[governance] Reconstituting MAG - FINAL(?) the missing section

[Parminder]

And I think it will be clearer to say

> However, their representation should not be at the expense of 
> civil society participation.

Rather than

> However, their representation should not be at the expense of broader 
> civil society participation.


Parminder 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu]
> Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2008 3:46 AM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter
> Cc: 'McTim'; 'Adam Peake'; 'Parminder'
> Subject: Re: [governance] Reconstituting MAG - FINAL(?) the missing
> section
> 
> Yes, that is much better. It is not clear to everyone yet that
> governments have turned into mere stakeholders :-)
> 
> jeanette
> 
> Ian Peter wrote:
> > EEK - a couple of offline comments make it clear to me that para 2 will
> not
> > ride because of confusion around the word stakeholder.
> >
> > In which case I would revert to "We think that as per Tunis Agenda's
> > multi-stakeholder approach, governments, civil society and the business
> > sector should be represented equally." for the second paragraph. I think
> we
> > have lost McTim while he gets some sleep, but he prefers that to my
> previous
> > wording and I hope will find it acceptable.
> >
> > We now have
> >
> > 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,
> > governments, civil society and the business sector should be represented
> > equally]
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > Ian Peter
> > Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd
> > PO Box 10670 Adelaide St  Brisbane 4000
> > Australia
> > Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773
> > www.ianpeter.com
> > www.internetmark2.org
> > www.nethistory.info
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com]
> > Sent: 23 February 2008 07:45
> > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'McTim'
> > Cc: 'Adam Peake'; 'Parminder'
> > Subject: RE: [governance] Reconstituting MAG - FINAL(?) the missing
> section
> >
> > Here is what McTim and I have agreed on as a formulation.(which is a
> pretty
> > good start!!) Can we get a few yeahs?
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > Ian Peter
> > Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd
> > PO Box 10670 Adelaide St  Brisbane 4000
> > Australia
> > Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773
> > www.ianpeter.com
> > www.internetmark2.org
> > www.nethistory.info
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com]
> > Sent: 23 February 2008 07:30
> > To: Ian Peter
> > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Adam Peake; Parminder
> > Subject: Re: [governance] Reconstituting MAG - the missing section
> >
> > 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.
> >
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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