<div>Greetings Avri and All, I would like to bring the *Respectful Interfaces* Programme to bear here, as well. Can be Googled.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Cordial regards, LDMF.</div>
<div>Dr. Linda D. Misek-Falkoff<br><br> </div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 5/25/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Avri Doria</b> <<a href="mailto:avri@psg.com">avri@psg.com</a>> wrote:</span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">Hi,<br><br>I am not thinking of backing away from the MSH format at all. And<br>you are right changing the name would be brain dead (i don't know
<br>what i was thinking). though of course it would be good to have the<br>MAG brand be the real brand as opposed to nickname we have given it.<br><br>What I am really looking for, other then a good consensus position<br>
for this caucus, is a MAG that would be truly balanced and which<br>would be self renewing. I would like to see a process where each of<br>the houses in the MAG has an equal number of seats and can pick,<br>through some yet to be designed process, the occupants of these seats
<br>using an open and transparent set of processes.<br><br>To get back to what i wish i said, i think it would be useful if the<br>IGC could develop and suggest such a set of methods as a<br>recommendation. BTW, this is the kind of work I had hoped the MSH
<br>Modalities WG (MMWG) would have done, but that group seems to be<br>rather dormant if not dead. maybe we can do the work here.<br><br>a.<br><br><br>On 24 maj 2007, at 12.18, Adam Peake wrote:<br><br>>> Hi,<br>>>
<br>>> i think this approach may make sense. with one other caveat, one<br>>> cannot call it a Bureau as that word has too much baggage and a<br>>> particular meaning especially to the governments in the process.
<br>>> just as the IGF could not call dynamic coalitions working groups<br>>> or task forces or work parties ...<br>>><br>>> if the IGC were to formulate a coherent suggestion for some sort<br>>> of multistakeholder reference committee (for want of a better term
<br>>> - i don't think this one means anything to anyone in the UN<br>>> context - but whatever we call it) it might be able to garner<br>>> support. but i do think we would need to think it through for a
<br>>> bit first.<br>><br>><br>> Interesting that we would think of backing away from "multi-<br>> stakeholder advisory group" just as the concept of multi-<br>> stakeholder advisory groups are being discussed/entertained in
<br>> meetings about other processes ongoing in Geneva this week.<br>><br>> I can only imagine how other stakeholders would respond if we<br>> suggested a renaming now (incredulous, shock, amusement...)<br>>
<br>> I see nothing wrong with the name. I think it describes what we<br>> want the group to do. We just need to improve how it operates<br>> (which we've done in various contributions and should continue.)
<br>><br>> Adam<br>><br>><br>><br>>> it is in this sense, btw, that i think it was true that that the<br>>> IGC has not really considered a [Bb]ureau. certainly a few had<br>>> spoken about it pro and con, but in no sense that i can identify
<br>>> had we really worked on or 'considered' it.<br>>><br>>> a.<br>>><br>>> On 24 maj 2007, at 05.20, Guru@ITfC wrote:<br>>><br>>>> I do sense a coherence across mails, inspite of the 'yes-no'
<br>>>> formulation.<br>>>><br>>>> Carlos quotes the Brazilian representative as saying-<br>>>> "But the chairman alone would not have the required legitimacy to<br>>>> prepare
<br>>>> such a report without the help of a representative,<br>>>> multistakeholder, and<br>>>> regionally balanced group. So how do we call such group? Friends<br>>>> of the<br>>>> chair? Bureau? Supporting committee?"
