<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#333399">
<font face="Andika">Peng Hwa (and Izumi)<br>
<br>
</font>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Tuesday 24 July 2012 05:17 PM, Ang
Peng Hwa (Prof) wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:CC34A5B8.2B5CC%25tphang@ntu.edu.sg"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
<div>Parminder,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Back from a meeting between the emails.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>First things first. Thank you for your email. I cannot
imagine ignoring your email. (In fact, the 2011 email shows that
neither you nor the issue was ever "completely ignored.")</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<font face="Andika">It is not about ignoring me. It is about the
issues that not only were ignored, they are still being ignored.
You still havent answered, any of the questions that I raised in
my 2010 conversations, 2011 email or even in the present exchange.
You havent told me why UNESCAP was not approached when most other
regional IGF involve the regional UN commissions, you havent told
me why efforts were not made to connect to non-technical community
NGOs before preparation begun, including those persons/ groups who
were involved with WSIS Asia Pacific caucus for instance, why
almost no government seems to be involved, i have no clear
information on who were on the organising committee (simple
information, isnt it, why not share it), who set up the organising
committee, who all funded the event, how many and which all
participants to the event were funded and on what criteria
etc......<br>
<br>
Now, before you hasten to think that I am being especially non
understanding and harsh on you, pl know that I ask the same
questions from the global IGF (in fact IGC has been doing it
consistently) and I/ we also did our best to get much of this into
the report of the CSTD WG on IGF improvements. So, if I dont ask
these question vis a vis an event calling itself the regional AP
IGF, I will be being very inconsistent (which unfortunately, some
people on this list are being)<br>
</font><br>
<blockquote cite="mid:CC34A5B8.2B5CC%25tphang@ntu.edu.sg"
type="cite">
<div> I like to think that I would have answered at least some of
your suggestions but I honestly cannot recall it now.</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<font face="Andika">No, you did not. The proof of it is, you still
havent even when I ask again. </font><br>
<blockquote cite="mid:CC34A5B8.2B5CC%25tphang@ntu.edu.sg"
type="cite">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Be that as it may, I may have felt that you were "mollified"
(aka agree to disagree) because at that time, you had questioned
the legitimacy of the APrIGF. I had said that the legitimacy
argument would in fact play into the hands of those who question
the legitimacy of civil society, an argument that I thought you
accepted. Hence the friendly invite for 2011.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I'm wondering if the debate is now moot because:</div>
<ol>
<li>The IGF Secretariat has now come up with the guidelines for
what a regional or national IGF should contain. (The
Secretariat itself clearly has no problems with others using
the IGF to indicate their national or regional IGF is part of
the UN-level IGF.) This is a rather low bar and the APrIGF
meets it.</li>
</ol>
</blockquote>
<br>
<font face="Andika">It is not enough if they set the </font><font
face="Andika">bar </font><font face="Andika">low , it is not that
civil society is just sitting to receive with fulsome gratitude
whatever the IGF secretariat does or communicates (no, that is not
how we have worked traditionally) .</font><font face="Andika"> We
make and let know our positions. The question is, are you fine
with the low bar set for regional IGFs? If so, why did we fight so
much for raising the bar for the global IGF through our
engagements with the WG on IGF improvements, Will be very grateful
for an answer, especially from Izumi who was on the WG. </font><br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:CC34A5B8.2B5CC%25tphang@ntu.edu.sg"
type="cite">
<ol>
<li>The APrIGF is now under AP*. Some processes have been put
in place for approval of the venue, chair of the PC, etc.</li>
</ol>
</blockquote>
<font face="Andika"><br>
I dont think many people here know what AP* is, and therefore you
will have to elaborate. I see it as a group largely</font><font
face="Andika"> of</font><font face="Andika"> organisations that
tend to see themselves as the technical community, right! So,
perhaps, the equivalent of what you are declaring as the grounds
of legitimacy for the so call AP IGF will be someone saying global
IGF is now very fine and immune from criticism because' it is now
under ISOC'..... I dont know whether you are aware of it or not,
but some such proposal, to put IGF under the ISOCs, were mooted
during the IGF, but most civil society strongly opposed it. <br>
<br>
In this background, your claim that your AP rIGF is legitimate
because 'now' it is under a loose unclear technical community
umbrella group sounds to me rather revisionist from a civil
society point of view. </font><br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:CC34A5B8.2B5CC%25tphang@ntu.edu.sg"
type="cite">
<ol>
<li>This year, there was a call for panels and some of the
panelists were funded. The next APrIGF will have a similar
CFP.</li>
</ol>
</blockquote>
<br>
<font face="Andika">No, that is not enough. There has to be a
representative, participative, transparent process from the very
start. I am most surprised that you are still not committing to
one. You are just saying there was a call for proposals, and next
year too there will be one. Also, I want information of which
panels were funded and on what creteria. <br>
<br>
thanks for your engagement, <br>
<br>
parminder </font><br>
<blockquote cite="mid:CC34A5B8.2B5CC%25tphang@ntu.edu.sg"
type="cite">
<div>You can expect the APrIGF to be more transparent in the
future. And of course your suggestions to improve its governance
and processes are always welcome.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Regards,</div>
<div>Peng Hwa</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<span id="OLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION">
<div style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt;
text-align:left; color:black; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none;
BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; PADDING-LEFT:
0in; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: #b5c4df 1pt solid;
BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 3pt">
<span style="font-weight:bold">From: </span>Parminder Singh
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:parminder@ITforChange.net">parminder@ITforChange.net</a>><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Date: </span>Tuesday, July 24,
2012 1:30 PM<br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">To: </span>"<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>"
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>>,
AngPH <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:tphang@ntu.edu.sg">tphang@ntu.edu.sg</a>><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Subject: </span>Re:
[governance] Completely Ignored [was East Africa IGF - day 2,
discussion of ITRs]<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote id="MAC_OUTLOOK_ATTRIBUTION_BLOCKQUOTE"
style="BORDER-LEFT: #b5c4df 5 solid; PADDING:0 0 0 5; MARGIN:0
0 0 5;">
<div>
<div 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 moz-do-not-send="true" 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>
<br>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</span><br>
<hr>
<font face="Arial" color="Gray" size="2">CONFIDENTIALITY:This
email is intended solely for the person(s) named and may be
confidential and/or privileged.If you are not the intended
recipient,please delete it,notify us and do not copy,use,or
disclose its content.<br>
<br>
Towards A Sustainable Earth:Print Only When Necessary.Thank you.<br>
</font>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>