<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">All,<div><br></div><div>I think that national and regional IGFs should be able to make the decisions regarding the nature of their IGFs that are consistent with the needs an desires of those countries and regions. The IGF is not a franchise operation within which the top can dictate the behavior of the smaller meetings presumably feeding into it.<div><br></div><div>In fact, it would be more appropriate if representatives of those smaller meetings agreed upon the policies associated with the global IGF, not the other way around. This should not be a top down operation. </div><div><br></div><div>The reason that the "no commercial recognition" policy applies to the global IGF is that it is a UN sponsord meetng, and therefore UN rules apply. This is not true for regional and national IGFs.</div><div><br></div><div>Note that I am not saying anything about the desirability or non-desirability of such a policy at lower levels, but rather that it is their decision to make on an individual basis, not a decision or even a recommendation that should be made at a global level. </div><div><br></div><div> <br><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br><div><div>On Aug 2, 2013, at 5:49 PM, parminder wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Friday 02 August 2013 02:09 PM,
Grace Githaiga wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:DUB111-W25940058518B321D4F8B6BB4510@phx.gbl" type="cite">
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 12pt;
font-family:Calibri
}
--></style>
<div dir="ltr"><span style="color: rgb(68, 68, 68); font-size:
15px; line-height: 21px;">"Can one now expect that this is
also made a basic condition for regional and national IGFs,
among some basic conditions that are listed for such
initiatives, and these conditions are enforced". </span><br>
<br>
<br>
Parminder, can you clarify on this sentence?
<div><br>
</div>
<div>In my opinion, I do not think that this is a sound proposal
to start imposing conditions on say national IGFs. Is
multistakeholdersim not about getting all stakeholders on
board to discuss these issues? For example if say Kenya is
holding the Kenya IGF and a telco company decides it will put
in money since it has been part of the process, should that
not be accepted? At KICTANet, we have a multistakeholder model
that brings even the corporate stakeholders on board, NOT
necessarily to influence the IGF but as partners. Further,
different national IGFs have different models of fundraising.
What works in Kenya may not work in say Tanzania. Kindly
clarify. <br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Grace,<br>
<br>
Happy to clarify. <br>
<br>
First of all, it should be clear that I only seek that those
conditions be made applicable to national and regional IGFs that
many of us here ( as also the UN IGF MAG Chair and others) agree
that it is appropriate and necessary to apply to the UN IGF.<br>
<br>
Inter alia, such conditions are that while private companies can
donate money to the IGF, which goes into a trust fund, all measures
will be taken to ensure that there is not the least possibility of
any quid pro quo at all for these donations, including providing
positions on the MAG, giving speaking/ chairing slots, special
recommendations for speaking slots, special invitations to what
could otherwise be selectively closed high-level (policy related)
meetings, logos in and around the spaces where actual policy
deliberation takes place, and so on.... <br>
<br>
Do you indeed disagree with my position, whereby do you think that
these above conditions, with regard to policy spaces, that
democratic propriety demands UN IGF must observe, should not be made
applicable to national or regional IGFs? <br>
<br>
Before I go on, I just want to make sure that I really understand
what you are saying here, and you understand my position.<br>
<br>
parminder<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:DUB111-W25940058518B321D4F8B6BB4510@phx.gbl" type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Rgds</div>
<div>GG<br>
<div>
<hr id="stopSpelling">Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2013 09:38:55 +0530<br>
From: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net">parminder@itforchange.net</a><br>
To: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>
Subject: Re: [governance] Update from today's MAG call<br>
<br>
<br>
<font face="Verdana">Kudos to Markus for making a such clear
affirmative statement on the isuue of commercialisation of
IGF..</font>.... And for also having strongly disapproved
of the Indonesian fund raising document/ strategy in
February itself, and for asking the local organising team to
discontinue it and take the document off their website. To
make things clear in such strong words is really good " the
only thing that can be sold on the premises of the UN
meeting is food, and that has to be at a reasonable price".<br>
<br>
Can one now expect that this is also made a basic condition
for regional and national IGFs, among some basic conditions
that are listed for such initiatives, and these conditions
are enforced. Safeguarding policy spaces from commercial/
corporatist influences is as important at regional and
national levels as at the global level.<br>
<br>
As mentioned earlier, I remain rather concerned that the
Chair of Asia Pacific IGF called the provisions in the
controversial Indonesian IGF fund raising document as, and I
quote<br>
<br>
".....providing some traditional "value" back to
contributors. The deal is nothing new - it seems to be a
rather standard sponsorship arrangement."<br>
<br>
If indeed it was a rather standard sponsorship document, why
did then the MAG Chair disapprove of it and ask for its
withdrawal? <br>
<br>
I am not sure therefore how they do it at the AP IGF, but I
do see enough reason to be concerned about it. If any
clarification in this regard is to be forthcoming, I would
welcome it.<br>
<br>
There seems to be a consdierable lack of clarity about what
the IGFs - as a somewhat formal (and therefore, and to that
extent, monopolistic) 'policy dialogue space' and a new
insitutionalised form of 'participation in governance' and a
new experiment in participative democracy - mean and how
they must be organised, and strongly insulated from private
interests. And for this sake, one need to be almost
paranoidly pro-active rather than being slack and
accommodative. Insitutions of democracy are built with such
extreme care and caution, and being stickler to basic norms.<br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="ecxmoz-cite-prefix">On Wednesday 31 July 2013
06:32 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:20130731150238.1afbe786@quill">
<pre>Here's a quick update from today's MAG call (I listened in as an
observer.)
Almost all of the discussion was around how to proceed in regard to
2013 IGF meeting. Markus said that cancellation is not an option. There
are two serious expressions of interest from potential host countries
to step in on short notice if Bali doesn't work out. Failing that,
there's the option of having the meeting at the relevant UN HQ, which
for the IGF would mean Geneva, but since it might be difficult to get
so many rooms, that might mean that only a scaled down meeting could be
held. Also hotel rooms can be problematic in Geneva. Google/Vint Cerf is
willing to do a fundraising effort to try and save the Bali IGF. Some
preliminary news, on the basis of which the MAG might be able to
recommend something, is hoped for by the end of next week.
The current recommendation is not to cancel flights to Bali that have
already been booked, but also not to book a flight to Bali if you have
not booked yet.
The commercialization problem was only touched on briefly. Markus said
that the basic rules are fairly simple: UN meetings cannot be
commercialized, there can be no sponsor's logos on the premises of the
UN meeting (and this rule has been enforced, he gave an example where a
compromise had been made in which sponsor's banners were put up outside
the premises of the UN meeting but in a place where they were visible
from the meeting's cafeteria), the only thing that can be sold on the
premises of the UN meeting is food and that has to be at a reasonable
price.
So it seems clear that the IGF is not in direct danger of getting
commercialized - that objectionable Indonesian fundraising strategy has
simply been declared dead.
Greetings,
Norbert
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
____________________________________________________________<br>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br> <a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>To be removed from the list, visit:<br> <a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a><br><br>For all other list information and functions, see:<br> <a href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a><br>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:<br> <a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br><br>Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></body></html>