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

Tue Jul 30 07:12:40 EDT 2013

Thanks Adam - for me, this is very helpful in clarifying things.  Like you I found seeing the detailed budget (for the first time) very helpful.  I also thought that th proposals were naive and unimplementable (perhaps because the committee found themselves in a desperate position). 

Instead of rehashing past errors of judgement I wonder if it would be helpful, in moving forward, for civil society groups to discuss how to prevent capture of global convenings by powerful interests and perhaps propose ethical parameters that are both practical and appropriate for the funding of international events?

Andrew Puddephatt | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
Executive Director
Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt
gp-digital.org

-----Original Message-----
From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Adam Peake
Sent: 30 July 2013 11:41
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Anriette Esterhuysen
Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] IGF - and the corporatisation scandal

Hi Anriette,

The document, both from the host website and google doc are both helpful and worrying.  

Helpful: we can see expected total cost, $2.2 million, not sure that's been shared before, and a detailed breakdown of the costs involved in hosting an IGF.  The UN costs are not $900,000 for security or whatever the rumor last week, look to be just under $700,000: including interpretation (largest cost), scribes, web staff (i.e. remote access).  Security including site visit just over $100,000 (meeting under the UN flag with the immunities and myth that provides, security required onsite as it is UN territory).  Scribing costs in the past have sometimes been covered by sponsors, so the hosts might be able to cut some expenditure by passing that along to a supporter (I know they were told this...)

Worrying:  it is an extremely naive document, and it would be worse if the proposals were implementable: generally they're not.  That it's been online for so long we have to expect it's been used, and that's bad -- seems they have raised over $1million, hopefully not based on the options in the proposal. Have to hope that the Secretariat/DESA is now explaining to the Indonesian group why it's so wrong (and not implementable).  

My understanding:

Cannot put commercial advertising alongside the UN logo making the hosts ideas to use all literature including the book for ads/sponsorship not possible.  This has been made clear on the MAG list many times over the years.  Advertising inside the venue is not possible (there's the village for that purpose, and space is mainly for the community). So there goes another opportunity.  

The host country jointly organize the opening and closing ceremonies with the UN, they do not have an unlimited number of slots (2 or 3 including their official representatives of govt and the IGF chair), so there's nothing there for a sponsor.  Hosts can appoint a chair to each main session: good luck trying to sell that, it's essentially a non-speaking roll, perhaps they person would wear a company t-shirt and cap...

Not sure it's helpful you keep picking on Nairobi as if there was something wrong with how that meeting was organized.  See the partner pages, the main sponsors were Kenyan govt ministries or agencies.  Compare to the list of speakers <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/2011-igf-nairobi> and the slots the host can influence; among the sponsors only IDRC got a slot (and as you know IDRC have been a very longstanding partner in ICT and Internet policy research in Kenya, a logical choice.)  So what are you trying to say?  There are enough people around who will pick-up on your comments as something sinister (while no doubt expecting magic funds to fly them to the next meeting.)

Nairobi was interesting in the effort made to link the IGF to the local community: lectures by some of the notable IGF guests organized at local universities, visits to the iHub, meetings with industry groups, meetings with local civil society.  I know this kind of arms-length value-add was explained to the Indonesian host team, but seems they have ignored. 

Baku had problems: the hosts seemed to want to link the IGF to their local IT exhibition "Bakutel" (the conference in the other half of the meeting facility.)  UN made clear that the UN logo and IGF brand could not be used.  Some rumor that the two were linked in local press, but nothing on site.  A problem just about dodged there.  Egypt where Suzanne Mubarak's billion dollar scams took center stage.

There needs to be clarity about what's permitted and what's not, hope you will raise this in the MAG. Not just the UN rules about it's logo and how ads/promotion inside the venue, but standards we as a community think appropriate for the IGF.  

Also need to ask what the IGF improvement group looked at in terms of funding and sustainability?  What recommendations about commercial tie-in, what's acceptable (we need funds) and what's not?  A lesson from all this is people CS recommends to these working groups must report back and seek advice from the community, collectively we might be able to reach sensible decisions.

Best,

Adam

On Jul 30, 2013, at 5:03 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:

> 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
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t