[governance] bureau yes bureau no???

Thu May 24 09:02:15 EDT 2007

Dear Carlos:

The Advisory Group has a very important role 
during the Athens meeting. It seems that we have not advertised it very well.
So, it is not correct to say that "...But it had 
at the same time no role at all during the Athens meeting."

I think that the reasons thar are stated in the 
Brazilian position are not sufficient for 
changing the current structure. As I said before, 
if the problem is the composition of the AG, 
let's focus on that. If the AG should do 
something different, let's focus on that, but we 
have to be very careful with introducing big 
changes in this structures that have 
demosntratated to be very successful and very innovative.

WRT the reports, it had been discussed already at 
the February consultation meeting.
It seemed to me that some governments would like 
to produce the kind of reports that they use to 
produce in the intergovernmental meetings. I am 
strongly against it. I think that reports like 
the one that the IGF Chair produced last year is ok.

I still have not seen exactly what are the 
problems that we (or somebody else) are trying to solve.

Fraterno

Raúl

At 07:08 p.m. 23/05/2007, Carlos Afonso wrote:
>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
>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>
>--
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.467 / 
>Virus Database: 269.7.7/816 - Release Date: 23/05/2007 03:59 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