<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#333399">
<pre wrap=""><big><big><font face="Andika">P</font><font face="Andika"><small>eng Hwa,
You have mentioned in your email how I had raised a number of issues when you had first organised the so-called APrIGF in Hongkong in 2010. Indeed, after a few exchanges IT for Change agreed to be present at the meeting on the condition that we would basically say the same things at the meeting about its legitimacy etc as we had been arguing. You kindly consented and we did attend the meeting and made our point.
However, what surprises me is your conclusion that we were somehow mollified by our conversations with you at Hongkong and then at Vilnius. There is no question of such mollification</small> without the issues we raised be<small>ing addressed, and as is evident, they never were.
What is even more surprising are your comments, quote below from your email of the last week, about the second so called APrIGF in Singapore.
</small></font></big></big>
"When I organized the meeting in Singapore, you did not raise any objection." and, again later in the email " In Singapore, you did not raise any objections. And I thought that's where the issue stood." (Peng Hwa)
<big><big><font face="Andika"><small>
It has obviously entirely skipped your memory, but when you wrote to me inviting me for the Singapore meeting, I wrote a detailed email to you which not only raised the same issues that I had raised earlier, but also suggested, in considerable detail, what in our opinion is the right way to go about organising the APrIGF (so much so for all this talk from various parties that I should be constructive etc, which I must say is a more than a bit patronising). I reproduce below my email to you before Singapore. I would not make your response public which is up to you to decide whatever to do about. I however must say that I had even at that time asked for your permission to make my email public but was persuaded not to, pending further f2f discussions etc which never happened.
parminder
<b>My email in response to an invitation to attend the Singapore so called APrIGF is below. </b>
</small></font></big></big><font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size:12pt">On 5/3/11 12:36 AM, "Parminder Singh" <<a href="parminder@ITforChange.net">parminder@ITforChange.net</a>> wrote:
</span></font></pre>
<blockquote><font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span
style="font-size:12pt"> <font color="#333333"> Dear Peng Hwa,<br>
<br>
It is always nice to hear from you, and hope you are doing
well!<br>
<br>
Thank you for inviting me to chair a session during the
proposed meeting. I do quite appreciate the utmost sincerely
and serious application that you bring to your efforts to
keep a dialogue on Internet Governance alive in the Asia
Pacific region. However, for the reason mentioned below in
some detail , I am constrained to decline your kind
invitation. <br>
<br>
As mentioned in our conversations before the similar
meeting last year, I do not think it legitimate to call any
meeting as a regional IGF without a minimum standard of
broad participation and 'ownership', especially of public
interest actors. Last year I was told that it was the first
time and the meeting has been planned in haste, and that
things should improve for subsequent meetings. However, in
this invite for the 2011 meeting I see no indication about
who all are on the organizing committee, how was the agenda
and speaker selection arrived at, etc. <br>
<br>
Apart from the basic legitimacy question, holding of such
meetings under the banner of national/regional IGFs has a
negative reverse impact on the global IGF to make it look
like it too was just another annual conference on IG, which
I do not think it is (though some people do) . I think that
the global IGF is, or at least is supposed to be, an
innovative experiment in deliberative and participatory
democracy for global governance of the Internet. At least
some basic features of the global IGF suggests the
possibility that the global IGF can, if we have the
political will for it, hopefully evolve to be something
close to this ideal. These features are; strong mooring in a
public institution - or a set of them, a good amount of
public funding (though not at all of the kind, and extent,
that can be considered satisfactory), a multistakeholder
group deciding the agenda of the meeting and the speakers
through an intensively consultative process, and such.<br>
<br>
While some of us are struggling to ensure that the annual
IGF has an even greater public and democratic character,
organization of completely private meetings opaquely planned
and executed, with unknown sponsors and key drivers, like
the proposed meeting being called the Asia Pacific Regional
IGF, is to us a retrograde step. It is for this reason that
we cannot associate with it, and in fact oppose it to be
held under its proposed name.<br>
<br>
I do understand how difficult it is to be innovative and
entrepreneurial in such matters and actually pull an event
like this together; and in relation how facile it may be
considered to criticize such almost valiant efforts. I must
therefore engage constructively and suggest what could
alternatively have been done and would, in my opinion, have
been the better option. Though I cannot suggest funding
options right away, it is possible that the Asia Pacific UN
regional commission (ESCAP) could have shown some interest
in this event. Was it even approached at all? Funding from
governments of some countries could also been explored apart
from sourcing 'monopoly funds' (akin to Internet tax) that
are collected by registrars and such registries that use the
commons resources of geo-political expressions like ctlds.
In any case, wider participation of public interest actors
is always possible to seek. There was this Asia Pacific
Civil Society Caucus at WSIS, which is now defunct but one
can recollect some key names of those - individuals and
organizations - who participated actively. Then there are
Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus members from Asia
Pacific quite active in the Internet Governance Caucus.
There are also MAG members from this region. I have no
indication that these actors had any role at all in shaping
an activity which is being called the Asia Pacific Regional
IGF. <br>
<br>
I must once again mention that I hold you and your sincere
efforts towards a continued dialogue on Internet governance
in our region in great esteem. And this statement is made
most sincerely because I have known you and your work
closely. The proposed meeting should simply have been named
something like 'an regional dialogue on IG' or some such
thing rather than a regional IGF. In this regard we have the
example of EURODIG. I do hope that such a change can still
be made so that it leaves no room for confusion regarding
the nature of the proposed meeting. <br>
<br>
We should do nothing to contribute to promoting privatized
realms of governance for such an important social, economic,
political and cultural phenomenon as the Internet. We fear
that through privatized governance models for the Internet,
what is really being done is to challenge the very
essentials of democratic thought and ideals for all aspects
of our social life.<br>
<br>
I look forward to hear your response to the issues that I
have raised, and discuss them at as much length as may be
required. However, meanwhile, I may have to take the
contents of this letter to the public domain, since it
really is not a response to you individually but a much
larger engagement with issues concerning democracy and
public interest, specifically about the nature of
institutions that can serve these ideals. <br>
<br>
With respect, and the very best regards<br>
<br>
Parminder <br>
<br>
On Thursday 28 April 2011 06:38 AM, Ang Peng Hwa (Prof)
wrote: <br>
</font></span></font>
<blockquote><font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span
style="font-size:12pt"><font color="#333333"> APrIGF <br>
Dear Parminder,<br>
<br>
Greetings from Singapore!<br>
<br>
I append below the draft programme for the coming APrIGF
in Singapore. This will be jus before the ICANN meeting.<br>
<br>
<br>
</font></span></font>
<ol>
<li><font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span
style="font-size:12pt"><font color="#333333">Can you
make it? </font></span></font></li>
<li><font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span
style="font-size:12pt"><font color="#333333">Can you
participate in a panel or chair one? We have the
plenaries as well as the workshops.
</font></span></font></li>
<li><font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span
style="font-size:12pt"><font color="#333333"> <br>
</font></span></font></li>
</ol>
<font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span
style="font-size:12pt"><font color="#333333"> <br>
Regards,<br>
Peng Hwa</font></span></font></blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<br>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>