<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<font face="Verdana">BTW, the IGF does impose the 'non commercial
participation' condition in order to be recognised as national and
regional IGFs<br>
<br>
from the website <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/igf-initiatives">http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/igf-initiatives</a>
<br>
</font><br>
<blockquote><font face="Verdana">"Regional and national IGF
initiatives should follow the principles and practices of open,
inclusive, non commercial, and multi-stakeholder participation
in both formulation of the initiative and in any other
initiative related events."</font><br>
</blockquote>
<font face="Verdana"><br>
I dont remember seeing the non commercial part earlier, so it
could have been put recently, but I may be wrong....<br>
<br>
The elaboration of 'no quid pro quo' that was described in my
email to Grace should follow from the</font><font face="Verdana">
condition</font><font face="Verdana"> of 'non commercial
participation' principles and practices. .... Of course, thereby
the model to be followed by the regional and national IGF in this
regard is the model followed by the UN IGF, which was recently
described by Markus. <br>
<br>
Maybe those who are opposed to such a top-down imposition can
write to the IGF secretariat and the MAG about it....<br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
</font>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Saturday 03 August 2013 12:27 PM,
parminder wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:51FCA9D7.6090305@itforchange.net" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Saturday 03 August 2013 12:00 PM,
Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:E1V5VMB-0004l9-QG@frodo.hserus.net"
type="cite"><span style="font-family: Arial;">Regardless of the
definition of IG and the nature of the IGF, it stands to
reason that a multistakeholder process can accept funding from
across stakeholder groups. <br>
<br>
There is nothing in either your definition or any others that
you mentioned that precludes such funding as long as a
firewall between sponsorship and content / agenda exists. <br>
</span></blockquote>
<br>
from my email to Grace, less that 24 hours ago<br>
<br>
<blockquote>"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>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:E1V5VMB-0004l9-QG@frodo.hserus.net"
type="cite"><span style="font-family: Arial;"><br>
--srs (htc one x) <br>
<br>
<br>
----- Reply message -----<br>
From: "parminder" <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net"><parminder@itforchange.net></a><br>
To: <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org"><governance@lists.igcaucus.org></a><br>
Subject: [governance] Update from today's MAG call<br>
Date: Sat, Aug 3, 2013 11:39 AM<br>
<br>
</span><br>
<br>
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 <br>
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
<br>
democracy.. In an earlier posting I had called it as
representing <br>
version 3 of democracy where participative spaces are no longer
ad hoc <br>
but attempted to be institutionalised, with an ongoing and a
rather <br>
autonomous presence.<br>
<br>
Now, what norms we agree on for the IGF depends on how we see
the IGF. <br>
One cannot be loosely shifting between these two conceptions,
choosing <br>
norms that would rightly apply to one kind (for instance, the
IGF being <br>
just a regular annual conference) and then, at other times,
pushing its <br>
certain 'monopoly' legitimacy in the area of developing public <br>
policies.... That is the biggest problem in the current context.<br>
<br>
For those who consider the IGF just as any annual conference, my
<br>
response is that the term 'IGF' came out of a world summit, and
has a <br>
specific meaning and context attached to it. It cannot be
loosely <br>
mis-used by anyone. And if they just want to arrange an annual
conferece <br>
why do they not use any other name - why do they want to borrow
from the <br>
special legitmacy of the IGF, given to it by a world summit, and
thus <br>
seek to eat their cake and have it too.... This merits a
clarification/ <br>
response.<br>
<br>
For those who really consider IGF as a special policy related
body, they <br>
need to accept univeral democratic norms for public
institutions, and <br>
there is nothing bottom up or top down about such democratic
norms. <br>
Democracy is a human right, and human rights, and the norms
related to <br>
them, are not open for different groups and communities to
interpret as <br>
they would like to.<br>
<br>
Therefore, those who consider IGF just as an annual conference
on IG are <br>
requested to chose another name for their conference, and not to
usurp a <br>
