<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:st1="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style>
<![endif]--><o:SmartTagType
namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="City"
downloadurl="http://www.5iamas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="PersonName" downloadurl="http://www.microsoft.com"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="place" downloadurl="http://www.5iantlavalamp.com/"/>
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) }
</style>
<![endif]-->
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Arial Narrow";
panose-1:2 11 5 6 2 2 2 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:Arial;
color:navy;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=blue>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Bertrand wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>>But my question is : what are the different <u>concrete </u>proposals
on the table ? Still waiting to see any. Apologies for trying to ask questions
that deserve attention > ;-) and for my - barely successful attempts - at
maintaining a type of interaction that remains constructive.</span></font><font
size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;
color:navy'><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>I did speak about micro-funding, and even
explored a role of IGC in it…. Parminder <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=gray face="Arial Narrow"><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial Narrow";color:gray'>________________________________________________</span></font><font
color=navy><span style='color:navy'><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=gray face="Arial Narrow"><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial Narrow";color:gray'>Parminder Jeet
Singh</span></font><font color=navy><span style='color:navy'><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=gray face="Arial Narrow"><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial Narrow";color:gray'>IT for Change, <st1:City
w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Bangalore</st1:place></st1:City></span></font><font
color=navy><span style='color:navy'><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><em><i><font size=2 color=gray face="Arial Narrow"><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial Narrow";color:gray'>Bridging
Development Realities and Technological Possibilities</span></font></i></em><font
size=2 color=gray face="Arial Narrow"><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:
"Arial Narrow";color:gray'> </span></font><font color=navy><span
style='color:navy'><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=gray face="Arial Narrow"><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial Narrow";color:gray'>Tel: (+91-80)
2665 4134, 2653 6890</span></font><font color=navy><span style='color:navy'><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=gray face="Arial Narrow"><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial Narrow";color:gray'>Fax: (+91-80)
4146 1055<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=navy face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;color:navy'><a href="http://www.itforchange.net/"
title="http://www.itforchange.net/"><em><i><font size=2 face=Arial
title="http://www.itforchange.net/"><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:
Arial'>www.ITforChange.net</span></font></i></em></a></span></font><font
size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;
color:navy'> </span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div style='border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt'>
<div>
<div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>
<hr size=2 width="100%" align=center tabindex=-1>
</span></font></div>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><font size=2 face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold'>From:</span></font></b><font size=2
face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma'> <st1:PersonName
w:st="on">Bertrand de La Chapelle</st1:PersonName>
[mailto:bdelachapelle@gmail.com] <br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Sent:</span></b> Tuesday, June 12, 2007 7:23
PM<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>To:</span></b> <st1:PersonName w:st="on">governance@lists.cpsr.org</st1:PersonName>;
Dan Krimm; Parminder<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Subject:</span></b> Re: [governance] IGF
financing</span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Hi Dan, <br>
<br>
You wrote : <br>
<br>
"One plausible way to minimize this undue influence is for funding to be<br>
broadly sourced. So, Bertrand, if your idea of MS funding is that no one<br>
funder should have significant influence over policy, then everyone shares <br>
the same goals and the disagreement is about practical mechanics and<br>
structures."<br>
<br>
