<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#333399">
<font face="Andika">Izumi<br>
<br>
I am surprised at your surprise. I have been raising these issues
about the so called Asia Pacific IGF since the very first meeting
in Hongkong. I attended the first meeting kind of under protest
just to raise these issues with the hope that they may get
addressed in the subsequent meetings. Since you have been more
actively involved in just this meeting you may check with Peng Hwa
about our ongoing private and public conversations on this issue.
<br>
<br>
On the specific issue of inviting Asia Pacific regional
commission, while I have spoken of it before, I cant see how it
can elude the collective mind of the organisers when most regional
IGFs have an important role for regional UN commissions. What one
remembers and what one forgets also represent mindsets and world
views and this corroborates my observation of dis-balancedÂ
representation in and ownership of what gets called as asia
pacific regional IGF. BTW, I am unable to know who the organisers
of this meeting are other than the Japanese ISP association and
.asia, because no such information is available on the website.
Why would such basic information about ownership and
representation of the event get forgotten to be put out. Does this
not violate basic standards of transparency. The report of WG on
improvements to the IGF, of which you were a member, goes to good
length about nature of representativity of different groups in
managing IGFs, completely transparency of funding etc.... Would
these standards not apply to events that presume to the tag of
regional IGFs? <br>
<br>
And I cant see why, when you want to call your event as 'the
regional IGF', are you sensitive to simple questions about
transparency, responsiveness and accountability. <br>
<br>
parminder <br>
</font><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,
I was bit surprised to see your note below.
First, I offer my apology for not responding to your earlier email on Apr 25.
I honestly to not remember why I ignored your request, or put it more directly,
I have little memory about your request. I did not intend to ignore, but yes,
in essence I ignored your request. I am sorry. I can come up with my excuses,
when you sent that to the list, I was on the road, etc. That does not
count, I know.
However, when it comes to the substance of your request, asking for
clarification of the organizers, I already mentioned that it was led by JAIPA,
the ISP association. About the funding, that time, it was very unclear even
for us who and how we could manage the necessary funding. Now, today,
you can see the list of sponsors, largely industry yes. Our government put
not money at all.
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. 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>