[bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] IGF - and the corporatisation scandal

[Anriette Esterhuysen]

Dear Parminder

I did not say there is "nothing wrong with the document".

You tend to twist people's words in order to score political points,
Parminder. I find this tendency, and your general readiness to launch
into attack, very disappointing coming from someone (and an
organisation) whose views I generally respect.

I said that it was not obviously a "new" model as I have seen similar
branding and sponsorship strategies at previous IGFs. I gave an example
of Nairobi.

If this was not the case, and previous IGF host did not provide sponsors
branding, invites to events, etc. please let me know. I would be
pleasantly surprised.

I also said that some of the claims about the document were not
accurate, or were exaggerated, such as that it offered speaking slots
for cash. I felt that these claims were disrespectful to the Indonesian 
IGF organising committee - if we are to challenge them, let's at least
read their document carefully, and ask questions before moving into
attack mode.

I did not express support for the document, or for the specific approach
to accessing resources for an event of this nature. I said, however,
that I have seen that approach in most of the large UN events that I
have been involved in - certainly those in developing countries. Much as
I don't like this approach, I have come to learn over the years that
even UN events or events hosted by governments often have to depend on
this as a means of mobilising resources (and facilitating participation).

If civil society involved in the IGF wants to take a stance against
these branding strategies we should probably have done so earlier in the
IGF process.

It is not too late to start now, but let's be realistic, let's first
learn more about how host countries have operated to date, and once we
have all our facts straight we can hopefully express concern and posit
alternative models.

Anriette


On 29/07/2013 21:38, parminder wrote:
>
> So we have it from two 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.
>
> 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.)
>
> 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.....
>
> 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.
>
> parminder
>
> On Monday 29 July 2013 10:57 AM, William Drake wrote:
>>> -------- Original message --------
>>> From: Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org>
>>> Date: 07/29/2013 1:48 AM (GMT+05:30)
>>> To: parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
>>> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,"<,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>,"
>>> <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>,irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
>>> 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.
>> confirm
>>
>>> 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?
>> No you are not
>>
>> Bill
>
>

-- 
------------------------------------------------------
anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
executive director, association for progressive communications
www.apc.org
po box 29755, melville 2109
south africa
tel/fax +27 11 726 1692