<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<font face="Verdana">So we have it from two </font>prominent civil
society members of the MAG (as also earlier the chair of the so
called Asia Pacific Regional IGF) that there is really nothing wrong
with the document under question - the Indonesian IGF organising
committee's official funding proposal. That is really disappointing
and actually painful to me, for I take this document to be a frontal
attack on democracy, and on the possibility that the people of the
world could direct the manner in which the Internet evolves and is
governed. <br>
<br>
But perhaps they may re-think their positions now that the MAG chair
has openly disapproved of the document and disassociated from it,
speaking of 'commercialisation of the IGF'. And the document has
been withdrawn from the host country website. (I had downloaded it
suspecting such an eventuality, and it is enclosed.) <br>
<br>
That an act of whistle-blowing on such a grave threat to democracy
has faced the kind of aggressive reaction on this list itself is a
comment on the health of the IGC, and in general the IG civil
society..... Despite being posted to three civil society lists, over
the last few days there has been no civil society response to this
outrage. The institution - of civil society - that is supposed to
be the watchdog against abuse of power by the most powerful seem to
be acting more loyal than the king.....<br>
<br>
I am travelling, and a bit constrained on time, but I will soon post
a detailed response to Anriette's email, to which Bill agrees below,
in which she affirms that there isnt anything quite wrong with with
the Indonesian IGF committee's fund raising proposal document. <br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Monday 29 July 2013 10:57 AM,
William Drake wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:2644E3B1-85A5-4363-A74D-39FB7155FE34@uzh.ch"
type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
-------- Original message --------
From: Anriette Esterhuysen <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:anriette@apc.org"><anriette@apc.org></a>
Date: 07/29/2013 1:48 AM (GMT+05:30)
To: parminder <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net"><parminder@itforchange.net></a>
Cc: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>,"<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:,bestbits@lists.bestbits.net"><,bestbits@lists.bestbits.net></a>," <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net"><bestbits@lists.bestbits.net></a>,<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:irp@lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org">irp@lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org</a>
Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] IGF - and the corporatisation scandal
This document has never, to my knowledge, been made available to the
MAG. Other MAG members on these lists can confirm or provide contrary
information.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
confirm
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Has anyone actually read this proposal in full? Assuming it is an
official proposal (which is just an assumption) it does not actually
offer proper speaking slots for cash at all. With the possible exception
of private sector sponsors being able to 'nominate' speakers for closing
ceremony. As I said earlier, the MAG has not seen this document (unless
I missed it).
But I don't see how this is a new model. Or am I missing something?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
No you are not
Bill
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>