<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
Following up on the current IGF cancellation imbroglio, I happened
to see what is called as the <a
href="https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BylRrf_lFlA9OXhieGt5WUJsMkU/edit">'fund
raising proposal'</a> of the managing committee of Bali IGF.....
Sorry to say, but it is a pure scandal....<br>
<br>
Against donations, it promises funders to be able to recommend
speakers in the closing ceremony, organising of events, invitation
to high level meeting, banners all around inside the venue (hundreds
of them), special promotional feature in the IGF book, logos on the
website, on the daily IGF bulletin, on various equipment in the
venue and many other things..... Government can make donations and
in return "may lead a session in the IGF and be responsible for
opening, summary, and the closing of events....."<br>
<br>
Scandalous!! This is selling off the UN, selling off of global
public policy spaces... The fact is, I dont want to go to such an
IGF. I want to have nothing to do with it. <br>
<br>
Who authorised all this? Can the MAG please respond. They certainly
knew about the mentioned 'fund raising proposal' and about how the
2013 IGF was being organised. Why did they remain complicit, or is
it that they actively promoted it? (For a start the civil society
members in the MAG who are on this list may please clarify.) Who
authorised selling off the global IG policy dialogue space in this
way... Does this correspond to the ground rules of a UN convened and
run event which in my understanding the IGF continues to be. <br>
<br>
It was certainly never intended in the WSIS mandate of the IGF...
At the WG on IGF improvements too we were quite clear that IGF is a
government hosted UN event. How was such a big shift be
accomplished. And done without people getting a whiff or it, what to
say, a public discussion.. I have seen many problematic changes
inside the MAG-IGF structure over the last year or so, which are
aimed at a kind of capture, but this one simply takes the cake. <br>
<br>
Does the civil society want to speak up on this issue.<br>
<br>
(As I said earlier, when, at the Baku IGF, the Indonesian government
showed its unwillingness to host 21013 IGF, MAG, IGF secretariat,
UNDESA or whoever, had no business to allocate it to a private
group, even if under government’s weak tutelage. They should have
offered it to other governments, one of which would certainly have
taken the offer. What has happened is a natural flow from what is
euphemistically called as a multistakeholder convened/ funded IGF,
largely free from UN and governmental linkages. And this is what so
many - including on this list - have been promoting. It is basically
a corporate controlled and run IGF )<br>
<br>
<br>
parminder<br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>