[governance] bureau yes bureau no???
Parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Thu May 31 06:50:24 EDT 2007
We were surprised that they thought
> that, and Adam made his statement subsequently in an effort to disabuse
> them
> of the notion, perhaps too forcefully for some.
Bill
To add to your description of events, after you brought the issue of the
confusion in some gov members minds to my notice and I did clarify to the
house that the bureau proposal was not an IGC proposal but that made by some
civil society members on their own behalf or of their organization, and that
IGC had no position on this proposal. And that we have not talked about it
internally. I understand that there is some difference of views if this last
part on 'we haven't talked about it' is correct.
In my view there were a couple of bureau proposals (Francis, brazil) some
elements of which were quite new, and different from what is generally known
and thought about a bureau (especially brazil's proposal) and in this
context it was right of me to say what I said about the IGC having not
considered this issue (in the present context).( I am only dealing with the
process issue here, and will discuss my personal views on this matter in a
separate email)
I quote a subsequent email of Vittorio dt 21st which while describing the
feb IGC statement says that
" though it did not address explicitly the "bureau" idea since it had not
come up yet."
Also an email of Avri's dt 24th that
" it is in this sense, btw, that i think it was true that that the IGC has
not really considered a [Bb]ureau. certainly a few had spoken about it pro
and con, but in no sense that i can identify had we really worked on or
'considered' it."
Many others also have expressed different views on this issue....
Whereby I think I was justified in saying what I said, even as I understand
the basis of the difference of opinions on this issue.
Parminder
________________________________________________
Parminder Jeet Singh
IT for Change, Bangalore
Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities
Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890
Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055
www.ITforChange.net
> -----Original Message-----
> From: William Drake [mailto:drake at hei.unige.ch]
> Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 12:39 PM
> To: Governance
> Subject: Re: [governance] bureau yes bureau no???
>
> Mawaki,
>
> We did affirm just three months ago support for the mAG model while
> criticizing sharply its ultimate formulation and implementation. Since a
> few governments have been pushing from the start for a bureau, and the mAG
> was quite clearly designed as an alternative, I'd have thought that
> everyone
> understood our support for the mAG as a model (not its implementation) as
> not supporting its opposite. My message yesterday guessed that that's
> what
> Adam was thinking when he made his statement, but he can speak for
> himself.
>
> To amplify Adam's explanatory message: at the beginning of the afternoon
> session, Karen came over to tell me that some EU governments were shocked
> that I'd said the caucus supports a bureau. In fact, I had not even
> uttered
> the word, bureau, in my intervention, which was about our four suggested
> themes for the main session. Turned out later when I talked to them that
> they'd conflated in their ears Francis Muget's statement and mine, which I
> think is indicative or the fact that maybe we shouldn't assume they're
> listening all that carefully to our precise formulations, or particularly
> attentive to differences within CS. We were surprised that they thought
> that, and Adam made his statement subsequently in an effort to disabuse
> them
> of the notion, perhaps too forcefully for some.
>
> All that said, if people now want to spend the cycles debating language
> reversing our previous stance and supporting the replacement of the mAG
> with
> a bureau, or some other nomenclature per Guru's message, go for it. As
> the
> caucus is clearly divided I suspect we'd end up having to vote etc. And
> with all the industrialized countries, business, ISOC, and the IGF's
> leadership opposed and a few developing countries in favor, it's
> reasonable
> to forecast that no consensus to do so will be forthcoming there, either.
>
> Best,
>
> Bill
>
> On 5/23/07 7:58 PM, "Mawaki Chango" <ki_chango at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Bill,
> >
> > I fail to understand this. Are we not in a new/different
> > situation now from the time of our "previously affirmed support"
> > to the mAG? And aren't the participants or stakeholders called
> > to make inputs, again, for this second round of IGF? And when
> > one of the current coordinators make an honest statement based
> > on the *current* situation, does any one of us need to spend
> > energy and mic time to contradict him, and this on the basis of
> > a *previous* state of affair? Don't we have better things to
> > strive and advocate for during that limited time at the mic?
> >
> > Mawaki
> >
> >
> > --- William Drake <drake at hei.unige.ch> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Carlos,
> >>
> >> More coordination, sure.
> >>
> >> Perhaps some talking past each other here. Yes, in the
> >> morning meeting, we
> >> said "the caucus has no position" on the renewed bureau
> >> suggestions.
> >> However, it is also true that the caucus has previously
> >> affirmed support for
> >> the mAG approach as opposed to a bureau---and make no mistake,
> >> they are
> >> understood by all as opposites (but of course we have also
> >> criticized the
> >> way the mAG concept has been implemented). I think Adam was
> >> reacting to
> >> Parminder's particular framing that the caucus has no position
> >> "because
> >> we've not talked about it" (forget his precise words, but not
> >> true) and was
> >> restating the prior position which, absent any revision since,
> >> does stand
> >> now.
> >>
> >> Best,
> >>
> >> Bill
> >>
> >>
> >> On 5/23/07 4:10 PM, "carlos a. afonso" <ca at rits.org.br> wrote:
> >>
> >>> This just happened in the IGF consultation here in Geneva:
> >>>
> >>> Parminder stated that the CS caucus has no position
> >> regarding the
> >>> formation of a bureau, as this needs more debate within the
> >> caucus for a
> >>> consensus (or at least rought consensus) to be made -- this
> >> is the view
> >>> we got from our caucus morning meeting today. On the other
> >> hand, Adam,
> >>> who was not at the morning meeting, said that the caucus has
> >> absolutely
> >>> rejected any bureau proposal, which in my view is not true.
> >>>
> >>> What is this? We need, at a minimum, a bit more
> >> coordination...
> >>>
> >>> --c.a.
> >>
> >>
> >> ____________________________________________________________
> >> 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
> >>
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > 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
>
> ***********************************************************
> William J. Drake drake at hei.unige.ch
> Director, Project on the Information
> Revolution and Global Governance/PSIO
> Graduate Institute for International Studies
> Geneva, Switzerland
> http://hei.unige.ch/psio/researchprojects/Drake.html
> ***********************************************************
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
____________________________________________________________
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
More information about the Governance
mailing list