<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<font face="Verdana">It is important to first agree on what the IGF
is....<br>
<br>
One view may be that it is just an annual conference on IG (and
George's latter email suggests that this is what he takes it to
be).<br>
<br>
Another, and my, view, is to see the IGF as a new experiment in
democracy.. In an earlier posting I had called it as representing
version 3 of democracy where participative spaces are no longer ad
hoc but attempted to be institutionalised, with an ongoing and a
rather autonomous presence. <br>
<br>
Now, what norms we agree on for the IGF depends on how we see the
IGF. One cannot be loosely shifting between these two conceptions,
choosing norms that would rightly apply to one kind (for instance,
the IGF being just a regular annual conference) and then, at other
times, pushing its certain 'monopoly' legitimacy in the area of
developing public policies.... That is the biggest problem in the
current context. <br>
<br>
For those who consider the IGF just as any annual conference, my
response is that the term 'IGF' came out of a world summit, and
has a specific meaning and context attached to it. It cannot be
loosely mis-used by anyone. And if they just want to arrange an
annual conferece why do they not use any other name - why do they
want to borrow from the special legitmacy of the IGF, given to it
by a world summit, and thus seek to eat their cake and have it
too.... This merits a clarification/ response.<br>
<br>
For those who really consider IGF as a special policy related
body, they need to accept univeral democratic norms for public
institutions, and there is nothing bottom up or top down about
such democratic norms. Democracy is a human right, and human
rights, and the norms related to them, are not open for different
groups and communities to interpret as they would like to. <br>
<br>
Therefore, those who consider IGF just as an annual conference on
IG are requested to chose another name for their conference, and
not to usurp a term that the global community has already invested
with a deep democratic meaning.<br>
<br>
And those who do consider the IGF as a key public policy related
body, with an exclusive legitimacy of some kind, should then not
swing between the above two possible conceptions of the IGF, and
when it comes to funding try to see the IGF as just any
conference, but for other purposes see it as a special policy
related body. <br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
</font>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Friday 02 August 2013 09:35 PM,
George Sadowsky wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:F82C6B9F-53AE-44C0-B069-DC7A305E8209@gmail.com"
type="cite">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 moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net">parminder@itforchange.net</a><br>
To: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>
To be removed from the list, visit:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a><br>
<br>
For all other list information and functions, see:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.igcaucus.org/">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br>
<br>
Translate this email: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>