[governance] bureau yes bureau no???

[Parminder]

> Nothing to do with Brazil's comments.  

 

Not directly, but I had heard some discussion on a range of bureau related
proposals, in and outside the room, and the fact that there were these new
bureau-related proposals, and the fact that I myself hadn't fully
read/understood/ considered these proposals, as I took many others hadn't as
well, played on my mind when I made the clarification. 

 

> Answering the question as you phrased it, is a bureau structure

> proposal the "official position of the Internet governance caucus".

> The answer is obviously No.

 

The following is the full transcript of my intervention, and I think it
adequately answers the question (as I think was the right answer, in the
given circumstances) as I phrased it. 

 

"I would like to make a clarification, I was told by my colleagues that some
civil society members here proposed a bureau structure for the IGF, and some
government delegates were inquiring whether that is the official position of
the Internet governance caucus.  And I would like to clarify that Internet
governance caucus right now do not have any position on that.  They have not
considered the issue.  And that is the opinion of some members who directly
expressed the opinion on their own behalf or on the behalf of the
organizations they represent."

 

And now since you have raised the issue, I think if my response was as you
say 'dodgy' I think your expression of views that " the caucus does not in
any way support the concept of a bureau" and that "it is somewhat
distressing that there is this misunderstanding that we might do" wasn't
well-advised either. Not after the co-coordinator, who has been given the
right to express the official position said something (for which of course
he is subsequently completely accountable) and your views clearly seemed to
contradict his statement. And you did this when you sat 2 rows from me and a
few others of the IGC and we could have discussed the matter. In fact, when
I saw Jeanette trying to tell me something after my statement I did go to
her seat, and quickly discussed the issue with her and Bill. We could have
discussed if a further statement of expression of views on IGC's position
was necessary. 
 
And you would have noted from the exchanges on the emails on the list, and
my quotes from Vittorio's and Avri's emails that the construction that the
bureau idea (in the existing circumstances, and its multiple shades) could
be taken to have been formally considered by the IGC and rejected wasn't
sound at all. 
 
Now, I understand that you intervention was well-intentioned (and I know you
strongly feel about the issue, as do many others) and I know that in middle
of such meetings one need to give some leeway to speakers and not hold too
close a scrutiny over each and every word uttered, as long as the general
spirit is right and well-meaning. But, well, since the issue is being
discussed I thought Id make these above points.
 
Parminder 

________________________________________________

Parminder Jeet Singh

IT for Change, Bangalore

Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities 

Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890

Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055

www.ITforChange.net 

 

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp]

> Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2007 4:48 PM

> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org

> Subject: RE: [governance] bureau yes bureau no???

> 

> >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.

> >

> >Bill

> >

> >To add to your description of events, after you brought the issue of the

> >confusion in some gov members minds to my notice and I did clarify to the

> >house that the bureau proposal was not an IGC proposal but that made by

> some

> >civil society members on their own behalf or of their organization, and

> that

> >IGC had no position on this proposal. And that we have not talked about

> it

> >internally. I understand that there is some difference of views if this

> last

> >part on 'we haven't talked about it' is correct.

> >

> >In my view there were a couple of bureau proposals (Francis, brazil)

> 

> 

> Yes, but what you said was

> 

> "I was told by my colleagues that some civil society members here

> proposed a bureau structure for the IGF, and some government

> delegates were inquiring whether that is the official position of the

> Internet governance caucus."

> 

> Nothing to do with Brazil's comments.  And Francis seems to

> disassociated himself the caucus (Louis of course is a

> participant/member.)

> 

> Whatever. Sitting in the room it sounded like you had dodged the

> question as you yourself phrased it, particularly as it came at the

> end of a long statement where you began with comments from the

> caucus, then added observations of your own, and then back to a

> non-committal comment about a bureau.

> 

> Answering the question as you phrased it, is a bureau structure

> proposal the "official position of the Internet governance caucus".

> The answer is obviously No.

> 

> But it's fine.  They got the message.

> 

> Thanks,

> 

> Adam

> 

> 

> 

> 

> ____________________________________________________________

> 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/20070531/c5b3a07b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20070531/c5b3a07b/attachment.txt>