[governance] bureau yes bureau no??? ... Nomenclature vs functionality

l.d.misek-falkoff ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com
Fri May 25 04:46:25 EDT 2007 

Greetings Avri and All, I would like to bring the *Respectful Interfaces*
Programme to bear here, as well.  Can be Googled.

Cordial regards, LDMF.
Dr. Linda D. Misek-Falkoff


On 5/25/07, Avri Doria <avri at psg.com> wrote:
>
> 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
> >>>
> >>> ____________________________________________________________
> >>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20070525/7138a44e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20070525/7138a44e/attachment.txt>

More information about the Governance mailing list