[governance] bureau yes bureau no??? ... Nomenclature vs functionality
John Mathiason
jrmathia at maxwell.syr.edu
Fri May 25 03:20:09 EDT 2007
Avri,
I am also interested in this and would be willing to work on it.
John
On May 25, 2007, at 9:12 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
> 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
____________________________________________________________
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