[governance] What is done is done - A recommended course forward

[Mr. Robert Guerra]

The bureau proposal was raised, by Francis Muget who is subscribed to  
the list but not too active a participant.

Both Francis and I were members of the former WSIS Civil Society  
Bureau (CSB). Francis was then, and still is now a strong believer in  
the structure and the benefits it might bring. I , and many others on  
this list, strongly disagree that such a structure would be  
beneficial . It fact, for many of us, it would not recognize the  
novel structure and evolution of IG discussions at the IGF.

My personal view is that a bureau is a construct that does replicate  
well into the current IGF discussions. It would be a step backwards ,  
at least for CS. Worse still, it might likely play into many govts  
efforts to use key civil society players as pawns for their own agenda.

The rough consensus view for days, if not weeks proceeding the IGF  
consultation made it quite clear that the caucus position was not  
supportive of a bureau type structure. That position should of held.  
Clearly it did not. This is most unfortunate. The lesson is clear, we  
are not following well known  models of consultation, engagement and  
policy development processes used in other IG related spaces such as  
the ones  McTim mentions .

This caucus / list perhaps needs to revisit if in fact we are  
following our so cherished bottom-up approach when we take positions  
and/or make statements at key physical meetings.  What is done, is  
done. As a recommended course forward might I suggest that key  
positions and issues - be decided and discussed in advance of future  
consultations. Positions identified as key and/or strategic would be  
firm, and not subject to change during the physical meeting proper.



regards,

Robert
---
Robert Guerra <rguerra at privaterra.org>
Managing Director, Privaterra
Tel +1 416 893 0377



On 31-May-07, at 9:18 AM, yehudakatz at mailinator.com wrote:

> Where did the Bureau ëideaí come from ???
>
> If the ëbureau ideaí did not come from the IGC [Internet  
> Governance Caucus],
> {Obviously by all accounts it *was-not* Paraminder, the idea was  
> circulating
> ëbeforeí Paraminder made clarifications.}
>
> Then from whom was the idea interjected ???
>
> -
>
> ëALLí (All of whom were present) of had came for a reason (a  
> purpose).
>
> Paraminder, did a fine job of both: advocating and defending the  
> positions
> discussed on this list.
>
> -
>
> Tell us, WHO injected the idea, because ëSomeoneí in the room did.
>
> [Hummm? ñ sympathetic ITU personnel perhaps Ö very very intresting]
>
> --
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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