[governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language)

[William Drake]

On 2/20/08 8:32 PM, "Meryem Marzouki" <marzouki at ras.eu.org> wrote:

>> Two questions follow: 1) are they properly "stakeholders," and if
>> so should
>> they be "allocated" slots alongside the traditional three on the
>> same basis.
>> Your position I guess is no, full stop.
> 
> Not "full stop". I support a statement which currently says: "We also
> agree that International organizations [...] should continue to be
> represented in the MAG. However, their representation should not be
> at the expense of broader civil society participation." Clear enough,
> unless one persists in equating, for whatever reason of his/her own,
> "not of the same nature thus not in the same position" to: "get out
> from here".

Or unless one is unable to detect a clear answer to whether you are saying
they are "stakeholders" or just some nebulous thing that we'll deign to
include.
 
>> Mine is that if you think beyond
>> ICANN (I know it's hard, but it can be done) to the much broader
>> galaxy of
>> bodies that do admin things, it's not quite obvious on what basis
>> one could
>> say that they all don't have stakes in gov decisions, but we do.
> 
> ICANN included, they have interests, they have stakes, they have
> expertise. But they're not stakeholders in the UN sense. Parts of
> them, or individuals within them, or companies within them, or
> governments within them, perfectly fit in any of the three
> stakeholders group. But not them as organizations.

This is clearer.  What's not clear is whether that captures all the relevant
ABs, e.g. those that are staff operations not negotiation forums for various
other constituencies.
 
>> 2) Beyond AB staff and leadership there is the vaster galaxy of
>> people who
>> work in these spaces, identify with them, etc.
> 
> I've repeatedly said, as other did, that there's no problem with
> these people, as such. And I've certainly never said, nor thought,
> that this is an issue of paychecks. With this reasoning - which is

I haven't heard any other principled basis for allocation to date, but I
clearly agree it's inadequate.

> completely irrelevant - I would myself count for gov. As a civil
> servant (academic working in a public research institute), I get my
> paycheck from the government. So what? I'm not even discussing on
> this list - nor have I spent almost 5 years chairing a WSIS CS caucus
> - in my professional capacity, but rather as part of my volunteering
> activity representing a (not funded, and explicitely refusing funding
> -- this is to answer in advance Suresh's general concerns on this
> issue, which I share) NGO or sometimes in informal discussions as an
> individual. The issue is not who pays your salary. But who funds you
> to explicitely represent it.

So then people shape shift back and forth between categories when they
consult etc?  

Just saying Meryem, this obviously merits more consideration rather than a
rushed unilateral pronouncement we'll have to live with.
 
>> Moreover, one might note that as a practical matter, and as I
>> pointed out
>> the other night, you are then insisting that a whole lot of people
>> who do
>> not identify with or agree with us (to the extent we have any common
>> denominators ourselves) are CS, which presumably means that they
>> should be
>> allocated "CS seats."
> 
> Being CS doesn't mean agreeing, as anyone may have understood. Same
> for governments, BTW. Same for business, when their interests are
> conflicting (and they do many times).

Clearly not;-)
 
>> And since there are far far more of them than us, and
>> they often play direct roles in net matters and have standing with
>> all the
>> relevant power centers, your reclassification would highlight in
>> technicolor
>> that IGC members and fellow travelers are a very very small portion
>> of the
>> CS that has stakes in IG and that the IGF should pay attention to.
> 
> Yes. You seem not taking into account the wider CS (there is a real
> world out there).

I am, precisely.  But acting as if the reality was otherwise, based inter
alia on who has had the interest/means to be involved and
self-identifications, has served "our" interests.  Your objective is to drop
the act and reduce the claim of people who call themselves CS in this
process?
 
>>   To take
>> one example, ISOC says it has 28,000 individual members in over 90
>> chapters
>> around the world, a great many of whom are CS per you.  IGC has
>> like 50
>> members.  So what principle should the SG follow in deciding among
>> these and
>> other CS claimants?  Contrary to my back and forth with Parminder
>> the other
>> day, it would certainly not be up to us to decide which of such
>> people "CS"
>> can nominate.  We're complaining now that only 5 o 7 of our
>> nominees are on
>> the mAG.  If you get what you're asking for, the SG would be quite
>> correct
>> in giving us like 1 and splitting the others among other CS groups.
> 
> This is what I referred to in previous message (answering you
> actually, I think) by: "the very paradox (or is it the original sin?)
> of the IGF (and, before IGF, WGIG): participants, starting from MAG
> members, are supposed to be participating in their individual
> capacity, while at the same time being selected as "representatives"

There's an unresolved ambiguity there but I'm not sure I'd put it that way.

> of a given stakeholder." And why do you acknowledge that ISOC have a
> weight of 28,000, while considering, say, Parminder as one rather
> than the n ITfC members or Karen as one rather than the m APC members
> (and members of members) number? If we follow your reasoning, why

I'm saying that's what could be said.  No matter how you slice it or count
membership of orgs represented by individual IGC members, it's a Pandora's
box tactically.

> accepting that some CS MAG members nominated by the IGC are only
> individuals, not representing any organization? This reasoning is not
> sound. Moreover, you're analyzing long term political

Ok, add up the numbers, people in orgs in which mAG reps work and see how
much better we come out.

> reconfigurations in simplistic tactic terms. This doesn't mean
> anything. If it was only a question of simple tactics, then ISOC

Now you're just being unpleasant, why?  I simply pointed out the practical
implications of what you're saying for those who actually participate in IGF
meetings.  There might be a case on conceptual grounds (although it's not
clear yet) but it has some practical implications worth being clear about.

> would have stuffed this caucus list with ISOC-friendly people and

Why should they bother, we're completely capable of self-destructing, as
this extended and unproductive discussion is demonstrating.

> they would have been set. Don't you understand that real stakes are
> elsewhere, and not only for ISOC? Most notably in official and long

Actually I do, part of why I think this whole thing has been such an
ill-considered black hole.

> term wide recognition of the so-called "technical community" as a
> stakeholder in the same way as the three usual and natural
> stakeholders? Of course, this doesn't prevent to stuff this caucus
> and other lists with one's own people, as this might help in daily
> housekeeping or simply information to feel the overall mood.

Ok, whatever.  So are we done, please?  Maybe we could talk about things
people might agree on, as I suggested last week?  IGF format, main sessions,
that sort of thing?

BD


____________________________________________________________
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