[governance] Reconstituting MAG - FINAL(?) the missing
Adam Peake
ajp at glocom.ac.jp
Sat Feb 23 02:19:34 EST 2008
Parminder, thanks.
How would you see the whole statement reading
now. Can you copy in the text as you think
revised?
Thanks,
Adam
>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 thats 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
____________________________________________________________
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