<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"></head><body ><div>So here is the answer for which parminder accused the secretariat and mag, and then waxed sarcastic at paul wilson</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks for the clarification, anriette </div><div><br></div><div><div style="font-size:100%">--srs</div></div><br><br><br>-------- Original message --------<br>From: Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette@apc.org> <br>Date: 07/29/2013 1:48 AM (GMT+05:30) <br>To: parminder <parminder@itforchange.net> <br>Cc: governance@lists.igcaucus.org,"<,bestbits@lists.bestbits.net>," <bestbits@lists.bestbits.net>,irp@lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org <br>Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] IGF - and the corporatisation scandal <br> <br><br>This document has never, to my knowledge, been made available to the<br>MAG. Other MAG members on these lists can confirm or provide contrary<br>information.<br><br>Nor has any other host country funding document or strategy - again to<br>my knowledge - been made available to previous MAGs.<br><br>The MAG's mandate is to develop the programme of the IGF. Broadening<br>this mandate was discussed during the WG IGF Improvements but that basic<br>mandate has not changed.<br><br>The Secretariat has when requested provided access to information about<br>its budget and the UN Trust Fund.<br><br>Personally I believe that more transparency around the host country<br>agreement is needed. That would be one mechanisms for preventing, early<br>on in the process, such abuse of the values and principles that we think<br>of as IGF organising principles.<br><br>Anriette<br><br><br>On 28/07/2013 13:50, parminder wrote:<br>><br>> On Saturday 27 July 2013 03:33 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:<br>>> On 27/07/2013, at 3:42 PM, parminder <parminder@itforchange.net<br>>> <mailto:parminder@itforchange.net>> wrote:<br>>><br>>>> Following up on the current IGF cancellation imbroglio, I happened<br>>>> to see what is called as the 'fund raising proposal'<br>>>> <https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BylRrf_lFlA9OXhieGt5WUJsMkU/edit><br>>>> of the managing committee of Bali IGF..... Sorry to say, but it is a<br>>>> pure scandal....<br>>><br>>> This is hopefully just naivety on the part of the local organisers,<br>>> who didn't appreciate the difference between the IGF and any other<br>>> Internet conference.<br>><br>> Well, may be.... although we tend to be selective about whom are we<br>> ready to easily forgive and for what... But in any case, what about<br>> the IGF secretariat and the MAG. Can they also be considered naive and<br>> / or innocent. They obviously knew of this document. BTW, the<br>> document says that it is trying a new multistakeholder model for<br>> holding the IGFs.. Does it not then constitute an express blessing by<br>> the IGF secretariat and the MAG to such a 'new model'.<br>><br>><br>> IGFs are held under the UN flag and the IGF space is subject to UN<br>> conference rules and immunities..... Would many things in the document<br>> not fundamentally be violative of some of these norms and rules.... In<br>> other circumstances, this would have immediately led to an inquiry and<br>> questions being raised officially about how did the IGF secretarit and<br>> the MAG allow such a thing.... But we are not in normal<br>> circumstances, this is the times of a strong ascendency of<br>> neo-liberal ideology..... And those who need to have triggered the<br>> outrage, the civil society, seem to be happy to quietly condone it as<br>> well.<br>><br>> And what about the 1 million dollar that has been raised, I would<br>> think, on the basis this document. Is the IGF now bound by the<br>> promises made under the sponsorship deals.... And if these deals are<br>> not valid, because we would not want to deliver on the promises, can<br>> we still consider to have that 1 million dollar for holding the IGF?<br>><br>><br>> parminder<br>><br>><br>><br>>> They can be forgiven for this because indeed until now there has been<br>>> precious little difference between the IGF and any other Internet<br>>> conference. That this could have happened is more of an indictment<br>>> of the state of the IGF than of the Indonesian team.<br>>><br>>> -- <br>>><br>>> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm<br>>> Senior Policy Officer<br>>> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers*<br>>> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East<br>>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala<br>>> Lumpur, Malaysia<br>>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599<br>>><br>>> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement<br>>> knowledge hub<br>>> |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone<br>>><br>>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org<br>>> <http://www.consumersinternational.org/> |<br>>> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational<br>>> <http://www.facebook.com/consumersinternational><br>>><br>>> Read our email confidentiality notice<br>>> <http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>. Don't<br>>> print this email unless necessary.<br>>><br>>><br>><br>><br><br>-- <br>------------------------------------------------------<br>anriette esterhuysen anriette@apc.org<br>executive director, association for progressive communications<br>www.apc.org<br>po box 29755, melville 2109<br>south africa<br>tel/fax +27 11 726 1692<br><br><br></body>