is CS in the IG space at all - is it not to seek
> civil participation in governance, to seek accountability of gov
> institutions. 

Yes, I agree with you. We probably only disagree about the extent to 
which a razor-sharp definition is necessary. I think we do ourselves a 
favor by keeping our identity fuzzy.

How can this be done without first conceptually and
> structurally separating from them... are these meaningless issues. 

Not at all.
Do they
> merely distract us from our path... What path one may question...

While we can define such concepts on an individual basis, we should be 
realistic and modest about what we expect to achieve in a group like 
this with such different backgrounds and beliefs.
> 
> Does the non-separation of governance institutions from those on whom the
> governance impinges not favor the former over the latter, who are supposed
> to be the CS. 

Not necessarily. Not in an environment in which strong presence and 
participation matters.

So, is this non-separation not CS unfriendly. (In fact, it
> leaves little logic for its existence). 

No, here I don't agree. The acknowledgement of fuzzy boundaries does not 
neglect identity, it just doesn't enforce a sharp profile.

Does the insistence of those
> associated with these governance bodies to seek such non-separation not a
> tactics to avoid wider accountability. 
> 
> The logic that the CS is ill-defined (deliberately, as CS is the residual
> sector, and anti/non-institutional sector, it cannot itself get too
> institutionalized) cannot be extended to mean CS is a meaningless category.
> These are two very different things. And we are trying to establish the
> meaning of CS in the IG space. It will remain a contested territory, but we
> need not hurry to close discussions.

My point is that the discussion of the statement should not focus any 
longer on this aspect but move on to other paragraphs.
What I find most crcuial to discuss is the role of the MAG beyond 
advising the SG and the topics we propose for the next IGF meeting.

jeanette
> 
> Parminder 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu]
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 10:07 PM
>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Meryem Marzouki
>> Subject: Re: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language)
>>
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> and this:
>>
>> The numeric share of a group doesn't translate directly into influence
>> on the forming of opinions on the MAG. Quite a few government reps
>> hardly participate in the discussions. The contributions of a group are
>> much more important than a few members more or less. This is why I think
>> it is sufficient to refer to the principle of balanced or equal
>> composition.
>>
>> I think what really matters is substantive proposals for the next IGF
>> meeting. As usual, we all got wound up in procedural matters instead.
>>
>> 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?!?
>> jeanette
>>> Is it that, in the end, you are of the opinion that ICANN and other
>>> members of the so-called "technical community" are CS organizations, and
>>> thus should be counted as such in terms of number of members of the MAG?
>>>
>>> I'm also asking the same question to Bill and Adam. And Suresh. I know
>>> McTim is clear on this: for him, the answer is yes. I haven't seen Lee
>>> agreeing on this (in his last email he said "Meryem's formulation or
>>> Ian's is close enough.").
>>>
>>> Meryem
>>>
>>> Le 20 févr. 08 à 16:07, Jeanette Hofmann a écrit :
>>>
>>>> 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