[governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language)

[Suresh Ramasubramanian]

> Voila. This is precisely the point. One can fully represent the
> Internet
> administration bodies and the technical experts by sticking to an equal

Quite a few people participate in this part of the process on their own
money, and their own time, with employers that don't pay them to do this.

Not specifically talking about Pat Faltstrom, here.

> 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.

Oh, but it is. It is a clear enough crosscut and doesn't quite fit into any
of the stakeholder groups around here. Not very well at least, square peg in
a round hole

> 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.

Some of it is that.  But there is not much point in rehashing this
particular argument.

I voted for Ian's wording, I will stick to it. It is much less aggressively
marginalizing than previous drafts have been.

Thanks
Suresh

____________________________________________________________
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