<br>>>><br>>>> Would there be greater support for the idea explained above?<br>>>> Could we say<br>>>> that CS/IGC does support a 'representative, multistakeholder, and<br>>>> regionally
<br>>>> balanced group' to support the IGF processes / mandate<br>>>><br>>>> With the caveat that whatever nomenclature we would give it,<br>>>> should not lead<br>>>> to the two pitfalls that Milton has points out viz-
<br>>>> A. the group becoming 'distinct silos into which governments,<br>>>> business and<br>>>> civil society retreat' and<br>>>> B. a WSIS-like arrangement in which the govermental bureau is
<br>>>> "more equal"<br>>>> than the others<br>>>><br>>>> These two caveats are about the working arrangements within such<br>>>> a group,<br>>>> which would need to be worked out - our context does present us a
<br>>>> wonderful<br>>>> new opportunity to bring out some innovations in global<br>>>> governance, through<br>>>> creative and meaningful combinations of 'representative' as well as
<br>>>> 'multistakeholder' legitimacies.<br>>>><br>>>> Guru<br>>>> _____________<br>>>> Gurumurthy K<br>>>> IT for Change, Bangalore | <a href="http://www.ITforChange.net">
www.ITforChange.net</a><br>>>> Visit ŒInformation Society Watch¹ (<a href="http://www.IS-Watch.net">www.IS-Watch.net</a>) - a resource<br>>>> portal<br>>>> providing a Southern perspective on information society (IS) issues
<br>>>><br>>>> -----Original Message-----<br>>>> From: Carlos Afonso [mailto:<a href="mailto:ca@rits.org.br">ca@rits.org.br</a>]<br>>>> Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 3:39 AM<br>>>> To:
<a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>; Raul Echeberria<br>>>> Subject: Re: [governance] bureau yes bureau no???<br>>>><br>>>> I agree with Milton that a "bureau" or something similar (which
<br>>>> could have a<br>>>> different name) may not do what he says it would "normally" (?) do.<br>>>><br>>>> Secondly, we at the caucus started discussing the possible need<br>
>>> for a bureau<br>>>> (latu sensu, please) some time ago, independently of any government<br>>>> proposal.<br>>>><br>>>> Finally, I would like to quote from the statement of the Brazilian
<br>>>> representative today at the consultation (which is in the<br>>>> transcripts<br>>>> available at the IGF's site):<br>>>><br>>>> "Now, if we see the IGF as a process that started in Athens and
<br>>>> is aimed at<br>>>> the last meeting four years from now, and we -- I think it is<br>>>> understood<br>>>> that it requires each time a certain fine-tuning or refinement of<br>>>> its
<br>>>> agenda, of its format, of its structure and process.<br>>>> So one of the refinements that perhaps is needed for this next<br>>>> meeting in<br>>>> Rio is the establishment of a structure that would support the
<br>>>> chairman of<br>>>> the IGF in conducting the meeting. Now, as you said, the Advisory<br>>>> Group is<br>>>> to provide advice to the Secretary-General in organizing the<br>>>> meeting. And
<br>>>> that's perfect. But who, then, will help the chairman in<br>>>> conducting the<br>>>> meeting? So the Advisory Group had a fundamental role in<br>>>> preparing for<br>>>> Athens, and its work is commendable for the success of the Athens
<br>>>> meeting.<br>>>> But it had at the same time no role at all during the Athens<br>>>> meeting. So one<br>>>> possibility that we perceive as becoming a strong demand is the<br>>>> possibility
<br>>>> of having some sort of conclusion or report of the meeting, which<br>>>> is, of<br>>>> course, understood to be nonbinding because of the nature of IGF<br>>>> itself. As<br>>>> in many other international fora, there is always the possibility
<br>>>> of, for<br>>>> instance, a chairman's report. But the chairman alone would not<br>>>> have the<br>>>> required legitimacy to prepare such a report without the help of a<br>
>>> representative, multistakeholder, and regionally balanced group.<br>>>> So how do<br>>>> we call such group? Friends of the chair? Bureau? Supporting<br>>>> committee? I<br>>>> think that there are many options. What we believe is that we
<br>>>> need to have<br>>>> this kind of support. Otherwise, the chairman alone will not be<br>>>> able to<br>>>> deliver to the expectations that are already created by the<br>>>> international
<br>>>> community. So we would encourage very much that in this<br>>>> preparatory process,<br>>>> we further discuss this necessity, which we believe is vital to<br>>>> the proper<br>>>> conduct of business in Rio and in subsequent meetings."
