[governance] bureau yes bureau no???

[William Drake]

Mawaki,

We did affirm just three months ago support for the mAG  model while
criticizing sharply its ultimate formulation and implementation.  Since a
few governments have been pushing from the start for a bureau, and the mAG
was quite clearly designed as an alternative, I'd have thought that everyone
understood our support for the mAG as a model (not its implementation) as
not supporting its opposite.  My message yesterday guessed that that's what
Adam was thinking when he made his statement, but he can speak for himself.

To amplify Adam's explanatory message: at the beginning of the afternoon
session, Karen came over to tell me that some EU governments were shocked
that I'd said the caucus supports a bureau. In fact, I had not even uttered
the word, bureau, in my intervention, which was about our four suggested
themes for the main session.  Turned out later when I talked to them that
they'd conflated in their ears Francis Muget's statement and mine, which I
think is indicative or the fact that maybe we shouldn't assume they're
listening all that carefully to our precise formulations, or particularly
attentive to differences within CS.  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.

All that said, if people now want to spend the cycles debating language
reversing our previous stance and supporting the replacement of the mAG with
a bureau, or some other nomenclature per Guru's message, go for it.  As the
caucus is clearly divided I suspect we'd end up having to vote etc.  And
with all the industrialized countries, business, ISOC, and the IGF's
leadership opposed and a few developing countries in favor, it's reasonable
to forecast that no consensus to do so will be forthcoming there, either.

Best,

Bill

On 5/23/07 7:58 PM, "Mawaki Chango" <ki_chango at yahoo.com> wrote:

> 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

***********************************************************
William J. Drake  drake at hei.unige.ch
Director, Project on the Information
  Revolution and Global Governance/PSIO
  Graduate Institute for International Studies
  Geneva, Switzerland
http://hei.unige.ch/psio/researchprojects/Drake.html
***********************************************************



____________________________________________________________
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