term that the global community has already invested with a deep
<br>
democratic meaning.<br>
<br>
And those who do consider the IGF as a key public policy related
body, <br>
with an exclusive legitimacy of some kind, should then not swing
between <br>
the above two possible conceptions of the IGF, and when it comes
to <br>
funding try to see the IGF as just any conference, but for other
<br>
purposes see it as a special policy related body.<br>
<br>
parminder<br>
<br>
On Friday 02 August 2013 09:35 PM, George Sadowsky wrote:<br>
> All,<br>
><br>
> I think that national and regional IGFs should be able to
make the <br>
> decisions regarding the nature of their IGFs that are
consistent with <br>
> the needs an desires of those countries and regions. The
IGF is not a <br>
> franchise operation within which the top can dictate the
behavior of <br>
> the smaller meetings presumably feeding into it.<br>
><br>
> In fact, it would be more appropriate if representatives
of those <br>
> smaller meetings agreed upon the policies associated with
the global <br>
> IGF, not the other way around. This should not be a top
down operation.<br>
><br>
> The reason that the "no commercial recognition" policy
applies to the <br>
> global IGF is that it is a UN sponsord meetng, and
therefore UN rules <br>
> apply. This is not true for regional and national IGFs.<br>
><br>
> Note that I am not saying anything about the desirability
or <br>
> non-desirability of such a policy at lower levels, but
rather that it <br>
> is their decision to make on an individual basis, not a
decision or <br>
> even a recommendation that should be made at a global
level.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> On Aug 2, 2013, at 5:49 PM, parminder wrote:<br>
><br>
>><br>
>> On Friday 02 August 2013 02:09 PM, Grace Githaiga
wrote:<br>
>>> "Can one now expect that this is also made a basic
condition for <br>
>>> regional and national IGFs, among some basic
conditions that are <br>
>>> listed for such initiatives, and these conditions
are enforced".<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> Parminder, can you clarify on this sentence?<br>
>>><br>
>>> In my opinion, I do not think that this is a sound
proposal to start <br>
>>> imposing conditions on say national IGFs. Is
multistakeholdersim not <br>
>>> about getting all stakeholders on board to discuss
these issues? For <br>
>>> example if say Kenya is holding the Kenya IGF and a
telco company <br>
>>> decides it will put in money since it has been
part of the process, <br>
>>> should that not be accepted? At KICTANet, we have a
multistakeholder <br>
>>> model that brings even the corporate stakeholders
on board, NOT <br>
>>> necessarily to influence the IGF but as partners.
Further, <br>
>>> different national IGFs have different models of
fundraising. What <br>
>>> works in Kenya may not work in say Tanzania. Kindly
clarify.<br>
>><br>
>> Grace,<br>
>><br>
>> Happy to clarify.<br>
>><br>
>> First of all, it should be clear that I only seek that
those <br>
>> conditions be made applicable to national and regional
IGFs that <br>
>> many of us here ( as also the UN IGF MAG Chair and
others) agree <br>
>> that it is appropriate and necessary to apply to the UN
IGF.<br>
>><br>
>> Inter alia, such conditions are that while private
companies can <br>
>> donate money to the IGF, which goes into a trust fund,
all measures <br>
>> will be taken to ensure that there is not the least
possibility of <br>
>> any quid pro quo at all for these donations, including
providing <br>
>> positions on the MAG, giving speaking/ chairing slots,
special <br>
>> recommendations for speaking slots, special invitations
to what could <br>
>> otherwise be selectively closed high-level (policy
related) <br>
>> meetings, logos in and around the spaces where actual
policy <br>
>> deliberation takes place, and so on....<br>
>><br>
>> Do you indeed disagree with my position, whereby do you
think that <br>
>> these above conditions, with regard to policy spaces,
that <br>
>> democratic propriety demands UN IGF must observe,
should not be made <br>
>> applicable to national or regional IGFs?<br>
>><br>
>> Before I go on, I just want to make sure that I really
understand <br>
>> what you are saying here, and you understand my
position.<br>
>><br>
>> parminder<br>
>><br>
>>><br>
>>> Rgds<br>
>>> GG<br>
>>>
------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
>>> 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>
>>> Kudos to Markus for making a such clear affirmative
statement on the <br>
>>> isuue of commercialisation of IGF...... And for
also having strongly <br>
>>> disapproved of the Indonesian fund raising
document/ strategy in <br>
>>> February itself, and for asking the local
