[governance] IGC statement Para 2 REVISION 2.x

[Adam Peake]

>On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 10:32 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
>>  Mc Tim, you could also do a third sheet and put the various technical folk
>>  into PS, which is definitely where at least some of them belong. That would
>>  give another and different skew.
>
>I can do that if you tell me which ones and why.


Sunday, Nii?  Because they are businessmen...

But it's a little meaningless to talk about specific names.

I can see 4 people you have as civil society who are pretty 
definitely business people.

Many MAG members have overlapping interests (I've been involved with 
ISOC for almost 20 years and ICANN for 10, but when on the MAG and in 
WSIS I've always been associated with civil society), but my guess is 
those you have listed as both CS and tech community were presented to 
the secretary general as primarily associated with the tech 
community.  Perhaps there were bios noting any overlapping interest, 
multiple "hats", or whoever made up a list for the SG took these 
overlaps into consideration. But my experience is some of the tech 
community folks lean towards CS, but many are pretty clearly aligned 
with business.

I think the exercise of trying to divide people up a bit meaningless, 
other than to show the dominance of government (but we know about 
that, and it's been admitted as something that is likely to stay). If 
civil society wants more members it should make a case for why based 
on missing expertise, diversity etc, rather than saying there's too 
many of someone else (though I don't really understand why there are 
so many ccTLD folks, the individuals are great, but they hardly bring 
enormous diversity in their linkages to wider communities.)

Adam




>  >
>>  Also
>>
>>>  NB: Not all CS MAG members may be IGC subscribers, but if I understand
>>>  our charter well, ALL list subscribers who are on the MAG should be
>>>  considered CS members.
>>
>>
>>  NO. Don't know where you got that from. Some are government and some are PS.
>>  This is an open list.
>
>Right, I misspoke (typed).  I should have said all CS IGC Members
>should be considered CS. Do you disagree?
>
>>
>>
>>  And irreverently
>>
>>
>>  "A SEARCH indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
>>  route indicates how we get there." (Apologies to Jon Postel)
>>
>>  A name is an irrelevance these days.
>
>Then why all the heat and light around ICANN issues?
>
>
>--
>Cheers,
>
>McTim
>"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
>route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
>____________________________________________________________
>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
>
>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

____________________________________________________________
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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t