[governance] bureau yes bureau no???

[Mawaki Chango]

Thanks Bill for this clarification.

--- William Drake <drake at hei.unige.ch> wrote:

> 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
> > 

____________________________________________________________
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