Thanks for the remarks. You are right. Who can believe this is not what I
intended ? It should go without saying that funding should not have influence
on policy : that's the goal. My question is precisely how. And in my mind,
"broadly sourced" is precisely could precisely be a reason for
multi-stakeholderism. <br>
<br>
Comments explaining what should not be done are OK (except when they are
mis-representing what other people really mean). But my question is : what are
the different <u>concrete </u>proposals on the table ? Still waiting to see
any. Apologies for trying to ask questions that deserve attention ;-) and for
my - barely successful attempts - at maintaining a type of interaction that
remains constructive. <br>
<br>
Best<br>
<br>
Bertrand<br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span class=gmailquote><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'>On 6/11/07, <b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Dan
Krimm</span></b> <<a href="mailto:dan@musicunbound.com">dan@musicunbound.com</a>>
wrote:</span></font></span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Just one more comment
from the outside observer, from a policy perspective.<br>
<br>
Seems to me that Milton and Parminder both are suspicious of the influence<br>
of funding on policy, as anyone with minimal political consciousness should <br>
be.<br>
<br>
One plausible way to minimize this undue influence is for funding to be<br>
broadly sourced. So, Bertrand, if your idea of MS funding is that no
one<br>
funder should have significant influence over policy, then everyone shares <br>
the same goals and the disagreement is about practical mechanics and<br>
structures.<br>
<br>
If there is private funding, it should probably be structurally capped to<br>
constrain potential influence of policy by any one player. Also,
getting <br>
funding from an aggregate body such as the UN may additionally dilute the<br>
influence of any individual member of the aggregate on the funded<br>
policy-making process.<br>
<br>
This reminds me a bit of the "Chinese Wall" that traditionally used
to <br>
inhere in commercial publications like magazines and newspapers, but which<br>
is increasingly under fire in the present era. There is intense
pressure<br>
on editorial departments to adhere to constraints demanded by large <br>
advertisers, through the "publishing" departments (i.e., marketing
and ad<br>
sales) of these publications. The editors have been progressively
losing<br>
this battle over time, and when you get someone like Rupert Murdoch trying <br>
to buy the Wall Street Journal, it causes all sorts of alarm, and justly so.<br>
<br>
In public governance, the influence of money in elections, lobbying, and<br>
"Iron Triangles" (narrow quid-pro-quos by special interests, legislators
<br>
and regulators) is similar and incontrovertible. So, the bottom line
seems<br>
to be:<br>
<br>
* How can we set up a Chinese Wall between money and policy?<br>
<br>
Perfection is not an option, so the more nuanced question is: <br>
<br>
* How can we structurally minimize the influence of money on policy?<br>
<br>
If multi-stakeholder funding raises alarms, it must be because those<br>
structures have not insulated policy from money in the past. So, if
one <br>
wants to proceed with something along those lines:<br>
<br>
* What explicit institutional structures/processes can be put in place to<br>
improve the insulation of policy from money?<br>
<br>
But all this still does not address Parminder's concern that those without <br>
resources to contribute to funding will tend not to get representation of<br>
their policy interests. Who speaks for the mute? Or, more
formally:<br>
<br>
* How can the policy-making process be structured to address *all* <br>
stakeholder interests, even when some stakeholders do not have the<br>
resources to participate actively?<br>
<br>
Bertrand, if you can answer these questions more precisely, then perhaps<br>
you will find more positive response to your ideas, or at least more <br>
willingness to work within your framework to find solutions to these<br>
questions. At the very least, if you make it quite clear that these
goals<br>
of separating money from policy-making are your top priority (and that you <br>
are not necessarily "married" to any particular approach to achieving
these<br>
goals -- if you try to choose your structural tool before you have examined<br>
the details of all the structural options, then that is logically backward <br>
in the policy formulation process), then you might be more able to proceed<br>
with less distraction from concerns arising from vague under-specification<br>
of structural details.<br>
<br>
Hope this is helpful,<br>
<br>
Dan <br>
<br>
PS -- I am not under the illusion that the answers to these questions are<br>
easy to determine. But, they are crucial to determine if we are to
build a<br>
just society.<br>
<br>
At this point, from my outside vantage, it seems that the structural <br>
