[governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language)

[Adam Peake]

>  > -----Original Message-----
>>  From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp]
>>
>>  Civil society has been under represented in the multistakeholder
>>  advisory groups appointed in 2006 and 2007, this anomaly should be
>>  corrected in this round of rotation and a fair balance of members
>>  between all stakeholders assured. (I'd be happy to add: At least one
>>  quarter of the MAG membership must be drawn from Civil Society.)
>
>One quarter, eh? See below.
>
>>  I disagree. I think it is progress to see the emergence of a new
>>  stakeholder group in the IGF.
>
>Bollocks.


Not.


>How is it progress for one particular group to 
>secede from business and civil society (all the 
>while claiming that it is part of both, just to 
>hedge its bet) and gain privileged 
>representation for itself? Does this mean that 
>it would also be progress for any other new 
>stakeholder group to make enough noise to get 
>considered as a special group? Where does it end?
>
>>  I have no problem with the
>>  technical/admin Internet organizations being a separate group in the
>>  IGF. I just do not want them to continue to be over represented.
>
>The whole point of claiming to be a separate 
>group in this case is to be over-represented. 
>You prove it yourself above: You're willing to 
>give parity in representation to a group that 
>is, for the most part, a small subset of private 
>sector or civil society, merely by virtue of the 
>fact that they claim to be a distinct category 
>of actor. So if I could somehow establish "Full 
>Professors in snowy climes " as a new category 
>they would get one fifth of the positions?


Except for the one fifth, why not? Why wouldn't 
GigaNet, for example, aspire to that?

How's GigaNet represented in the IGF at the moment... not so bad.


>This is a political game. Obviously. The claim 
>that TC is "special" and apart from CS and PS 
>was simply a way for incumbent I* governance 
>organizations to maxmimize their voice and 
>influence in the IGF. If recognition as a 
>special group translated into _less_ 
>representation, the same folks would suddenly 
>claim not to be a distinct group and don the 
>camouflage of civil society or private sector. 
>They've got you covered either way, as McTim's 
>none-too-subtle machinations on the list show.
>
>But, let's not forget the validity of Jeanette's 
>comment that numbers on the MAG don't 
>necessarily translate into influence, and not 
>get hung up on qutoas. In our statement let's be 
>principled and stick to Biz, Gov and CS (.com, 
>.gov and .org) as the categories,


er... Bollocks.

No better way to screw up CS discussions over the coming year.

And we shouldn't run the risk of games that might 
result. CS might be recognized as not being fully 
clothed (think that might have been part of what 
Danny was getting at.)

Adam


>let's recognize that individuals who work for 
>Internet admin bodies can fall in any of those 
>categories, let's not be naïve about the obvious 
>self-interest these orgs may have in populating 
>an IGF advisory body, and let's tell the truth 
>about it.
>

____________________________________________________________
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