[governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language)

[Meryem Marzouki]

Le 20 févr. 08 à 19:51, Adam Peake a écrit :

>> 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

That's true. But it's often working this way with such UN- (or  
regional org) level documents. The document is weak, we fight it,  
then it is adopted, still weak. Then over time the situation becomes  
even worse that we thought it could ever become, and this weak  
document is the best thing we can rely on as an official document, to  
remind the concerned organization its duty.
Should I give examples?

> 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).

May I draw your attention to the difference between "technical  
communities" and "the technical community"? And to the evolution in  
balance of powers as well as in kind of CS representation and  
understanding from WSIS times to IGF times? "technical  
communities" (specially when referred to in the same sentence as "the  
academic") means exactly what makes McTim argues that they should be  
CS. And what makes Suresh asking about his APCAUCE. To only cite  
recent exemples on this list. These are among "technical  
communities". And yes, the play the same role as academic (advice,  
expertise, etc.). And are integral part of "those stakeholder groups  
mentioned in par 35...", including, but not only, CS.

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

Bill is feeling that I'm unpleasant to him. What should I say of your  
sentence above? Anyway.. You know the codes, you have the UN keys.  
Fine..

> "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.

Suppose it's wrong (per your above keys). Why should it be cut  
instead of renaming these "International organizations having an  
important role in the development of Internet-related technical  
standards and relevant policies" using the appropriate code, if  
that's your point. Or is your point that you don't want an IGC  
statement says that they "should continue to be represented in the  
MAG. However, their representation should not be at the expense of  
broader civil society participation."

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

That simply an opinion. Among others.


____________________________________________________________
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