<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body text="#333333" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">Fouad,<br>
<br>
Thanks for raising this very important issue. From the quoted article<br>
<br>
</font>
<pre wrap=""><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/feb/20/who-funds-thinktank-lobbyists">http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/feb/20/who-funds-thinktank-lobbyists</a></pre>
<blockquote>
<p>"This is plutocracy, pure and simple. The battle for democracy is
now a straight fight against the billionaires and corporations
reshaping politics to suit their interests. The first task
of all democrats must be to demand that any group, of any complexion,
seeking to effect political change should reveal its funders."</p>
</blockquote>
<font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">It is our view, among civil
society groups that I work with, that no one should be considered civil
society who doesnt reveal all funding sources, in a completely
transparent (preferably pro-active) manner, and is not ready to answer
all questions in this regard. <br>
<br>
What has been obvious to most for decades and centuries of devleopment
of democratic thinking, seems to be completely lost on a lot of the so
called IG civil society. There is this very dangerous talk of 'multi
stakeholder funding' against 'public funding' for policy bodies (what
to speak of just public interest civil society bodies). Since the civil
society obviously has no funds to spare, this is just a
poorly-disguised call for corporate funding for policy bodies. And this
talk has flowered on this very list, and we have kept quite, nay mostly
</font><font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">been </font><font
face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">supportive. <br>
<br>
This is nothing other than the most powerful - plutocrats, referred in
the above quote - seeking to control the reins of policy -making and
-shaping bodies through control over their finances. And I have seen
with horror how easily civil society have fallen prey to this game, and
openly supported such moves. <br>
<br>
Even in the Working Group on Improvements to the IGF (WGIIGF) this game
played out, as one of the biggest contestations. Whether there should
be any global public funding at all for the IGF become a big sticking
point. And the final resolution was; no, IGF should entirely be
supported by private funds, whether of corporates, or by voluntary
donations by countries who have obvious partisan interests vis a vis
global policy regimes. And what a victory for civil society - that evil
UN was able to be kept at bay. We can celebrate! <br>
<br>
So, who are we, of the IG world, to be surprised or feel wounded to
read such news items like this one - that special interests have been
bank rolling the so called civil society bodies. We have gone much
further; we have advocated and ensured that even policy bodies are
exclusively financed by private funds, so that what you cant do by your
legitimate representation in a policy developing system, you can do
through control over its funds. A brave new post-democratic world
indeed. And we have been less than silent accomplices in building it. <br>
<br>
One should have heard the long and strident arguments of our much
valued partners of the mustistakeholder brigade - you know who -
against greater transparency in IGF funding. However, these things look
to IG civil society as minor issues relative to that big demon - UN
taking over the Internet. (In the end though, and I give the credit
largely to two government participants - one from the North and another
from the South - one of the very very few real accomplishments of the
report of the WG on IGF Improvements is that it calls for full
disclosure - on both sides, incomes and expenditure - regarding IGF
finances. )<br>
<br>
Significantly, since an opposition to any UN funds for the IGF was
sweet-coated by the 'UN taking over the Internet' bogey, an alternative
innovative way of direct public funding of the IGF through routing of
the fees or taxes collected by the ICANN + system from the users was
proposed, but it was equally cynically shot down. So you see, the
problem is not only with UN's 'tainted' public funds - as some want to
see it - it is against any funding which is automatic and which doesnt
give the rich and the powerful discretionary levers of control over the
global IG policy system.<br>
<br>
Quite unhappily, there wasnt even any civil society support for this
proposal. <br>
<br>
In the circumstances, going back to the original article about
corporate money and politics, I think IG civil society has a lot to
think about its own conduct and outlook in this matter.<br>
<br>
parminder <br>
</font><br>
On Thursday 08 March 2012 06:12 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAHuaJtM6j0sKhU3vF5AVevw1Mqa0HUwbH=UAP7p0AKTZPf2Cgw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">We need to know who funds these thinktank lobbyists.
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/feb/20/who-funds-thinktank-lobbyists">http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/feb/20/who-funds-thinktank-lobbyists</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>