<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Dear Adam<br>
<br>
Responses below.<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 30/07/2013 12:40, Adam Peake wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:BED495C6-3D8A-4A6F-8B9D-1E10162E6F44@glocom.ac.jp"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Hi Anriette,
The document, both from the host website and google doc are both helpful and worrying.
Helpful: we can see expected total cost, $2.2 million, not sure that's been shared before, and a detailed breakdown of the costs involved in hosting an IGF. The UN costs are not $900,000 for security or whatever the rumor last week, look to be just under $700,000: including interpretation (largest cost), scribes, web staff (i.e. remote access). Security including site visit just over $100,000 (meeting under the UN flag with the immunities and myth that provides, security required onsite as it is UN territory). Scribing costs in the past have sometimes been covered by sponsors, so the hosts might be able to cut some expenditure by passing that along to a supporter (I know they were told this...)</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Agree..it is helpful, but what would be really helpful would be more
transparency on IGF financing all round. As well as on UN processes
and rules and requirements. <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:BED495C6-3D8A-4A6F-8B9D-1E10162E6F44@glocom.ac.jp"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Worrying: it is an extremely naive document, and it would be worse if the proposals were implementable: generally they're not. That it's been online for so long we have to expect it's been used, and that's bad -- seems they have raised over $1million, hopefully not based on the options in the proposal. Have to hope that the Secretariat/DESA is now explaining to the Indonesian group why it's so wrong (and not implementable).
My understanding:
Cannot put commercial advertising alongside the UN logo making the hosts ideas to use all literature including the book for ads/sponsorship not possible. This has been made clear on the MAG list many times over the years. Advertising inside the venue is not possible (there's the village for that purpose, and space is mainly for the community). So there goes another opportunity. </pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Good to have this confirmed. My memory is not always reliable, but I
do recall seeing sponsors material in IGF bags, and also banners..
but perhaps that was just in the exhibition areas. In Baku I think
there were banners from some sponsors inside the venue. And at other
IGF's I recall seeing some sponsor banners outside the main venue,
and in the gala venues...but I might be wrong. <br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:BED495C6-3D8A-4A6F-8B9D-1E10162E6F44@glocom.ac.jp"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
The host country jointly organize the opening and closing ceremonies with the UN, they do not have an unlimited number of slots (2 or 3 including their official representatives of govt and the IGF chair), so there's nothing there for a sponsor. Hosts can appoint a chair to each main session: good luck trying to sell that, it's essentially a non-speaking roll, perhaps they person would wear a company t-shirt and cap...</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
In the Google doc (that is the only doc I saw) the offer to 'open or
close' sessions was only there for governments. The offer to
nominate a speaker for the closing ceremony was made to the private
sector. I am not at all expressing approval for this. But my point
was that this does not exactly amount to 'speaking slots for cash'.<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:BED495C6-3D8A-4A6F-8B9D-1E10162E6F44@glocom.ac.jp"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
Not sure it's helpful you keep picking on Nairobi as if there was something wrong with how that meeting was organized. </pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
I did not mean to say there was something wrong with how Nairobi was
organised. I know how hard Alice and the rest of the team worked to
organise it. My point is actually that I don't think it is possible
for a host country with limited resources to host an IGF without
additional financial support. <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:BED495C6-3D8A-4A6F-8B9D-1E10162E6F44@glocom.ac.jp"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">See the partner pages, the main sponsors were Kenyan govt ministries or agencies. Compare to the list of speakers <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/2011-igf-nairobi"><http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/2011-igf-nairobi></a> and the slots the host can influence; among the sponsors only IDRC got a slot (and as you know IDRC have been a very longstanding partner in ICT and Internet policy research in Kenya, a logical choice.) So what are you trying to say? There are enough people around who will pick-up on your comments as something sinister (while no doubt expecting magic funds to fly them to the next meeting.)</pre>
</blockquote>
I should probably just go back to not posting to the governance list
at all. It is hard to find the time to draft messages so carefully
that they are not misinterpreted. Please do read my messages again.
