[governance] Reconstituting MAG - FINAL(?) the missing
Ian Peter
ian.peter at ianpeter.com
Sat Feb 23 01:56:42 EST 2008
>Not clear to me where we're at
Join the club! Anyway I am happy to either accept the Parminder formula just
posted or to drop the text I proposed altogether. Not much time now, and I
believe either way the draft is fine.
Would like to see the one quarter reference dropped though.
-----Original Message-----
From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp]
Sent: 23 February 2008 17:40
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: RE: [governance] Reconstituting MAG - FINAL(?) the missing
>Adam I was picking up on
>
>>(text to be decided.) Since the process that built towards Meryem/ Ian
>>formulation failed, I will request someone to suggest fresh text for this.
>
>I now realize that the new text which follows actually covers a lot of this
>quite well, so am happy for that to stand (without the one quarter
>reference, thanks for that)
So what parts would you edit and leave? Not clear to me where we're at.
Adam
>Ian Peter
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp]
>Sent: 23 February 2008 14:58
>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
>
>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
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
More information about the Governance
mailing list