<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
There is an interesting multistakeholderism* versus democracy
dimension to this - in fact, that is the main thing behind this
discussion.<br>
<br>
(I would use the term multistakeholderism* for that version of MSism
which is dominant in the IG space, while I do otherwise associate
this term MSism also with some rather benign versions that are
subsumed within democracy and do not try to stand above it.)<br>
<br>
I have often argued on this list and other IG spaces that if we are
so particular about public policies only being made, finally, by
representatives of people and groups (however faulty that process of
representation may be) why do we abandon this principle at the
global level (which would mean giving UN a central role, and seeking
progressive improvements as we do at national levels). The answer I
get from MS-ism* proponents is that democracy may be well at the
national level, but it does not work at the global level, and thus a
MS model should be promoted .<br>
<br>
Well enough, maybe something is quite incongruent at the global
level to be able to support democracy and its basic principles!<br>
<br>
But, in the present discussion the logic is fully inverted.<br>
<br>
We have established, and recently re-confirmed, democratic
principles and norms about a public policy participative space
called the IGF. When one insists that the same norms should apply at
the regional level and the national level, we are told that the
conditions at regional and national level are different..... And
they may or may not support application of such basic democratic
norms....<br>
<br>
What comes out of this seem to be that: whenever
multistakeholderism* confronts democracy, multistakeholderism*
wins.....<br>
<br>
That is the biggest problem for me with MSism*.... Its attempt to
trounce the democratic model rather than be subservient to it. <br>
<br>
As said, democracy is a human right, and all public policy processes
should be subject to democratic norms and principles. To that
extent, it is not a matter of taking bottom up decisions.<br>
<br>
Let me add another dimension to the MSism* versus democracy issue...<br>
<br>
UN IGF does make it a necessary principle that all regional and
national IGFs should compulsorily be multistakeholder (whereby, I
understand, inclusion of business reps in all proceedings will be
enforced as a necessary criterion)... We may ask, why is this not
left to a bottom up decision, but democratic norm of neutral funding
of public policy spaces should be left to bottom up decision. <br>
<br>
(In fact, it normal, say in India, to hold various public policy
meetings in various areas, and constitute committees etc - with only
pulbic interest actors, i.e, government agencies and civil society,
and often no one even thinks of including corporate players in all
this.)<br>
<br>
Why and how can multistakeholderism* principles be imposed top-down,
but not democratic principles, which should be left for each to
decide for itself? <br>
<br>
Shows again, how the ideology of MSism* is becoming more powerful
than that of democracy. And this is a matter of great concern to my
organisation and the civil society networks that we work with..<br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Saturday 03 August 2013 11:39 AM,
parminder wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:51FC9E84.1030700@itforchange.net" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<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>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>