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

Adam Peake ajp at glocom.ac.jp
Thu May 24 06:18:31 EDT 2007 

>Hi,
>
>i think this approach may make sense.  with one 
>other caveat, one cannot call it a Bureau as 
>that word has too much baggage and a particular 
>meaning especially to the governments in the 
>process.  
>just as the IGF could not call dynamic 
>coalitions working groups or task forces or work 
>parties ...
>
>if the IGC were to formulate a coherent 
>suggestion for some sort of multistakeholder 
>reference committee (for want of a better term - 
>i don't think this one means anything to anyone 
>in the UN context - but whatever we call it) it 
>might be able to garner support.  but i do think 
>we would need to think it through for a bit 
>first.


Interesting that we would think of backing away 
from "multi-stakeholder advisory group" just as 
the concept of multi-stakeholder advisory groups 
are being discussed/entertained in meetings about 
other processes ongoing in Geneva this week.

I can only imagine how other stakeholders would 
respond if we suggested a renaming now 
(incredulous, shock, amusement...)

I see nothing wrong with the name.  I think it 
describes what we want the group to do.  We just 
need to improve how it operates (which we've done 
in various contributions and should continue.)

Adam



>it is in this sense, btw, that i think it was 
>true that that the IGC has not really considered 
>a [Bb]ureau.  certainly a few had spoken about 
>it pro and con, but in no sense that i can 
>identify had we really worked on or 'considered' 
>it.
>
>a.
>
>On 24 maj 2007, at 05.20, Guru at ITfC wrote:
>
>>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 ŒInformation Society Watch¹ (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
>>
>
>____________________________________________________________
>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