<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#333399">
<br>
<br>
On Thursday 19 July 2012 07:03 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:CA+YNoKjUMx=kBK52-OvS74Do22_4-rDcFUy9s-Vij_8Bsrk4cQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">(snip)</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CA+YNoKjUMx=kBK52-OvS74Do22_4-rDcFUy9s-Vij_8Bsrk4cQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">Sorry, Parminder, I would say APrIGF is not in the
ideal state of
transparency and openess, but to me the way I like to see is
of mutual constructive engagement and dialogue.
And you have not responded to some of my replies such as why
you did not send us the reminder.
izumi
</blockquote>
<br>
<font face="Andika">Let me get the sensitivity issue sorted first,
becuase I have many more probing questions to ask from the
organisers of this event.<br>
<br>
Izumi, <br>
<br>
I think you should give up this defensiveness and blaming me for
not being constructive and friendly, and simply address the issues
at hand. One, as I have said I have been raising the same issues
for three years now, and while IT for Change is a significant
player in IG civil society space from Asia, we have refused to
participate in this supposedly regional IGF even against funded
invitations, and every time we have made our concerns and
reservations clear, and done so in detail. What other
constructiveness do you want from us.<br>
<br>
I think Peng Hwa must clarify this issue at this stage, on how
consistently we have raised the same issues and how consistently
have they been completely ignored, even when promises were made
that they would be addressed. <br>
<br>
We are into IG work professionally, on behalf of the interests of
certain constituencies. Do you expect us to just sit quite so that
some feathers are not ruffled, and people's sensitivities not
touched. In Baku, one of the organisers of what is being called as
the regional AP IGF is going to solemnly get up and read some
stuff as expressing what has come bottom-up from the Asia Pacific
region. To that extent that person would be purporting to
represent me/us among others. I have a right to speak that I dont
agree with the process, and thus the substance, do I not have this
right. If you tell me that it is a private event held b you and
others, and do not use the regional AP IGF name, you may do
whatever you want to. <br>
<br>
Secondly, are we not showing considerable double standards here.
Anything about UN, about governments, is game for immediate, easy,
even reflexive, criticism (and I agree it should be like that).
(It is a different matter that in this case, the UN runs a much
more transparent, inclusive, participative, open etc IGF that
those who lay claim to the regional AP IGF.) Why should the
organisers of a regional IGF be subject to different standards and
treatments regarding accountability than the global IGF. I hope
you answer this question. <br>
<br>
I am surprised that some basic openness, inclusiveness,
accountability and transparency related questions about the so
called AP IGF seem to strike to you as if they are coming from an
entirely unfamiliar planet ('why did you not raise them before!').
You are giving a 'well-I-did-not-think-of-it' of kind of response,
which is surprising because we have been for years fighting for
exactly the same principles for the UN IGF and other UN IG related
bodies. You have also been a part of the WG on IGF improvement
where each one of these issues and principles was discussed
threadbare. <br>
<br>
So, why UN bodies etc are subject to such high standards, and non
gov bodies not so.... Are there some deeper political issues here
(I think there are, but let me not get into it at present). In
fact, those who criticise UN bodies on these issues should have
even higher exemplary standards.<br>
<br>
Therefore, it further surprises me that in response to my queries,
you are trying to quote practices in other regional IGFs, and not
going either by your own sense of what is right and what wrong, or
even going by global IGF's existing practises, even if we forget
the WG report on IGF improvements which you participated in
developing. BTW, you did not answer my question, why those
recommendations, as appropriate, should also not apply to regional
and national IGFs. <br>
<br>
This said, I believe that the AP IGF is in fact at the bottom
among regional IGFs vis a vis all or most of the principles I
stated . I am happy to have a full discussion on this issue. <br>
<br>
parminder </font><br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CA+YNoKjUMx=kBK52-OvS74Do22_4-rDcFUy9s-Vij_8Bsrk4cQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
parminder
On Thursday 19 July 2012 02:25 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote:
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>:
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>