<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Bureau</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<FONT FACE="Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:18.0px'>Hi,<BR>
<BR>
I agree with Adam and Karen that a bureau is a risky idea that CS shouldn’t embrace. But I don’t think anyone’s really addressed Milton’s question about why there is a logical linkage between creating a bureau and control by governments. Leaving aside our bad experience with this structure during WSIS, which would seem to support the point, a few concerns might be:<BR>
<BR>
1. It formalizes separated processes in which each of the four groupings has its own consultations, comes to consensus, and then enters into some sort of dialogue with counterparts. The positions that result from those inward focused processes could be more fixed and allow less room for post hoc persuasion or revision. Once governments work something out amongst themselves, they might be loathe to abandon or revise it; we could end up with hardened bargaining positions and WSIS-plenary style dynamics. In contrast, mixing people together in one group as equals can make things more fluid and flexible, particularly when the logic of statements must be explained to skeptics from other species. Compare the plenaries with the WGIG and you see how the flow is different.<BR>
<BR>
2. In the UN, their meaning seems to carry the intersubjective understandings of diplomats and secretariats based on historical experience in other settings. They seem to understand bureaus as something done in processes that are in the first instance intergovernmental, with non-state actors as sort of invited guests that don’t have the same standing when push comes to shove and decisions must be taken. It’s perhaps telling who’s advocated a bureau---e.g. China and other developing country governments that have consistently favored greater government control---and who has discouraged the idea, e.g. people like Nitin who are trying to preserve the multistakeholder orientation, and the notion that the Internet space is qualitatively different and requires non-standard models.<BR>
<BR>
3. There’s a UN process for constituting bureaus according to regions etc, but as Nitin has pointed out, there’s no “membership” in the IGF upon which to base such a structure. At a minimum, to constitute a “representative” bureau we would be expected to formalize some sort of hierarchical peak association that has the support of the relevant polity. This didn’t work in WSIS and probably wouldn’t here, given the fluidity and diversity of CS opinion on IG. Meanwhile it presumably would institutionalize similar structures in other stakeholder groupings.<BR>
<BR>
Unless there were sufficient assurances on these and other conceivable points, it seems a risky road to go down. The governments know what this means to them, but we don’t have the experience to interpret it or probably the organizational savvy and firepower to fight off bad designs.<BR>
<BR>
That said, I certainly agree with Karen that the existing mAG structure is far from ideal and needs reform. We agreed language on this drafted by Vittorio for the February statement (which, unless I’m blind, is not on the IGF website www.intgovforum.org/contributions_Feb_2007_cons.htm) and think it still applies (was the below the final text?)<BR>
<BR>
About the Advisory Group, while supporting the concept, we note that its composition, including<BR>
the proportionate representation of stakeholder groups and the cross-cutting technical and academic<BR>
communities, was not openly and transparently discussed prior to its appointment; nor there is any<BR>
transparency or clear norm on its terms, mandate and working principles. We think that clear terms<BR>
and rules should be established for the Advisory Group between now and Rio, through an open<BR>
process involving all the participants in the IGF, as a shared foundation for our common work. We<BR>
further consider that if these rules and the quotas for representation from each stakeholder group<BR>
were openly established, it would be possible for the Secretary General to delegate the actual<BR>
process of selection of Advisory Group members to the stakeholder groups themselves.<BR>
<BR>
Best,<BR>
<BR>
Bill<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
***********************************************************<BR>
William J. Drake drake@hei.unige.ch<BR>
Director, Project on the Information<BR>
Revolution and Global Governance/PSIO<BR>
Graduate Institute for International Studies<BR>
Geneva, Switzerland<BR>
<a href="http://hei.unige.ch/psio/researchprojects/Drake.html">http://hei.unige.ch/psio/researchprojects/Drake.html</a><BR>
***********************************************************<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT>
</BODY>
</HTML>