[governance] bureau yes bureau no???

Thu May 24 09:17:45 EDT 2007

Caro Raul, we do not even know if the advisory group still exists as 
such as the things stand now. :)

There is, on the other hand, no proposal at all to change structure. 
It's just to make sure, as stated, that there are resources (human, 
above all, and not just staff) to contribute to reporting and 
preparation of the recommendations as they emerge from the main meetings 
and workshops. It is actually a small change, not structural at all, not 
worth losing too much time on it, since in one way or another something 
in this direction will be done anyway.

A big change might be, finally, the introduction of "management of 
critical resources" as one of the main topics, besides the very idea of 
the IGF producing some set of recommendations integrating possible 
results from forums and workshops, whatever the format they might assume.

--c.a.

Raul Echeberria wrote:
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 

-- 

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