[Rigf_program] operating principles, proposed text on quorum etc

Wed Apr 3 14:31:05 HKT 2013

Peng Hwa + 1

Kuo Wu

Ang Peng Hwa (Prof) 於 2013/4/3 上午11:54 寫道：

> Fouad,
>  
> Could you elaborate on your objection to/concern with “steering”? I personally did not like “steering” myself at first but over time, I have seen it used in Singapore for high-level groups. So high that often it’s code for “actually we don’t do the heavy lifting like opening the car door, turning on the aircon or radio, stepping on the gas, stepping on the brakes, turning off the aircon or radio, etc”—we just steer. J Some people even steer from the backseat.
>  
> But seriously, I thought governments would be comfortable with the term “steering”.
>  
> The slight issue with “organising” is that it sounds like the APrIGF programme committee. And our discussion is intended to separate the two.
> Regards,
> Peng Hwa
>  
> From: Fouad Bajwa [mailto:fouadbajwa at gmail.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, 3 April, 2013 3:25 AM
> To: Cheryl Langdon-Orr
> Cc: Ang Peng Hwa (Prof); <rigf_program at ap.rigf.asia>
> Subject: Re: [Rigf_program] operating principles, proposed text on quorum etc
>  
> Indeed I am with the democratic acceptance of the terminology but my concern is from the government angle. +1 to quick agreement and getting on with the show!
> 
> Best Regards
> Fouad Bajwa
>  
> Sent from my mobile device
> 
> On Apr 3, 2013, at 12:15 AM, Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130403/8d9f21d7/attachment-0001.html 
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
Rigf_program mailing list
Rigf_program at ap.rigf.asia
https://mailman.dotasia.org/mailman/listinfo/rigf_program