I was not criticising the Kenyan IGF.<br>
<br>
I also did not say that previous IGFs 'sold' speaking slots. I said
that they do give branding opportunity to sponsors, and that I would
be surprised if sponsors did not get invitations to events/dinners,
etc.. But this is very different from allowing sponsors to influence
the agenda.<br>
<br>
IDRC had a speaking slot and a moderating slot if I recall. APC
proposed IDRC people as speakers and moderators, so their presence
might have had nothing to do with their sponsorship. I simply
pointed to the Nairobi website to make the point that host countries
have previously given sponsors some branding, and used the
'bronze/gold' etc. categories for sponsorships. The African IGF also
used this last year. The Baku IGF website also acknowledges sponsors
- <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://igf2012.com/">http://igf2012.com/</a> I was NOT picking on Kenya!!<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:BED495C6-3D8A-4A6F-8B9D-1E10162E6F44@glocom.ac.jp"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
Nairobi was interesting in the effort made to link the IGF to the local community: lectures by some of the notable IGF guests organized at local universities, visits to the iHub, meetings with industry groups, meetings with local civil society. I know this kind of arms-length value-add was explained to the Indonesian host team, but seems they have ignored. </pre>
</blockquote>
I think this approach used at the Nairobi IGF was fantastic, and
certainly helped to make it the biggest IGF to date, and a very
successful one. As for what has been explained to the Indonesians,
and what they have done, I don't have enough knowledge about it pass
judgement. We need to hear from them.<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:BED495C6-3D8A-4A6F-8B9D-1E10162E6F44@glocom.ac.jp"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
Baku had problems: the hosts seemed to want to link the IGF to their local IT exhibition "Bakutel" (the conference in the other half of the meeting facility.) UN made clear that the UN logo and IGF brand could not be used. Some rumor that the two were linked in local press, but nothing on site. A problem just about dodged there. Egypt where Suzanne Mubarak's billion dollar scams took center stage.</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
In my view, while branding for sponsors can be a problem and make
the IGF look commercial, the real danger lies in precisely that kind
of thing - Egypt springing the First Lady on us unexpectedly. Also
the government of Azerbaijan placing speakers on the closing panel
that appeared to have no other purpose other than spouting
government propaganda and contradicting the repression of free
speech that we experienced first hand during the event.<br>
<br>
If the Indonesian organising committee was actually selling spaces
in the programme, on panels, open forums, etc.. it would extremely
serious. My point was that it was not clear from that document that
they were actually doing that. They seemed to be leaning overboard
to get sponsors, which is risky, but not quite the same as letting
sponsors buy space on the agenda.<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:BED495C6-3D8A-4A6F-8B9D-1E10162E6F44@glocom.ac.jp"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
There needs to be clarity about what's permitted and what's not, hope you will raise this in the MAG. Not just the UN rules about it's logo and how ads/promotion inside the venue, but standards we as a community think appropriate for the IGF. </pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Will raise it. The MAG mandate is limited, but as concerns have been
expressed about the Indonesian financing strategy affecting the
programme and basic character of the IGF, it is important for the
MAG to talk about it - and I believe for the Indonesian organising
committee and the secretariat to provide clarification.<br>
<br>
This also has relevance for regional IGFs. How far should one go in
establishing rules and procedures...<br>
<br>
I would think that some basic, easy to understand principles are
what are needed. Here is what the secretariat developed, and placed
on the IGF website. Is it enough?<br>
<br>
<p><strong>IGF initiatives organizational principles</strong></p>
<p>Regional and national IGF initiatives should follow the
principles and practices of open, inclusive, non commercial, and
multi-stakeholder participation in both formulation of the
initiative and in any other initiative related events.</p>
<p>In order to be listed on the IGF website as an IGF initiative,
IGF initiatives should provide the following information to the
IGF Secretariat:</p>
<p>1. A report of past activities indicating the members of the
initiative</p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.3em;">2. A list of members or main
organizers comprising at least three representatives of
different stakeholder groups</span></p>
<p>3. A dedicated webpage or website, with a contact person and a
working email address</p>
<p>The IGF initiatives are kindly requested to include in their
reports the following:</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">Description of the organising process<br>
Description of how the mutli-stakeholder model is maintained <br>
The published agenda<br>
The total number of attendees and a break down of attendance for
each stakeholder group at the IGF initiatives meetings</p>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:BED495C6-3D8A-4A6F-8B9D-1E10162E6F44@glocom.ac.jp"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
Also need to ask what the IGF improvement group looked at in terms of funding and sustainability? What recommendations about commercial tie-in, what's acceptable (we need funds) and what's not? A lesson from all this is people CS recommends to these working groups must report back and seek advice from the community, collectively we might be able to reach sensible decisions.</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
The discussion in the IGF improvement working group on financing was
never fully recorded, as in the end there was no consensus on what
to include, or even on whether it was in our mandate or not. <br>
<br>
As Parminder has said, he, and the government of India, proposed
full public funding through the UN. Some felt this was not
realistic. Some UN personnel shared that there are risks attached to
his as well (just look at what happened with UNESCO). Most people
were able to agree to a 'mixed-model'.<br>
<br>
Commercial tie-in was touched on indirectly but not explicitly. What
was discussed was the importance of contributions to the the IGF
through the UN Trust Fund not being tied to influence over
decision-making over the programme/secretariat hiring, etc..<br>
<br>
Some people suggested that this was already happening. This resulted
in quite a lot of tension, particularly as some of the largest donor
countries were part of the working group, and they felt this was a
very unfair accusation. <br>
<br>
General agreement between all in the working group was that
transparency is essential and that UN Trust Fund procedures seemed
quite opaque, which no one was comfortable with. The secretariat
provided information that was requested, which was appreciated, but
I think we were left with a feeling that the information should have
been easier to get. E.g. the secretariat to request permission from
the UN Trust Fund administrators in order to release certain
information.<br>
<br>
We also did talk about the need for a more flexible mechanisms for
funding, particularly small contributions. <br>
<br>
We did not touch on how host countries operate beyond acknowledging
that their contributions are very substantial, and should be given
more recognition. There was more.. but I would say that most of our
discussions focused on costs of participation of people from
developing countries (including speakers), and on being able to
secure the financial support to strengthen the secretariat's
capacity.<br>
<br>
The UN related costs did not come up.<br>
<br>
Anriette<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:BED495C6-3D8A-4A6F-8B9D-1E10162E6F44@glocom.ac.jp"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
Best,
Adam
On Jul 30, 2013, at 5:03 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Dear Parminder
I did not say there is "nothing wrong with the document".
