<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 26/07/13 13:06, parminder wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:51F203BB.5000200@itforchange.net" type="cite">
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:51F1FF26.1060106@ciroap.org" type="cite">
and given that a lot of the obstruction of the IGF has come from
UNOG (funding constraints, censorship, Secretariat-led policy
direction), other options have to be considered. <br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Again, similar standard 'logics' against public system. Beyond a
point one cannot keep responding to them. BTW, it is the
'multistakeholders' that were strictly against UN based stable
funding for the IGF during the proceedings of the WG on IGF
improvements , and what censorship are you talking about...</blockquote>
<br>
The seized postcards and posters, the unwritten rules about what you
can say about whom, etc.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:51F203BB.5000200@itforchange.net" type="cite">..
and dont know what you mean by secretariat -led policy, which
secretariat BTW is now led by an ISOC appointed and paid
person....... <br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Yes, what a farce. But long before that, Nitin and Markus had
shaped the IGF into the image they had in mind for it all along, and
it was very easy for them in that position of power to ignore the
submissions about the IGF's structure and processes that didn't
conform to that vision.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:51F203BB.5000200@itforchange.net" type="cite">
<blockquote cite="mid:51F1FF26.1060106@ciroap.org" type="cite">We
have WTO, ISO, etc as intergovernmental organisations that are
notionally separate from the UN, so why not the IGF as well</blockquote>
<br>
No problem for it to be notionally separate from anywhere, till it
remains a public system and not corporate driven... (there is a
limit to which the multistakeholder front for corporate control
can be employed)<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Just also to note that I'm not humming a new tune here in suggesting
that the IGF eventually cast off the UN. Five years ago I wrote
that "a thin link between [the IGF] and the existing international
system [is justified] at least until the network builds up
sufficient social capital across all stakeholder groups to,break
free and become fully autonomous."<br>
<br>
On the other hand I also take your point that when we try to
reinvent intergovernmentalism we tend to do it badly. The GAC is
one case in point, the WTO another (and its love child, the TPP,
worse still).<br>
<br>
But one can draw strong parallels between the case for ICANN
shedding its links to the US government and the IGF breaking free of
its roots in the United Nations.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:51F203BB.5000200@itforchange.net" type="cite">
<blockquote cite="mid:51F1FF26.1060106@ciroap.org" type="cite"> -
but it's clear there will be no funding flowing from the UN
anyway, </blockquote>
<br>
give the dog a bad name and then hang it... Starve the UN of
funds, dont allow the IGF improvement working group to decide on
UN funding for the IGF and then use the argument 'there anyway
isnt going to be any flow of funding from the UN'.... Doesnt work.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Fair criticism.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:51F203BB.5000200@itforchange.net" type="cite">
<blockquote cite="mid:51F1FF26.1060106@ciroap.org" type="cite">so
I don't see how cutting the UN loose would make the situation
worse.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
If you are intent on not seeing how corporate controlled policy
spaces will be lot worse than where we are today, I really cannot
do much about it...<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
No I do see that, and I would support any change that would turn the
IGF into a corporate controlled policy space. But I don't think
much of the way the UN has handled it either. If the mandate is not
renewed by the General Assembly next time, we'll have to reconsider
this then. So this seemed like another apposite opportunity.<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
<p style="font-size:9.0pt;color:black"><b>Dr Jeremy Malcolm<br>
Senior Policy Officer<br>
Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for
consumers</b><br>
Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East<br>
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala
Lumpur, Malaysia<br>
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599</p>
<!--<p style="font-size:9.0pt;color:black"><b>Your rights, our mission – download CI's Strategy 2015:</b> <a href="http://consint.info/RightsMission">http://consint.info/RightsMission</a></p>-->
<p style="font-size:9.0pt;color:black">Explore our new Resource
Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | <a
href="http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone">http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone</a></p>
<p style="font-size:9.0pt;color:black">@Consumers_Int | <a
href="http://www.consumersinternational.org">www.consumersinternational.org</a>
| <a href="http://www.facebook.com/consumersinternational">www.facebook.com/consumersinternational</a></p>
<p style="font-size:8.0pt;color:#999999">Read our <a
href="http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality"
target="_blank">email confidentiality notice</a>. Don't print
this email unless necessary.</p>
</div>
</body>
</html>