[governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language)

[Adam Peake]

>Le 20 févr. 08 à 18:39, Adam Peake a écrit :
>
>>>Le 20 févr. 08 à 17:57, Adam Peake a écrit :
>>>>
>>>>>. 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.
>>>
>>>That's TA's exact wording, Adam. Used to 
>>>distinguish them from intergovernmental 
>>>organizations.
>>
>>
>>paragraph 35 e?
>
>Yes. This Para 35 has been referenced by 
>Parminder since his earliest proposal draft.
>35: those who have a role (not necessarily the 
>same). 35a gov, 35b biz, 35c cs, 35d IGOs, 35e 
>"technical communiity" (ICANN and the like).
>36: "valuable contribution by the academic and 
>technical communities within those stakeholder 
>groups mentioned in paragraph 35"
>
>Who can honestly claim


Me. 35 was a paragraph we argued against over and 
over, first in WSIS (it's taken from the Geneva 
documents) up to the last minutes of the Tunis 
negotiations.  It was one of the last paragraphs 
still contested at about 10PM before the Tunis 
Summit, if there'd been more time that ridiculous 
language limiting civil society's role would have 
been changed (I believe/hope.)

"Civil society has also played an important role 
on Internet matters, especially at community 
level, and should continue to play such a role. "

The chair apologized for not being able to get to 
it, discussion was out of time.

WGIG tried to mend it, didn't work. It's offensive.

36 says:

36. We recognize the valuable contribution by the 
academic and technical communities within those 
stakeholder groups mentioned in paragraph 35 to 
the evolution, functioning and  development of 
the Internet.

"within those stakeholder groups" they are not 
"International organizations" it means (a) 
through (e).

Don't reference documents you don't understand. 
International organizations is not code for ICANN 
and the rest.  This paragraph

"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."

is wrong.  It should be cut.

International organizations should be observers.

The I*'s should be members, but not over represented as they are now.

Thanks,

Adam

____________________________________________________________
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