options may not have been fully fleshed out, and it may be worth<br>
considering them all. It may be that they all need additional
conceptual<br>
development in order to best address the problem of insulating policy from <br>
money, and after that is completed they should be compared as to how well<br>
they would be expected to satisfy these goals. Maybe there are
additional<br>
considerations that need to be traded off. In the end, choose the
best <br>
solution at hand. But if you are presenting multi-stakeholder
(whatever<br>
that really is in detail, I'm not sure I know) as the only structural<br>
option to examine at all, then you are calling the winner before the race. <br>
You should have the race first.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
At 6:44 PM +0200 6/11/07, <st1:PersonName w:st="on">Bertrand de La Chapelle</st1:PersonName>
wrote:<br>
>Wow, interesting.<br>
><br>
>Should I consider myself not cautious or clever enough :-) for daring to<br>
>utter an idea like : "a multi-stakeholder forum could/should be
financed<br>
>in a multi-stakeholder way ?" And remember I indicated with
appropriate<br>
>rules of transparency.<br>
><br>
>I'm afraid your reply is not of the same tune as my modest contribution <br>
>and the tonality is a bit harsh, as if I were suggesting something<br>
>horrendous. I respect your position, as usual, but as I suppose you are<br>
>speaking in a personal capacity and not as coordinator, maybe we should <br>
>let people discuss it. That's the purpose of this list, isn't it ?<br>
><br>
>I am not sure this question can simply be brushed aside by your answer.<br>
>And I'm not sure we understand the same thing when we speak of <br>
>multi-stakeholder financing. In particular, you did not mention the<br>
>distinction I was making between "automatic resources" and
"ad hoc<br>
>resources". Do you think that a foundation providing transparent
financing <br>
>to a Dynamic Coalition would be bad ?<br>
><br>
>Anyway, I'd be happy to learn what your own preference would be, what<br>
>concrete solution you favor : just governments ? or just the UN ? or just<br>
>some international organizations ? The key question is, again : what is <br>
>the appropriate financing structure for the IGF in order to guarantee<br>
>regularity of resources and independence from lobbies and pressure groups<br>
>? Can we address this issue calmly, with the attention it deserves ? <br>
><br>
>In any case, using words like "what recently happened at IGF would be<br>
>scandalous. In some countries it will veer towards criminal" was not<br>
>necessary to make your point. Especially in a response to that post. <br>
>Unless you imply - without saying - that those words are applicable to<br>
>what I mentionned or you hope I might be encouraged to shut up by fear of<br>
>being accused of the above. In such a case, I sincerely hope we can avoid <br>
>this on this list. There are enough important issues that need to be<br>
>discussed in a mature manner, and I am merely, as usual, trying to provide<br>
>some constructive input.<br>
><br>
>Best as ever<br>
><br>
>Bertrand<br>
><br>
><br>
>On 6/11/07, Parminder<br>
><<mailto:<a href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net">parminder@itforchange.net</a>><a
href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net">parminder@itforchange.net </a>>
wrote:<br>
><br>
>No Bertrand, Multistakeholder financing is a very bad idea. And, an even<br>
>worse principle. When we speak MS, I am often afraid this idea is lurking<br>
>somewhere. But most people are cautious/ clever enough not to mention it <br>
>expressly. In fact, that's the big difference between how things,<br>
>less-than-ideally, may actually be, and when we openly start articulating<br>
>such things as acceptable principles.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
>When <st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Milton</st1:place></st1:City>
said, it is simple - those who fund IGF will push their<br>
>agenda, and so those others who want their agenda pushed should step up<br>
>their contribution - I responded that however practical it be, this looks <br>
>like a principle which will take us to not good outcomes at all - for CS<br>
>and for public interest. For instance, I want my agenda pushed, what<br>
>should I do. I don't have money to contribute. And I cant go to my <br>
>government (per <st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Milton</st1:place></st1:City>'s
advise) because my government doesn't share my<br>
>agenda. And he called it moral posturing, I hope you don't come back in<br>
>the same vein. For me and many in public interest advocacy it is an <br>
>important principle, and I cant let such formulations pass by..<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
>It if fine for private parties to finance public functions and bodies<br>
>where there is a plurality - like a foundation funding a university <br>
