[governance] bureau yes bureau no???

[Adam Peake]

>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.


This is what I said according to the transcript:

"I am a member of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus, and 
in my view, the caucus does not in any way support the concept of a 
bureau, and it is somewhat distressing that there is this 
misunderstanding that we might do. My personal thoughts on this is 
that a bureau is the exact structure that would take us away from 
this concept of multistakeholder dialogue that is essential to the 
IGF and I think we have all supported.  A bureau would be a mistake. 
Following on, and I mean bureau with a big "B" in that sense."

I feel very strongly about this (obviously...) We have worked hard to 
achieve the level of participation we have today. We are beginning to 
see acceptance of multi-stakeholder dialogues and processes in other 
fora.

The big "B" is the key. Bill's earlier email explains 
<http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/governance/2007-05/msg00303.html>

Mawaki -- please read the transcript to see how we used our time at 
the mic (which was an open mic so don't worry about limited mic 
time). After talking about the Bureau I went on to mention support 
for linkage between some workshops and the main sessions while 
ensuring we would still have an open call for workshops on any other 
themes; that I was concerned about what we would discuss under the 
the "diversity" theme (IG and policy aspects of diversity); that 
there should be a session on critical resources.

Thanks,

Adam




>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

____________________________________________________________
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