[governance] bureau yes bureau no??? ... Nomenclature vs functionality
Avri Doria
avri at psg.com
Fri May 25 02:34:31 EDT 2007
Hi,
I am not thinking of backing away from the MSH format at all. And
you are right changing the name would be brain dead (i don't know
what i was thinking). though of course it would be good to have the
MAG brand be the real brand as opposed to nickname we have given it.
What I am really looking for, other then a good consensus position
for this caucus, is a MAG that would be truly balanced and which
would be self renewing. I would like to see a process where each of
the houses in the MAG has an equal number of seats and can pick,
through some yet to be designed process, the occupants of these seats
using an open and transparent set of processes.
To get back to what i wish i said, i think it would be useful if the
IGC could develop and suggest such a set of methods as a
recommendation. BTW, this is the kind of work I had hoped the MSH
Modalities WG (MMWG) would have done, but that group seems to be
rather dormant if not dead. maybe we can do the work here.
a.
On 24 maj 2007, at 12.18, Adam Peake wrote:
>> 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
>
____________________________________________________________
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