[governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language)

[Milton L Mueller]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net]


> Don't treat them as enemies, or "the other side". Don't marginalize
their
> stake and crowd them out of MAG. And remember that the technical
community
> cuts across all 3 classic stakeholder communities and is going to be
> difficult for you to split between those communities.

Voila. This is precisely the point. One can fully represent the Internet
administration bodies and the technical experts by sticking to an equal
division of business, govt and civil society. Patrik Faltstrom e.g.
works for Cisco, he is clearly private sector. He is also a technical
expert on DNS. He is also closely associated (I believe - or used to be)
with the Swedish root zone operator. 

So maybe our point should be this: 
First, we make a point (as Parminder insists) of clarifying the
definitions used. We point out that TC is not a useful category, it is
really a cross-cutting concept that touches on all three of the main
stakeholder groups. 
Second, we point out (following Ian Peter) that what many people refer
to as TC are really administrative bodies that have a vested interest in
specific governance regimes. 
Third, we note that while these Internet administrative bodies must be
represented, both because of their governance role and their technical
knowledge, we should not allow IGF or the MAG to become overweighted
with their representatives, due to obvious conflict of interest issues. 


____________________________________________________________
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