<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#333399">
<br>
<br>
On Thursday 19 July 2012 02:25 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:CA+YNoKjSurunvKbNsW8etuki9JU==JtVpfB94nsWXG3rYsPNBQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Dear Parminder,
(snip)
As for involving the UN Regional commission, I did not know you have
asked for that. I checked online, and found no evidence. Sorry. And
while I do not mind seeking their involvement for coming years, I am
not sure if that is essential for claiming regional IGF.</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<font face="Andika">I did not say it is essential for claiming
regional IGF, because i have no idea what is essential for
claiming regional IGF. But by your statement you seem to have some
idea about what may be essential to claim an IGF. Can you please
tell us about it. <br>
<br>
If by some stroke of luck (going against the structure and
political economy of luck in this area), IT for Change landed
funds enough to organise an international event, and we chose to
call it the Asia Pacific regional IGF and called some civil
society persons, and some government guys, and some small
businesses, and maybe forgot big global businesses, etc etc...
would it work in your opinion or not. Or would it be considered
impermissible to claim regional IGF. What criterion we must fulfil
for as you put it for 'claiming regional IGF'. Just asking. <br>
<br>
parminder </font><br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CA+YNoKjSurunvKbNsW8etuki9JU==JtVpfB94nsWXG3rYsPNBQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> At least, we
have not heard any request from either IGF secretariat, or government
members we have contacted directly and indirectly, nor any civil
society members in this region.
I again apologize, but am not sure that missing a single response be interpreted
as evidence of non-transparency. That, to me, is exaggerating the things and not
helpful for constructive dialogue. If you take your request that
seriously, I wonder why you have not reminded me one more time before
making this assertion. If I were you, I would have sent a friendly
reminder, before making such unilateral criticism.
izumi
2012/7/19 parminder <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net"><parminder@itforchange.net></a>:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
On Thursday 19 July 2012 09:18 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote:
Hi Adam and all,
Asia Pacific regional IGF, is also ongoing since yesterday, for three days.
Dear Izumi and Peng Hwa,
My best wishes for the meeting. However, that reminds me that when you
announced this so called regional IGF I has asked you for a few
clarification vide my email to the IGC on 25th April (enclosed and also
content cut pasted below). I am surprised that as the main organisers
neither you nor Peng Hwa considered it necessary on answer my queries.
par minder
Disclosure: I was invited for the meeting but refused to attend because of
its overly business ownership, and non transparency as inter alia evident in
not responding to my direct questions about the event. I have been trying to
persuade the organisers for three years now to make the event more open and
inclusive, especially for more marginalised groups etc . And among other
things invite the Asia Pacific UN regional commission to be part of the
meeting as Latin American and African regional IGFs have done. But this has
been to no avail.
Below is the content of my email of the 25th April.
Dear Izumi
Can you proffer more information on who is organising this meeting, who is
is funding it etc...
In general, as you know, I am quite against policy dialogue forums (which I
understand this meeting is supposed to be, taking from the UN IGF) being
organised primarily by the business sector, especially when such a forum
claims a monopoly and therefore authoritative position, which is implied in
the name of 'the' 'Asia Pacific regional IGF'.
Mine is a somewhat unpleasant task of raising what may appear to be
difficult question with regard to sincere and hard work being put in by
people like you and Peng Hwa, both of whom I greatly respect. But all of us,
most of all civil society, must be subject to accountability and to hard
questions when required. So, my apologies for that. However, I do request an
open discussion on the subject here in the IGC.
I do not think that you would much look forward to a time when the policies
that determine what education our children will have, and how, will be
determined by processes led by private companies in the business of digital
content, educational software etc. Do you? Or, to a time when our health
policies will be determined by processes led by big pharma companies and
private hospital chains. However, what is being done in Internet governance
today is precisely and inescapably leading us towards such a model of
governance and policy making. To that extent, we will have to take
responsibility for our actions. I am merely trying to take responsibility
for mine in raising these questions at this time. And I look forward to your
responses. Apologies once again if this is inconvenient and/ or an incursion
on your busy time.
regards, parminder
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>