[bestbits] [governance] Call for making the IGF permanent

[George Sadowsky]

I don't share your sense of humor and I do not find your tone constructive.

My point is that the UN as an organization is a creation of governments, and it responds through the political process to what governments want  --  as it did when China caused the UN to expel Taiwan.  Perhaps it's easier to see in the context of the ITU, one of the UN's specialized agencies.

My point is that the UN as an organization has its strong and its weak points.  The discussion seemed to indicate a sense that the UN was a panacea to the problems of Internet governance.  The issue is not whether there's a better organization that covers the world.  The issue is how can we structure the best, more permanent home for the IGF that we want.  The UN may be a part of how that home is provided, but it definitely should not dominate in any manner.

George


On Sep 1, 2014, at 1:44 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote:

> Quite amusing, George, to see you going after the UN over its alleged not-totally-representativity of the world's population. Do you know of another organization that would better cover the world? The WEF? The ICANN?
> 
> Just smiling a bit.
> 
> Taipei is here in Geneva as a delegation, and I am quite familiar with them. They know how to deal with this issue - may we remember that China is responsible for this situation and not the UN? They are for example doing quite a good job with WHO. A citizen from Taipei, member of JustNet or from ISOC has no problem to attend IGF. 
> 
> Regarding Palestine, apart for the UN to be constantly spending years on the ground and being the largest operating body in this "country", the Palestinian Authority has now access to UNESCO, a small diplomatic victory. The UN is willing to have Palestine onboard. Israel and the US are not so keen to.
> 
> So what's your point here about the UN not being "good at" (what?). And do you best switch what has been launched under a UN umbrella, the IGF, to another umbrella - without its consent? Wasn't the letter by CS supposed to be sent to UN SG? If I follow you, then maybe this letter regarding the IGF should be sent to someone else? What are you thinking of? Looking for someone to come and point another UN caveat. Are you interesting to launch another UN-bashing campaign? Just trying to understand why you did that comment. So amusing that Suresh agrees fully with your comment by the way (Hi there Suresh)
> 
> 
> JC
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Le 1 sept. 2014 à 16:54, George Sadowsky a écrit :
> 
>> All,
>> 
>> There is an issue that has not been mentioned in this thread.  The UN is not totally representative of the world's population, and decisions regarding who is a members state and who is not are political decisions made by the UN General Assembly.
>> 
>> Case in point: no one from Taiwan is allowed to participate, even as a non-speaking participant, in the IGF.  There was a rumor in Athens (2006) that a Taiwanese was planning to come, and those of us on the MAG at the time who were working the event were told to let management know if he showed up so that he could be denied admission.
>> 
>> Another case, in the opposite direction, is that of Palestine.  It was finally allowed UN status in the 1990s only when Israel was unable to further block its entry, and then it was given 'observer status.'  This delayed providing it with a country code, and therefore a country code TLD to be used in the territory and to be included in the DNS root zone.
>> 
>> I speak from personal involvement in both of those events.  There are probably others which are similar and which I am not aware of.
>> 
>> So any move to unite the IGF and the UN can have consequences that are not foreseen, and and may well not be in the interests of democratic, bottom up, participatory activity.  Please, in your enthusiasm, do not increase -- and decrease if possible  --  your reliance upon UN administration/control/funding of future IGFs.
>> 
>> George 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Sep 1, 2014, at 10:00 AM, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:
>> 
>>> If it has to become a formal body, I would not like to see it becoming a sort of UN agency. If it is not a UN agency, funding should come from other sources.
>>> 
>>> --c.a.
>>> 
>>> On 09/01/2014 09:27 AM, parminder wrote:
>>>> I support the call.
>>>> 
>>>> It should be accompanied with the UN providing permanent institutional
>>>> funding for it.  Nothing can be permanent and stable without clear and
>>>> stable source of funding.
>>>> 
>>>> BTW, the IGF is right now a 'project' of UNDESA, and projects normally
>>>> are not permanent. For being permanent it has to be an incorporated body
>>>> with institutional funding.
>>>> 
>>>> Anne, in the CSTD WG on IGF improvements,  IT for Change and some
>>>> developing country asked for a part of domain names tax collected by
>>>> ICANN to be dedicated to IGF funding. This has to be done in a
>>>> statutory/ constitutional manner and not as ad hoc, upto ICANN, measure.
>>>> 
>>>> parminder
>>>> 
>>>> On Monday 01 September 2014 02:13 PM, Anne Jellema wrote:
>>>>> Actually the point about stable and predictable funding - and I would
>>>>> add to that, transparent and accountable financial management - seems
>>>>> just as important as (and closely linked to) the permanent mandate.
>>>>> 
>>>>> WF continues to advocate that a % of gTLD revenues be set aside for
>>>>> this purpose, as well as for other public benefit purposes, but if it
>>>>> is considered unwise to mix ICANN issues with IGF issues then perhaps
>>>>> it's enough just to reference the need for expanded, predictable
>>>>> funding that is transparently accounted for.
>>>>> 
>>>>> cheers
>>>>> Anne

<<trimmed>>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140901/52b2c4e5/attachment.htm>