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

Parminder parminder at itforchange.net
Sat Feb 23 01:46:40 EST 2008 

This is trying to fit Ian/ McTim compromise text in earlier Adam's. 

> No, I do not support stating there are three
> stakeholders or reference to the Tunis Agenda.

Ok, we can drop that. If that’s the main problem. Though the three way logic
tries to keep to the basic three way division of society institutions -
those of governance, of market, and (residual) civil society. And add
special categories as per context.   


> I'd also like to see where this proposed text
> would fit within the full draft.  

Take some parts of Ian's first para and add in appropriate place in Adam's
for it to read.

"* In the interest of transparency and
understanding the responsibilities of MAG members, when making appointments
to the MAG we ask the Secretary General to explain which interested group
that person is associated with. The rules for membership of the MAG should
be clearly established, and made open along with due justifications.


And after

> * Civil society has been under represented in the
> multi-stakeholder 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. At
> least one quarter of the MAG membership must be
> drawn from Civil Society. Fair civil society
> representation is necessary to ensure legitimacy
> for this new experiment in global governance. (Adam's text)

Add

"We 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 civil society
participation."

This fits Ian/ McTim to Adam's text, while removing the problem part of the
number of stakeholders. 


Together the whole text in the section "*Membership of the MAG*" if the
'reconstituting MAG will then read.

* We think that 40 is a good number for MAG members. One third of MAG
members should be rotated every year.

* In the interest of transparency and
understanding the responsibilities of MAG members, when making appointments
to the MAG we ask the Secretary General to explain which interested group
that person is associated with. The rules for membership of the MAG should
be clearly established, and made open along with due justifications.

* Civil society has been under represented in the multi-stakeholder 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. Fair civil
society representation is necessary to ensure legitimacy for this new
experiment in global governance. 

* We 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 civil society participation.

* Stakeholder representatives should be chosen based on appropriate
processes of self-selection by stakeholder groups. We do appreciate that it
is difficult to recognize any one stakeholder entity, or even a given set of
them, as completely representing the whole of that particular stakeholder
group. This complicates the process of selection, especially in the case of
civil society and business sectors, and makes for some scope for the final
selecting authority exercising a degree of judgment. This, however, should
be done in a completely transparent manner. Deviations from the
self-selection processes of stakeholder groups should be kept to the
minimum.  

* When recommending members of the MAG all stakeholders should ensure
diversity in terms of gender, geography, and, where applicable, special
interest groups.
(end)

The text is long, but depending on time allocation - and it is expected that
a fair amount of discussion may take place on MAG composition - we can read
out an excerpted text, and make the whole statement available in print.


Parminder 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp]
> Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2008 9:28 AM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: RE: [governance] Reconstituting MAG - FINAL(?) the missing
> 
> No, I do not support stating there are three
> stakeholders or reference to the Tunis Agenda.
> 
> I'd also like to see where this proposed text
> would fit within the full draft.  Too confusing
> with too many different drafts flying around.
> Would be better to keep documents whole as
> possible.
> 
> Ian, the last version I think you're basing changes on read:
> 
> [start]
> * We think that 40 is a good number for MAG
> members. One third of MAG members should be
> rotated every year.
> 
> * In the interest of transparency and
> understanding the responsibilities of MAG
> members, when making appointments to the MAG we
> ask the Secretary General to explain which
> interested group that person is associated with.
> 
> * Civil society has been under represented in the
> multi-stakeholder 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. At
> least one quarter of the MAG membership must be
> drawn from Civil Society. Fair civil society
> representation is necessary to ensure legitimacy
> for this new experiment in global governance.
> [all the stuff about numbers deleted]
> 
> * Stakeholder representatives should be chosen
> based on appropriate processes of self-selection
> by stakeholder groups. We do appreciate that it
> is difficult to recognize any one stakeholder
> entity, or even a given set of them, as
> completely representing the whole of that
> particular stakeholder group. This complicates
> the process of selection, especially in the case
> of civil society and business sectors, and makes
> for some scope for the final selecting authority
> exercising a degree of judgment. This, however,
> should be done in a completely transparent
> manner. Deviations from the self-selection
> processes of stakeholder groups should be kept to
> the minimum.  [some words deleted from the end of
> the last sentence, think they were too much to
> demand]
> 
> * When recommending members of the MAG all
> stakeholders should ensure diversity in terms of
> gender, geography, and, where applicable, special
> interest groups. [some change to wording]
> 
> [no comments on other stakeholders, just focus on CS]
> 
> [end]
> 
> 
> So.  Yes, happy with deleting "At least one
> quarter..." etc from the third paragraph.
> 
> In your version are we keeping "We think 40 is a
> good number..." etc?  And keeping the paragraph
> "* Stakeholder representatives should be
> chosen..." etc ?  Milton thinks it should be as
> small as possible, something to that effect could
> easily be added. (small, nibble, effective, while
> large enough to enure the  diversity of interests
> are represented.  Not more than 40...)
> 
> For the other two paragraphs it seems you're
> reverting to Parminder's earlier draft and I have
> the same problems with them now as I did a few
> days ago.
> 
> And as we're all subscribed to the caucus list there's no need to cc.
> 
> Adam
> 
> 
> 
> >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 Agenda¹s
> >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 Agenda¹s 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.
> >
> >--
> >Cheers,
> >
> >McTim
> >$ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim
> >____________________________________________________________
> >
> >
> >No virus found in this outgoing message.
> >Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> >Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.9/1293 - Release Date:
> 22/02/2008
> >09:21
> >
> >
> >____________________________________________________________
> >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
> >
> >No virus found in this incoming message.
> >Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> >Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.9/1293 - Release Date:
> 22/02/2008
> >09:21
> >
> >
> >No virus found in this outgoing message.
> >Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> >Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.9/1293 - Release Date:
> 22/02/2008
> >09:21
> >
> >
> >____________________________________________________________
> >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

____________________________________________________________
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

More information about the Governance mailing list