You tend to twist people's words in order to score political points,
Parminder. I find this tendency, and your general readiness to launch
into attack, very disappointing coming from someone (and an
organisation) whose views I generally respect.
I said that it was not obviously a "new" model as I have seen similar
branding and sponsorship strategies at previous IGFs. I gave an example
of Nairobi.
If this was not the case, and previous IGF host did not provide sponsors
branding, invites to events, etc. please let me know. I would be
pleasantly surprised.
I also said that some of the claims about the document were not
accurate, or were exaggerated, such as that it offered speaking slots
for cash. I felt that these claims were disrespectful to the Indonesian
IGF organising committee - if we are to challenge them, let's at least
read their document carefully, and ask questions before moving into
attack mode.
I did not express support for the document, or for the specific approach
to accessing resources for an event of this nature. I said, however,
that I have seen that approach in most of the large UN events that I
have been involved in - certainly those in developing countries. Much as
I don't like this approach, I have come to learn over the years that
even UN events or events hosted by governments often have to depend on
this as a means of mobilising resources (and facilitating participation).
If civil society involved in the IGF wants to take a stance against
these branding strategies we should probably have done so earlier in the
IGF process.
It is not too late to start now, but let's be realistic, let's first
learn more about how host countries have operated to date, and once we
have all our facts straight we can hopefully express concern and posit
alternative models.
Anriette
On 29/07/2013 21:38, parminder wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
So we have it from two prominent civil society members of the MAG (as
also earlier the chair of the so called Asia Pacific Regional IGF)
that there is really nothing wrong with the document under question -
the Indonesian IGF organising committee's official funding proposal.
That is really disappointing and actually painful to me, for I take
this document to be a frontal attack on democracy, and on the
possibility that the people of the world could direct the manner in
which the Internet evolves and is governed.
But perhaps they may re-think their positions now that the MAG chair
has openly disapproved of the document and disassociated from it,
speaking of 'commercialisation of the IGF'. And the document has been
withdrawn from the host country website. (I had downloaded it
suspecting such an eventuality, and it is enclosed.)
That an act of whistle-blowing on such a grave threat to democracy has
faced the kind of aggressive reaction on this list itself is a comment
on the health of the IGC, and in general the IG civil society.....
Despite being posted to three civil society lists, over the last few
days there has been no civil society response to this outrage. The
institution - of civil society - that is supposed to be the watchdog
against abuse of power by the most powerful seem to be acting more
loyal than the king.....
I am travelling, and a bit constrained on time, but I will soon post a
detailed response to Anriette's email, to which Bill agrees below, in
which she affirms that there isnt anything quite wrong with with the
Indonesian IGF committee's fund raising proposal document.
parminder
On Monday 29 July 2013 10:57 AM, William Drake wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">-------- Original message --------
From: Anriette Esterhuysen <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:anriette@apc.org"><anriette@apc.org></a>
Date: 07/29/2013 1:48 AM (GMT+05:30)
To: parminder <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net"><parminder@itforchange.net></a>
Cc: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>,"<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:,bestbits@lists.bestbits.net"><,bestbits@lists.bestbits.net></a>,"
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net"><bestbits@lists.bestbits.net></a>,<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:irp@lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org">irp@lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org</a>
Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] IGF -
and the corporatisation scandal
This document has never, to my knowledge, been made available to the
MAG. Other MAG members on these lists can confirm or provide contrary
information.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">confirm
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Has anyone actually read this proposal in full? Assuming it is an
official proposal (which is just an assumption) it does not actually
offer proper speaking slots for cash at all. With the possible
exception
of private sector sponsors being able to 'nominate' speakers for
closing
ceremony. As I said earlier, the MAG has not seen this document (unless
I missed it).
But I don't see how this is a new model. Or am I missing something?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">No you are not
Bill
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
--
------------------------------------------------------
anriette esterhuysen <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:anriette@apc.org">anriette@apc.org</a>
executive director, association for progressive communications
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.apc.org">www.apc.org</a>
po box 29755, melville 2109
south africa
tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>
To be removed from the list, visit:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a>
For all other list information and functions, see:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a>
Translate this email: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
------------------------------------------------------
anriette esterhuysen <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:anriette@apc.org">anriette@apc.org</a>
executive director, association for progressive communications
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.apc.org">www.apc.org</a>
po box 29755, melville 2109
south africa
tel/fax +27 11 726 1692</pre>
</body>
</html>