[governance] bureau yes bureau no??? ... Nomenclature vs functionality

Guru@ITfC guru at itforchange.net
Wed May 23 23:20:59 EDT 2007 

I do sense a coherence across mails, inspite of the 'yes-no' formulation.

Carlos quotes the Brazilian representative as saying-
"But the chairman alone would not have the required legitimacy to prepare
such a report without the help of a representative, multistakeholder, and
regionally balanced group. So how do we call such group?  Friends of the
chair?  Bureau?  Supporting committee?" 

Would there be greater support for the idea explained above? Could we say
that CS/IGC does support a 'representative, multistakeholder, and regionally
balanced group' to support the IGF processes / mandate

With the caveat that whatever nomenclature we would give it, should not lead
to the two pitfalls that Milton has points out viz- 
A. the group becoming 'distinct silos into which governments, business and
civil society retreat' and 
B. a WSIS-like arrangement in which the govermental bureau is "more equal"
than the others

These two caveats are about the working arrangements within such a group,
which would need to be worked out - our context does present us a wonderful
new opportunity to bring out some innovations in global governance, through
creative and meaningful combinations of 'representative' as well as
'multistakeholder' legitimacies.

Guru
_____________ 
Gurumurthy K 
IT for Change, Bangalore | www.ITforChange.net 
Visit ‘Information Society Watch’ (www.IS-Watch.net) - a resource portal
providing a Southern perspective on information society (IS) issues

-----Original Message-----
From: Carlos Afonso [mailto:ca at rits.org.br] 
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 3:39 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Raul Echeberria
Subject: Re: [governance] bureau yes bureau no???

I agree with Milton that a "bureau" or something similar (which could have a
different name) may not do what he says it would "normally" (?) do.

Secondly, we at the caucus started discussing the possible need for a bureau
(latu sensu, please) some time ago, independently of any government
proposal.

Finally, I would like to quote from the statement of the Brazilian
representative today at the consultation (which is in the transcripts
available at the IGF's site):

"Now, if we see the IGF as a process that started in Athens and is aimed at
the last meeting four years from now, and we -- I think it is understood
that it requires each time a certain fine-tuning or refinement of its
agenda, of its format, of its structure and process. 
So one of the refinements that perhaps is needed for this next meeting in
Rio is the establishment of a structure that would support the chairman of
the IGF in conducting the meeting. Now, as you said, the Advisory Group is
to provide advice to the Secretary-General in organizing the meeting.  And
that's perfect. But who, then, will help the chairman in conducting the
meeting? So the Advisory Group had a fundamental role in preparing for
Athens, and its work is commendable for the success of the Athens meeting.
But it had at the same time no role at all during the Athens meeting. So one
possibility that we perceive as becoming a strong demand is the possibility
of having some sort of conclusion or report of the meeting, which is, of
course, understood to be nonbinding because of the nature of IGF itself.  As
in many other international fora, there is always the possibility of, for
instance, a chairman's report.  But the chairman alone would not have the
required legitimacy to prepare such a report without the help of a
representative, multistakeholder, and regionally balanced group. So how do
we call such group?  Friends of the chair?  Bureau?  Supporting committee? I
think that there are many options. What we believe is that we need to have
this kind of support.  Otherwise, the chairman alone will not be able to
deliver to the expectations that are already created by the international
community. So we would encourage very much that in this preparatory process,
we further discuss this necessity, which we believe is vital to the proper
conduct of business in Rio and in subsequent meetings."

In my view, unless the caucus agrees to the IGF not producing reports,
recommendations etc (contrary to what the Tunis agenda recommends BTW), some
form of hands-on support is needed, and this is not the role of the MAG.

--c.a.

Raul Echeberria wrote:
> At 04:34 p.m. 23/05/2007, Milton Mueller wrote:
> 
>> --- William Drake <drake at hei.unige.ch> wrote:
>> > 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 am not privy to the floor discussions but wish to make it clear 
>> that if "Bureau" means distinct silos into which governments, 
>> business and civil society retreat, and a WSIS-like arrangement in 
>> which the govermental bureau is "more equal" than the others, then 
>> the Bureau proposal is a step backwards that should not be taken. (it 
>> may however be possible for a bureau to not do that.)
> 
> I agree with Milton
> Good point.
> 
> But, beside that, what is the problem that the bureau could solve.
> I see the proposal of the bureau as a complain from some governments 
> to have more participation.
> They have not adapted themselves to the innovative format of IGF.
> 
> While I am open to consider new things, like the bureau, the origin of 
> the proposal makes me think that it will not be something good for 
> civil society.
> 
> If the problem is the representation of civil society in the AG or the 
> structure of that group, we should focus in this issue.
> 
> Raúl
> 
> 
> 
>> I also think that, with respect to the controversy between McTim et 
>> al, we have to trust the people on the floor, and particularly our 
>> caucus co-coordinators, to take appropriate action while there. 
>> Otherwise the caucus will be crippled as an effective force. We have 
>> mechanisms to hold our officers accountable if they abuse the latitude.
>>
>> A significant amount of the complaints about IGC actions are, in my 
>> opinion, motivated by an attempt to keep the caucus from doing 
>> anything.
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.7.6/815 - Release Date: 
>> 22/05/2007 03:49 p.m.
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
> 
> 
> 

-- 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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

____________________________________________________________
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