<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<font face="Verdana">Hi Marilia<br>
<br>
Firstly, about your positions, I think we shared almost all
positions at the WG meeting...<br>
<br>
That said, it is important to discuss what positions different
actors held, and what issues were deliberately pushed aside. Now,
which point gets time for discussion and which doesnt, itself is
often politically determined... or determined by the power
configurations that are manifest in the room...<br>
<br>
It needs to be clearly pointed out that committed UN funding was
opposed by the business sector, technical community and the
developed countries. They also rejected out of hand a committed
ICANN funding model. That is a fact.... It is important to know
what happens in public committees which are responsible to the
public, and this issue is most germane to the current IGF
imbroglio. . <br>
<br>
As for civil society reps, other than you, I found the views were
lukewarm.... And that is important to know as well. As for 'mixed
models; - of course there was not one view on the table that the
voluntary model of funding would be banned or anything.... So the
only operative part of a mixed model was strongly pitching for a
committed UN funding, and I know it that there wasnt any such
pitch made or supported...<br>
<br>
I would not give much weight to what a UNDESA official was musing
about the UN's general state of funds, orientations etc.. The
group neededd to recommedd what it thought was right to do, and
was needed to be done. It had all the power. After all is was
sending its advice to the General Assembly, which can decide
anything. Is it that if the same official have said that
multistakeholderism is difficult to be really accepted in the deep
UN corridors we would bypassed that part.... <br>
<br>
And do you remember the kind of devices that were invented, and
obstructions made.... It was strongly and repeated proposed that
the UN can in fact *cannot* fund the IGF.... This is one of the
funniest things I have ever heard. UN GA can do anything, and the
WG's was to be an advice to the UN GA.... But this complete
falsehood was propagated by involving high - ups or insiders that
you know about and I wont want to go into naming.... I think it is
important to report these things to the people who were not
present...<br>
<br>
People need to know what has gone into bringing the IGF to the
state that it is in today, especially in terms of the funding...
And what was the contribution to it of the working group
constituted to specifically suggest improvements in the IGF. These
lessons are also useful for the future, because we are not far
from the 10 year review of the IGF. <br>
<br>
Happy to </font><font face="Verdana">further </font><font
face="Verdana">hear your views on this... And thanks for sharing
them in the first place..... parminder<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</font>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Saturday 27 July 2013 09:18 PM,
Marilia Maciel wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CACpVkK0DsaEiZjTbVUDqaGhPR-BQ7yPWTA4N1sKd5qobbbkkpw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite"><br>
On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 3:13 AM, parminder <span dir="ltr"><<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net"
target="_blank">parminder@itforchange.net</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="im">
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
Such a proposal for using ICANN collected funds to support
the IGF was put forward in the WG on IGF Improvements by my
organisation as well as by India, and supported by
developing countries. Why did other non gov stakeholders
(including civil society) and developed countries oppose
this proposal.... Can at least the civil society members of
that group who are on this list explain.... I can see why
private sector or corporate funded technical community did
not want it... can also see the agenda of US supporting
developed country constituency.... but why did civil society
oppose it... If the IGF is really their most loved child...<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Hi Parminder!</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>As a participant on the WG on IGF improvements, I would
just like to comment on what I recall from memory: </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>- The issue of allocating sustainable and predictable
public UN funding to the IGF was tabled and discussed among
members despite the time constraints we had. As I remember,
most CS representatives, including myself, supported this
proposal of UN public funding (meaning: public UN funding and
private voluntary funding should coexist). As you said, there
was strong opposition and the proposal was not included in the
report. But we must also acknowledge that UN posed main
obstacles to that. UNDESA came to one of our meetings with the
purpose to tell us that it was fruitless to put forth such a
proposal (UN funding), because UN funds were being cut all
across the board. If the UN executes decisions of member
countries, maybe it is also fair to say that countries that
support UN public funding for the IGF also lacked political
articulation and let DESA "impose" that line on the group,
saying it was an "impossible topic". Sometimes it seems to me
that no one wants to put more money (either because they dont
believe in the importance of the IGF or because current lack
of transparency on fund management - a real big problem -
prevents them from willing to commit). It is a vicious cycle
and a blame-game.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>- If I remember correctly, the proposal to use ICANN funds
to support the IGF was not properly discussed in the group.
When the proposal was tabled, the group started to dwell on
procedural issues: if the group had competence to propose it,
if the UN had legitimacy to propose it, if it was juridically
feasible to propose it, if we could propose it in a group in
which ICANN was not represented, etc... Some group members
were openly against it, but, to my understanding, this
proposal did not get to be discussed in depth and substance,
reason why I think it is not accurate to say that CS members
were against it... Speaking on my own behalf: I needed more
time to think and understand all the implications, but the
discussion did not continue. I think (i dont remember exactly)
the vehemency of opposition made clear that the group would
not have consensus on that issue and, since the report was
consensus-based, we moved on.</div>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div>
<div>Marília</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>