>program or an NGO. It is also fine to extend part financing, under certain<br>
>conditions, to core public bodies which are monopolistic (states, UN<br>
>bodies etc) in their constituency and mandate, but then the
proportion of <br>
>private funding needs to be adequately low for any one interest group (as<br>
>well as in total proportion to public funds) , and it should be governed<br>
>with strict rules of propriety etc. Under such rules what recently <br>
>happened at IGF would be scandalous. In some countries it will veer<br>
>towards criminal.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
>Many in the CS (outside the typical IG/IS groups) who are sometimes<br>
>suspicious of the term multistakeholder feel so because they known such <br>
>bodies can easily show tendencies to move towards 'privatised governance'.<br>
>We may be realizing their worst fears.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
>Parminder<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
>________________________________________________ <br>
><br>
>Parminder Jeet Singh<br>
><br>
>IT for Change, <st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Bangalore</st1:place></st1:City><br>
><br>
>Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities<br>
><br>
>Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890<br>
><br>
>Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 <br>
><br>
><<a href="http://www.itforchange.net/">http://www.itforchange.net/</a>>
<a href="http://www.ITforChange.net">www.ITforChange.net</a><br>
><br>
><br>
>From: <st1:PersonName w:st="on">Bertrand de La Chapelle</st1:PersonName><br>
>[mailto:<mailto: <a href="mailto:bdelachapelle@gmail.com">bdelachapelle@gmail.com</a>><a
href="mailto:bdelachapelle@gmail.com">bdelachapelle@gmail.com</a>]<br>
>Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 7:37 PM<br>
>To: <mailto:<a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">
governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>><a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>;
Norbert<br>
>Bollow<br>
>Subject: [governance] IGF financing<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
>Dear all,<br>
><br>
>Following the various post, including Norbert's one below, I'd like to<br>
>insert two general comments in the discussion :<br>
><br>
>First, as the IGF is an innovative experiment in multi-stakeholder<br>
>governance, it would make sense that its funding be multi-stakeholder as<br>
>well, wouldn't it ? Proportions can be discussed, given the variable<br>
>contributory capacities, but the principle would make sense, IMHO. <br>
><br>
>Second, a combination of "automatic resources" for regular
activities,<br>
>including the annual event and some secretariat functions, and "had
hoc<br>
>resources" could also be envisaged, provided the later are
transparent. In <br>
>particular, there is no reason to prevent some actors from getting good<br>
>visibility when they support some useful activity, such as funding for<br>
>participation of developing countries participants or supporting the <br>
>activities of a dynamic coalition.<br>
><br>
>Best<br>
><br>
>Bertrand<br>
><br>
>On 6/11/07, Norbert Bollow <<mailto:<a href="mailto:nb@bollow.ch">nb@bollow.ch</a>><a
href="mailto:nb@bollow.ch"> nb@bollow.ch</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
><st1:PersonName w:st="on">Milton Mueller</st1:PersonName> <<mailto:<a
href="mailto:mueller@syr.edu">mueller@syr.edu</a>><a
href="mailto:mueller@syr.edu">mueller@syr.edu</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
>> a) vested interests can be expected to use financial support as
leverage <br>
>> over the activities of the IGF<br>
>><br>
>> b) we need to find a way to institutionalize support for IGF that<br>
>> minimizes this problem (we will never eliminate it)<br>
><br>
>Would it be an improvement if the IGF process was funded out of <br>
>the U.N. budget?<br>
><br>
>If yes, what would be the process for trying to achieve that?<br>
><br>
>What would be the chances of success for this?<br>
><br>
>Greetings,<br>
>Norbert.<br>
><br>
> <br>
>--<br>
>Norbert Bollow<br>
><<mailto:<a href="mailto:nb@bollow.ch">nb@bollow.ch</a>><a
href="mailto:nb@bollow.ch">nb@bollow.ch</a>> <<a
href="http://Norbert.ch">http://Norbert.ch </a>><br>
><a href="http://Norbert.ch">http://Norbert.ch</a><br>
>President of the Swiss Internet User Group<br>
>SIUG <<a href="http://SIUG.ch">http://SIUG.ch</a>><a
href="http://SIUG.ch">http://SIUG.ch</a> <br>
><br>
><br>
>--<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><br>
-- <br>
____________________<br>
<st1:PersonName w:st="on">Bertrand de La Chapelle</st1:PersonName><br>
<br>
Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32<br>
<br>
"Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de
Saint Exupéry <br>
("there is no better mission for humans than uniting humans") <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>