<br>>>><br>>>> In my view, unless the caucus agrees to the IGF not producing<br>>>> reports,<br>>>> recommendations etc (contrary to what the Tunis agenda recommends<br>>>> BTW), some
<br>>>> form of hands-on support is needed, and this is not the role of<br>>>> the MAG.<br>>>><br>>>> --c.a.<br>>>><br>>>> Raul Echeberria wrote:<br>>>>> At 04:34
p.m. 23/05/2007, Milton Mueller wrote:<br>>>>><br>>>>>> --- William Drake <<a href="mailto:drake@hei.unige.ch">drake@hei.unige.ch</a>> wrote:<br>>>>>>> Perhaps some talking past each other here. Yes, in the morning
<br>>>>>>> meeting, we said "the caucus has no position"<br>>>>>>> on the renewed bureau suggestions.<br>>>>>>> However, it is also true that the caucus has previously affirmed
<br>>>>>>> support for the mAG approach as opposed to a bureau---and make no<br>>>>>>> mistake, they are understood by all as opposites (but of<br>>>>>>> course we<br>
>>>>>> have also criticized the way the mAG concept has been<br>>>>>>> implemented).<br>>>>>><br>>>>>> I am not privy to the floor discussions but wish to make it clear
<br>>>>>> that if "Bureau" means distinct silos into which governments,<br>>>>>> business and civil society retreat, and a WSIS-like arrangement in<br>>>>>> which the govermental bureau is "more equal" than the others, then
<br>>>>>> the Bureau proposal is a step backwards that should not be<br>>>>>> taken. (it<br>>>>>> may however be possible for a bureau to not do that.)<br>>>>><br>>>>> I agree with Milton
<br>>>>> Good point.<br>>>>><br>>>>> But, beside that, what is the problem that the bureau could solve.<br>>>>> I see the proposal of the bureau as a complain from some<br>>>>> governments
<br>>>>> to have more participation.<br>>>>> They have not adapted themselves to the innovative format of IGF.<br>>>>><br>>>>> While I am open to consider new things, like the bureau, the
<br>>>>> origin of<br>>>>> the proposal makes me think that it will not be something good for<br>>>>> civil society.<br>>>>><br>>>>> If the problem is the representation of civil society in the AG
<br>>>>> or the<br>>>>> structure of that group, we should focus in this issue.<br>>>>><br>>>>> Raúl<br>>>>><br>>>>><br>>>>>> I also think that, with respect to the controversy between
<br>>>>>> McTim et<br>>>>>> al, we have to trust the people on the floor, and particularly our<br>>>>>> caucus co-coordinators, to take appropriate action while there.<br>>>>>> Otherwise the caucus will be crippled as an effective force. We
<br>>>>>> have<br>>>>>> mechanisms to hold our officers accountable if they abuse the<br>>>>>> latitude.<br>>>>>><br>>>>>> A significant amount of the complaints about IGC actions are,
<br>>>>>> in my<br>>>>>> opinion, motivated by an attempt to keep the caucus from doing<br>>>>>> anything.<br>>>>>><br>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
<br>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>>>>>> <a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>>>>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
<br>>>>>> <a href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>>>>>><br>>>>>> For all list information and functions, see:<br>
>>>>> <a href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a><br>>>>>><br>>>>>><br>>>>>> --<br>>>>>> No virus found in this incoming message.
<br>>>>>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.<br>>>>>> Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.7.6/815 - Release Date:<br>>>>>> 22/05/2007 03:49 p.m.<br>>>>><br>>>>>
<br>>>>> ____________________________________________________________<br>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>>>>> <a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">
governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>>>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:<br>>>>> <a href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
>>>><br>>>>> For all list information and functions, see:<br>>>>> <a href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a><br>>>>>
<br>>>>><br>>>><br>>>> --<br>>>><br>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++<br>>>> Carlos A. Afonso<br>>>> diretor de planejamento<br>>>> Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor - Rits http://
<br>>>> <a href="http://www.rits.org.br">www.rits.org.br</a><br>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++<br>>>><br>>>> ____________________________________________________________
<br>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>>>> <a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
<br>>>> <a href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>>>><br>>>> For all list information and functions, see:<br>>>> <a href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance">
http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a><br>>>><br>>>> ____________________________________________________________<br>>>> </blockquote></div>