[governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language)

[Parminder]

> 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.
> 


APC is bigger than giganet, and an org focused on the internet. so why not one 
sixth for them. i know few other big CS networks as well.... some gender and 
ICT networks, telecentre network, for instance.  I like the way this logic 
works out. 

BTW since you ask abt giganet's presence in the MAG, it may be relevant 
information that none of these networks I mention have any member at all.  

Parminder

www.ITforChange.net
IT for Change
Bridging Developmental Realities and Technological Possibilities


Quoting Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp>:

> >  > -----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
> 
____________________________________________________________
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