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

[Carlos Afonso]

Fine, Ian, *if* there weren't a rule established by the UN (which is not
in Tunis Agenda) that 50% of the MAG ought to be composed of government
reps. We can of course always try and struggle against this, but the
attempt to do it during the latest MAG meeting met with a concrete wall
from the MAG secretariat, just saying this is not under discussion.

So we are left with trying to achieve a balance of representation within
the other 50%.

--c.a.

Ian Peter wrote:
> 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.
> 

-- 

Carlos A. Afonso
direção colegiada, Rits (Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor)
conselheiro, CGI.br (Comitê Gestor da Internet no Brasil)
*******************************************************************
Projeto Sacix - Apoio técnico a iniciativas de inclusão digital com
software livre, mantido pela Rits em colaboração com o Coletivo
Digital. Para mais informações:
www.sacix.org.br     www.rits.org.br     www.coletivodigital.org.br
*******************************************************************


____________________________________________________________
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