[Rigf_program] operating principles, proposed text on quorum etc

Tue Apr 2 20:24:04 HKT 2013

Hello Ang,

How about a MoG instead of a MsG, a Multistakeholder Organizing Group.
Steering is just not a politically correct word. It may be very well in the
technical and academic communities but politically speaking, its just not
appropriate.

On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 5:20 PM, Ang Peng Hwa (Prof) <TPHANG at ntu.edu.sg>wrote:

>  Apologies for being away. Minor crisis is still a crisis and not
> resolved.****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> Fouad,****
>
> ** **
>
> The objection to the use of “steering” you raise apply no matter what term
> is used. Substitute the word “steering” with “advisory” (I’m not saying we
> should go with “advisory”) and you see what I mean.****
>
> ** **
>
> Your point of concern in the last para. is valid. That is precisely what
> the text is supposed to address. If it (the text) does not address it
> sufficiently, then further suggestions for amendments would be needed.****
>
> ** **
>
> Regards,****
>
> Peng Hwa****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* rigf_program-bounces at ap.rigf.asia [mailto:
> rigf_program-bounces at ap.rigf.asia] *On Behalf Of *Fouad Bajwa
> *Sent:* Tuesday, 2 April, 2013 4:32 PM
> *To:* Izumi AIZU
> *Cc:* <rigf_program at ap.rigf.asia>
> *Subject:* Re: [Rigf_program] operating principles, proposed text on
> quorum etc****
>
> ** **
>
> 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****
>
> ------------------------------
> CONFIDENTIALITY:This email is intended solely for the person(s) named and
> may be confidential and/or privileged.If you are not the intended
> recipient,please delete it,notify us and do not copy,use,or disclose its
> content.
>
> Towards A Sustainable Earth:Print Only When Necessary.Thank you.
>

-- 
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/20130402/7f4e8259/attachment.html 
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
Rigf_program mailing list
Rigf_program at ap.rigf.asia
https://mailman.dotasia.org/mailman/listinfo/rigf_program