organising team to <br>
>>> discontinue it and take the document off their
website. To make <br>
>>> things clear in such strong words is really good "
the only thing <br>
>>> that can be sold on the premises of the UN meeting
is food, and that <br>
>>> has to be at a reasonable price".<br>
>>><br>
>>> Can one now expect that this is also made a basic
condition for <br>
>>> regional and national IGFs, among some basic
conditions that are <br>
>>> listed for such initiatives, and these conditions
are enforced. <br>
>>> Safeguarding policy spaces from commercial/
corporatist influences <br>
>>> 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 <br>
>>> Asia Pacific IGF called the provisions in the
controversial <br>
>>> Indonesian IGF fund raising document as, and I
quote<br>
>>><br>
>>> ".....providing some traditional "value" back to
contributors. The <br>
>>> deal is nothing new - it seems to be a rather
standard sponsorship <br>
>>> arrangement."<br>
>>><br>
>>> If indeed it was a rather standard sponsorship
document, why did <br>
>>> 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 <br>
>>> enough reason to be concerned about it. If any
clarification in <br>
>>> 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 <br>
>>> - as a somewhat formal (and therefore, and to that
extent, <br>
>>> monopolistic) 'policy dialogue space' and a new
insitutionalised <br>
>>> form of 'participation in governance' and a new
experiment in <br>
>>> participative democracy - mean and how they must be
organised, and <br>
>>> strongly insulated from private interests. And for
this sake, one <br>
>>> need to be almost paranoidly pro-active rather than
being slack and <br>
>>> accommodative. Insitutions of democracy are built
with such extreme <br>
>>> care and caution, and being stickler to basic
norms.<br>
>>><br>
>>> parminder<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> On Wednesday 31 July 2013 06:32 PM, Norbert Bollow
wrote:<br>
>>><br>
>>> Here's a quick update from today's MAG call (I
listened in as an<br>
>>> observer.)<br>
>>><br>
>>> Almost all of the discussion was around how to
proceed in regard to<br>
>>> 2013 IGF meeting. Markus said that cancellation
is not an option. There<br>
>>> are two serious expressions of interest from
potential host countries<br>
>>> to step in on short notice if Bali doesn't work
out. Failing that,<br>
>>> there's the option of having the meeting at the
relevant UN HQ, which<br>
>>> for the IGF would mean Geneva, but since it
might be difficult to get<br>
>>> so many rooms, that might mean that only a
scaled down meeting could be<br>
>>> held. Also hotel rooms can be problematic in
Geneva. Google/Vint Cerf is<br>
>>> willing to do a fundraising effort to try and
save the Bali IGF. Some<br>
>>> preliminary news, on the basis of which the MAG
might be able to<br>
>>> recommend something, is hoped for by the end of
next week.<br>
>>><br>
>>> The current recommendation is not to cancel
flights to Bali that have<br>
>>> already been booked, but also not to book a
flight to Bali if you have<br>
>>> not booked yet.<br>
>>><br>
>>> The commercialization problem was only touched
on briefly. Markus said<br>
>>> that the basic rules are fairly simple: UN
meetings cannot be<br>
>>> commercialized, there can be no sponsor's logos
on the premises of the<br>
>>> UN meeting (and this rule has been enforced, he
gave an example where a<br>
>>> compromise had been made in which sponsor's
banners were put up outside<br>
>>> the premises of the UN meeting but in a place
where they were visible<br>
>>> from the meeting's cafeteria), the only thing
that can be sold on the<br>
>>> premises of the UN meeting is food and that has
to be at a reasonable<br>
>>> price.<br>
>>><br>
>>> So it seems clear that the IGF is not in direct
danger of getting<br>
>>> commercialized - that objectionable Indonesian
fundraising strategy has<br>
>>> simply been declared dead.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Greetings,<br>
>>> Norbert<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>><br>
>>
____________________________________________________________<br>
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
>> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org"><mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org></a><br>
>> To be removed from the list, visit:<br>
>> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
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"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
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"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br>
>><br>
>> Translate this email: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br>
><br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>