[Rigf_program] operating principles, proposed text on quorum etc

Tue Apr 2 16:31:54 HKT 2013

The word steering does raise a concern and is a question of legitimacy.

As an individual and volunteer, it causes me no personal discomfort to go
with MSG but from the political view of things, it causes me deep concern
that once governments are invited to participate beyond how they are doing
at the moment, (i have been gathering the feeling of reluctance and doing
it for the sake of it so that they are not left out),  steering is a third
party or a power group.

How do we make such a group accountable and transparent beyond the remit of
mailing lists is a challenge and the name choice is a rational issue. We
can all steer but the legitimacy to do so is also being define by ourselves
and not a multistakeholder group in reality. This should be somehow kept in
mind from the very beginning.

Let me share an example, it may be a point of concern that some potential
members of the proposed MSG have been able to fund themselves and
participate in apnic or apstar occasions to discuss the APrIGF possibility
but this leaves out a majority of those who do not have access to such
venues or meetings. If this is the group that gives direction and
leadership to MSG in the near future, the polity of the group will always
be questioned. For example, who will comprise the MSG, how will the process
be carried out and by whom, how will transparency be ensured etc. So there
are a lot of issues here that will gradually evolve and have also come up
in the past.

Best

On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 12:44 PM, Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org> wrote:

> Thanks for the suggestion, it looks like a very good idea to have such
> voting mechanism.
>
> As for the naming, I also have no problem with MSG (abbreviation is a
> little
> confusing, but that is another thing and OK for this).
>
> We don't have to be exactly same as global IGF. There, making decision is
> sometimes very sensitive, that's why UN SG was asked and advisory remains
> as advisory. Here, at least so far, there is no political sensitivity to
> that level
> and also this is the body that decides the substance of the APrIGF, so
> there has to be some kind of steering.
>
> izumi
>
>
>
>
> 2013/4/2 Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp>
>
>> Hi Fouad,
>>
>> To be honest, I don't see a problem with MSG.
>>
>> But the MAG is an advisory group. Who would an AP MAG be advising?
>> The IGF MAG had a mandate from the UN Secretary General to help him
>> convene the IGF.  It advises him.
>>
>> The MSG's task is to steer the process of organizing/holding the AP
>> regional IGF. A group comprised of multi-stakeholders who volunteer to
>> steer, guide,  plan, etc. the APrIGF.
>>
>> Sorry, I missing the problem!
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Adam
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 3:08 PM, Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Hi Adam,
>> >
>> > Are we till going to call the multistakeholder a steering group? I had
>> > shared earlier that this was a very confusing term. A multistakeholder
>> led
>> > process being steered? The advisory approach that is common around other
>> > regional and country IGF's should be considered. There is no harm in
>> having
>> > a MAG here. The ArabIGF also adoption the MAG term for its
>> multistakeholder
>> > group.
>> >
>> > Best
>> >
>> >
>> > On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 6:40 PM, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hi all.
>> >>
>> >> Cheryl and I offered to edit the text of the draft operating
>> >> principles, section 6, membership, about "quorum".  We propose as new:
>> >>
>> >> For the affirmative vote to be quorate 3 of the 4 recognized
>> >> stakeholder groupings, as identified in section 4 "Organizational
>> >> Principles" of this document; Must have at least 5 votes cast by
>> >> individuals having previously established their Stakeholder Group
>> >> affiliation.
>> >>
>> >> (old text:  The quorum for any vote or decision by the MSG will be set
>> >> at 20 voting members, with at least 2 individuals having established
>> >> affiliation with each recognised stakeholder grouping.)
>> >>
>> >> Minium 20 members must vote, 5 members from 3 of the 4 groups.
>> >>
>> >> Comments please,
>> >>
>> >> Adam
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> Rigf_program mailing list
>> >> Rigf_program at ap.rigf.asia
>> >> https://mailman.dotasia.org/mailman/listinfo/rigf_program
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Regards.
>> > --------------------------
>> > Fouad Bajwa
>> > ICT4D and Internet Governance Advisor
>> > My Blog: Internet's Governance:
>> http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/
>> > Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa
>> _______________________________________________
>> Rigf_program mailing list
>> Rigf_program at ap.rigf.asia
>> https://mailman.dotasia.org/mailman/listinfo/rigf_program
>>
>>
>
>
> --
>                      >> Izumi Aizu <<
> Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo
> Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
> Japan
> www.anr.org
>

-- 
Regards.
--------------------------
Fouad Bajwa
ICT4D and Internet Governance Advisor
My Blog: Internet's Governance: http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/
Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.dotasia.org/pipermail/rigf_secretariat/attachments/20130402/70a0d294/attachment-0001.html 
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
Rigf_program mailing list
Rigf_program at ap.rigf.asia
https://mailman.dotasia.org/mailman/listinfo/rigf_program