[governance] bureau yes bureau no??? ... Nomenclature vs functionality
Anriette Esterhuysen
anriette at apc.org
Fri May 25 03:12:00 EDT 2007
Hallo Avri
I agree with this, and would be interested in and willing to
work with others who are interested on developing such a
set of procedures/methods terms of reference etc. for the
MAG.
I am sure that we can address some of the points of
people who are proposing a bureau in that way, without
introducing a completely new structure.
Anriette
> 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 OEInformation 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
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.7.7/816 - Release Date:
> 5/23/2007 3:59 PM
>
------------------------------------------------------
Anriette Esterhuysen, Executive Director
Association for Progressive Communications
anriette at apc.org
http://www.apc.org
PO Box 29755, Melville, South Africa. 2109
Tel. 27 11 726 1692
Fax 27 11 726 1692
____________________________________________________________
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