[governance] bureau yes bureau no???

[Mawaki Chango]

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