[governance] Reconstituting MAG - the missing section

[McTim]

2008/2/22 Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>:
> Or maybe this fits better for second sentence and is agreeable? - MtTim if
>  you like it better I'll include it now in a redraft

I like it better than last iteration, but was just about to suggest this:

We think that as per Tunis Agenda's multi-stakeholder approach,
membership should be divided equally among Stakeholders (or SH
groups).

Can you live with that?

So now it would read:

The rules for membership of the MAG, including in terms of
representation of different stakeholders, should be clearly
established, and made open along with due justifications. Full civil
society representation is necessary to ensure legitimacy for this new
experiment in global governance.

We think that as per Tunis Agenda's multi-stakeholder approach,
membership should be divided equally among Stakeholders. [or SH groups
if you prefer]

We also agree that the organizations having an important role in
Internet administration and the development of Internet-related
technical standards should continue to be represented in the MAG.
However, their representation should not be at the expense of broader
civil society participation.

-- 
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