[Rigf_program] operating principles, proposed text on quorum etc

Wed Apr 3 03:15:01 HKT 2013

Interestingly enough I see no issue politically correct or otherwise with
the use of 'steering' or any of the other proferred terms ... What I do
believe we need to do (other than settle this SOON) is to have a title for
our 'regional IGG forum organanising / management and administration open
and widely representative function group' ;-) that is clearly
distinguishable amd different from the IGF MAG...

CLO from my Mobile phone
On 02/04/2013 11:24 PM, "Fouad Bajwa" <fouadbajwa at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rigf_program mailing list
> Rigf_program at ap.rigf.asia
> https://mailman.dotasia.org/mailman/listinfo/rigf_program
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.dotasia.org/pipermail/rigf_secretariat/attachments/20130403/7f79f80f/attachment-0001.html 
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
Rigf_program mailing list
Rigf_program at ap.rigf.asia
https://mailman.dotasia.org/mailman/listinfo/rigf_program