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

[Adam Peake]

On Jul 30, 2013, at 4:38 AM, 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)


About the "so called" AP regional IGF. See <http://aprigf.asia/>
 
Apologies for the cross posting.

The process is open to anyone.  Mailing lists are open, e.g. <https://mailman.dotasia.org/mailman/listinfo/rigf_program>.  Mailing lists have public archives e.g. <https://mailman.dotasia.org/pipermail/rigf_program/> <https://mailman.dotasia.org/pipermail/rigf_discuss/>. 
 
Late 2012 through 2013, lengthy discussions (see list archives) about improving process of organizing/holding a regional AP IGF resulted in the creation of a multi-stakeholder steering group <http://aprigf.asia/msg.html>, anyone can join.  At the same time a Request For Proposals to host an APrIGF was drafted <http://aprigf.asia/hosting_aprigf.html> (see list archives), the 2014 process will start soon.  List members issued an open call for themes of the meeting and workshops (call widely distributed, expect most on these lists will have seen), evaluation conducted through the open lists (see archives).  Sponsor page <http://2013.rigf.asia/sponsorship/>.
 
<http://2013.rigf.asia/> September 4-6, 2013, Seoul, Korea.

Can always do better.

Best,

Adam



> 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 And the document has been withdrawn from the host country website.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
>> 
> 
> <fundraising proposal IGF2013 - rev10b.pdf>