[governance] bureau yes bureau no???

[Carlos Afonso]

What Parminder is saying (correctly) is what I said in my initial msg in 
this thread, but in any case I think we had enough to clarify one thing: 
the caucus has at this point **no** official position regarding a bureau 
in any form.

frt rgds

--c.a.

Parminder wrote:
>> Nothing to do with Brazil's comments.  
> 
>  
> 
> Not directly, but I had heard some discussion on a range of bureau related
> proposals, in and outside the room, and the fact that there were these new
> bureau-related proposals, and the fact that I myself hadn't fully
> read/understood/ considered these proposals, as I took many others hadn't as
> well, played on my mind when I made the clarification. 
> 
>  
> 
>> Answering the question as you phrased it, is a bureau structure
> 
>> proposal the "official position of the Internet governance caucus".
> 
>> The answer is obviously No.
> 
>  
> 
> The following is the full transcript of my intervention, and I think it
> adequately answers the question (as I think was the right answer, in the
> given circumstances) as I phrased it. 
> 
>  
> 
> "I would like to make a clarification, I was told by my colleagues that some
> civil society members here proposed a bureau structure for the IGF, and some
> government delegates were inquiring whether that is the official position of
> the Internet governance caucus.  And I would like to clarify that Internet
> governance caucus right now do not have any position on that.  They have not
> considered the issue.  And that is the opinion of some members who directly
> expressed the opinion on their own behalf or on the behalf of the
> organizations they represent."
> 
>  
> 
> And now since you have raised the issue, I think if my response was as you
> say 'dodgy' I think your expression of views that " the caucus does not in
> any way support the concept of a bureau" and that "it is somewhat
> distressing that there is this misunderstanding that we might do" wasn't
> well-advised either. Not after the co-coordinator, who has been given the
> right to express the official position said something (for which of course
> he is subsequently completely accountable) and your views clearly seemed to
> contradict his statement. And you did this when you sat 2 rows from me and a
> few others of the IGC and we could have discussed the matter. In fact, when
> I saw Jeanette trying to tell me something after my statement I did go to
> her seat, and quickly discussed the issue with her and Bill. We could have
> discussed if a further statement of expression of views on IGC's position
> was necessary. 
>  
> And you would have noted from the exchanges on the emails on the list, and
> my quotes from Vittorio's and Avri's emails that the construction that the
> bureau idea (in the existing circumstances, and its multiple shades) could
> be taken to have been formally considered by the IGC and rejected wasn't
> sound at all. 
>  
> Now, I understand that you intervention was well-intentioned (and I know you
> strongly feel about the issue, as do many others) and I know that in middle
> of such meetings one need to give some leeway to speakers and not hold too
> close a scrutiny over each and every word uttered, as long as the general
> spirit is right and well-meaning. But, well, since the issue is being
> discussed I thought Id make these above points.
>  
> 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: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp]
> 
>> Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2007 4:48 PM
> 
>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> 
>> Subject: RE: [governance] bureau yes bureau no???
> 
> 
>>> 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)
> 
> 
> 
>> Yes, but what you said was
> 
> 
>> "I was told by my colleagues that some civil society members here
> 
>> proposed a bureau structure for the IGF, and some government
> 
>> delegates were inquiring whether that is the official position of the
> 
>> Internet governance caucus."
> 
> 
>> Nothing to do with Brazil's comments.  And Francis seems to
> 
>> disassociated himself the caucus (Louis of course is a
> 
>> participant/member.)
> 
> 
>> Whatever. Sitting in the room it sounded like you had dodged the
> 
>> question as you yourself phrased it, particularly as it came at the
> 
>> end of a long statement where you began with comments from the
> 
>> caucus, then added observations of your own, and then back to a
> 
>> non-committal comment about a bureau.
> 
> 
>> Answering the question as you phrased it, is a bureau structure
> 
>> proposal the "official position of the Internet governance caucus".
> 
>> The answer is obviously No.
> 
> 
>> But it's fine.  They got the message.
> 
> 
>> Thanks,
> 
> 
>> Adam
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
> 
>> 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
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
> Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.4/825 - Release Date: 30/5/2007 15:03

-- 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Carlos A. Afonso
diretor de planejamento
Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor - Rits
http://www.rits.org.br
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

____________________________________________________________
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