[governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language)

[McTim]

Hi,

On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 8:10 PM, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
>  > It would be unreasonable for anyone, after reading my many posts on
>  > this topic to think that I count only 7 CS on the MAG.
>  >
>  > BTW,  I just searched the TA, and there are zero references to
>  > "technical community" in the Tunis Agenda.
>
>  McTim,
>
>  I quote your email of yesterday
>
>  "Ian's formulation seems to be the voice of reason here."
>

</nit>

Actually  what I wrote was "Ian's formualtion seems to be the voice of
reason here"
</nit>

>  Which was sent a few hours after Ian's email (enclosed)which replied to my
>  email asking for clear views of Lee and Bill on Meryem's formulation where
>  Ian's amendments to this formulation were also indicated. Ian in his email
>  goes on to explain his amendments (which obviously means he places them
>  within the original Meryem's formulation).
>
>  So, when you say you agree with Ian's formulation, if your interventions are
>  meant to go into the exercise of constructing a caucus statement (which I
>  take them to be)

they are

and not mere expressions of your views as they come to you,
>  I am liable to take your agreement to Ian's amendment as also accepting the
>  larger text that is amended. Don't you think it is logical.

Again, apologies if I was unclear, what i was reacting to was the
upthread discussion regarding the last para of ian's text,
specifically from Bill:


"
>
> And their views on Ian replacing the last sentence
>
> "However, their current over-representation should be corrected."
>
> With
>
> "However, their representation should not be at the expense of broader civil
> society participation"

and

"I thought that the "Ian's formulation" that McTim and Lee supported was the
one below, which is about softening the them at the expense of us line, not
about the there are only three stakeholder groups thing."


>
>  I am trying to pull people's contributions together into a possible caucus
>  statement and it helps greatly if contributions are situated with respect to
>  the text on hand.

yes, I think that there was/is a bit of cross threading going on here
between "Reconstituting MAG" and "Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin
language)", hence the confusion.

I don't see Ian's 3rd para text (which is the part I referred to as
the voice of reason) in the latest statement, which I have put here:

http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dfts4mt7_41dk47vs9t

Perhaps I am mistaken, and this is not the latest?  I can make it
editable if that is helpful.

>
>  Search 'technical communities' and you will find it (well, this fiction of
>  one monolithic one view tech community). To help you I can quote para 36 of
>  TA
>
>  " 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"
>

I see that now, however, i can't see any difference between the
singular and the plural, as you seem to.  But this is another rathole,
which would be useful to avoid.

/McTim

>  Parminder
>
>
>
>  > -----Original Message-----
>  > From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com]
>  > Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 8:28 PM
>
> > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder
>  > Subject: Re: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language)
>  >
>
>
> > All,
>  >
>  >
>  > On Feb 20, 2008 5:20 PM, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> 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.
>  >
>  > Apologies if there was a misunderstanding, but i only agreed to this part:
>  > > . 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.
>  > >
>  >
>  > It would be unreasonable for anyone, after reading my many posts on
>  > this topic to think that I count only 7 CS on the MAG.
>  >
>  > BTW,  I just searched the TA, and there are zero references to
>  > "technical community" in the Tunis Agenda.
>  >
>  > --
>  > Cheers,
>  >
>  > McTim
>  > $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim
>
____________________________________________________________
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