[bestbits] [governance] Call for making the IGF permanent
Stephanie Perrin
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
Tue Sep 2 04:38:41 EDT 2014
Thanks George, we are indeed trying to be constructive. I have tried to
reflect some of the previous comments in the draft, which is here at
https://etherpad.mozilla.org/LQO468JD1K
<https://etherpad.mozilla.org/LQO468JD1K>
and will do another roundup later today. We aim for mid-week. In my
view, the broader the funding the better, as it weakens the risk of
capture. We cannot, as others have pointed out, go to the UN asking for
a permanent body without describing potential funding.
Cheers and thanks for all the help and support.
Stephanie Perrin
On 2014-09-01, 17:52, George Sadowsky wrote:
> There are other rigidities in the UN system that may not be compatible
> with the overall aims of the IGF. My Taiwan illustration was just
> that. And, by the way, to get a new activity into the UN regular
> budget is enormously difficult; the UN relies on so-called
> extra-budgetary funds for many of its initiatives, and that represents
> insecure funding.
>
> In response to a previous post, I don't think that Carlos is
> suggesting that no funding come from the UN. I note that the Internet
> Society has just initiated a call for funding the IGF on a more
> permanent basis. In the past, ICANN has provided major funding, and
> so have some governments.
>
> I see nothing wrong with accepting funding from all sectors, provided
> that the funding is used in a fair and responsible manner and is not
> used to promote the special interests of the sector. This has in part
> been the case so far, and is a reasonable model to promote. You may
> wish to add some caveats, but the principle stands. All sectors do
> have their own interests, but none are pure evil. All sectors have
> something to gain from the IGF or they would not contribute.
>
> I wish that we could have discussions like this in a more cooperative
> mode rather than an environment of suspicion.
>
> George
>
>
> On Sep 1, 2014, at 5:38 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>
>>
>> If not the UN then there is this tantalising offer from the WEF,
>> maybe that. It has either to be public funding or corporate funding,
>> one can make one's choice which is better. Because, even an organised
>> public dialogue, much less the more complex things that the IGF is
>> being prepared for, cannot be undertaken 'on the street' by 'people'
>> without resources and some holding organisation. If you have any
>> doubt about this assertion, please note that no one has proposed the
>> World Social Forum to hold the global IG process together, as the WEF
>> is being proposed, if yet somewhat cautiously.
>>
>> It is certainly strange how a special case of Taiwan is being offered
>> to show problems with the UN system, but one does not see what is
>> wrong with ICANN's US-hood or WEF's big business nature.
>>
>> parminder
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday 02 September 2014 02:12 AM, Vanda Scartezini wrote:
>>> I agree with Sadovsky. This idea goes into the direction of having IGF
>>> totally controlled by government, than to promote enlarge participation on
>>> IGF.
>>> Any body inside UN shall obviously be under UN rules and this means also
>>> long time to take decisions due to consultations to any government,
>>> besides all other bureaucracy anyone used to deal with UN can easily
>>> report.
>>> Better not to go through this path.
>>> Vanda Scartezini
>>> Polo Consultores Associados
>>> Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004
>>> 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil
>>> Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253
>>> Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 9/1/14, 11:54, "George Sadowsky"<george.sadowsky at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 10:00 AM, Eduardo Bertoni
>>>>>>> <ebertoni at alumni.gwu.edu <mailto:ebertoni at alumni.gwu.edu>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I support Joana´s idea re taking into account what the NetMundial
>>>>>>> final declaration says. I would only add that the "next" IGF
>>>>>>> should do better in linking its agenda and wok with the regional
>>>>>>> IGFs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> e
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Eduardo
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Joana Varon
>>>>>>> <joana at varonferraz.com <mailto:joana at varonferraz.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Agree.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> At NETMundial final statement, this is what we have on IGF:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "There is a need for a strengthened Internet Governance Forum
>>>>>>> (IGF). Important recommendations to that end were made by the
>>>>>>> UN CSTD working group on IGF improvements. It is suggested
>>>>>>> that these recommendations will be
>>>>>>> implemented by the end of 2015. Improvements should include
>>>>>>> inter-alia:
>>>>>>> a.Improved outcomes: Improvements can be implemented including
>>>>>>> creative
>>>>>>> ways of providing outcomes/recommendations and the analysis of
>>>>>>> policy options;
>>>>>>> b.Extending the IGF mandate beyond five-year terms;
>>>>>>> c. Ensuring guaranteed stable and predictable funding for the
>>>>>>> IGF, including
>>>>>>> through a broadened donor base, is essential;
>>>>>>> d. The IGF should adopt mechanisms to promote worldwide
>>>>>>> discussions
>>>>>>> between meetings through intersessional dialogues.
>>>>>>> A strengthened IGF could better serve as a platform for
>>>>>>> discussing both long
>>>>>>> standing and emerging issues with a view to contributing to
>>>>>>> the identification of
>>>>>>> possible ways to address them."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We could departure from that and add "ask the UN to make the
>>>>>>> IGF a permanent body instead of renewing its mandate for
>>>>>>> another limited term of 5 or 10 years."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1Net could also be a platform to facilitate this.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> best
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> joana
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 4:48 AM, João Carlos R. Caribé
>>>>>>> <joao.caribe at me.com <mailto:joao.caribe at me.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Unfortunately I missed that meeting, so I full support
>>>>>>> this idea count me on to support as I can.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _
>>>>>>> João Carlos Caribé
>>>>>>> (021) 8761 1967
>>>>>>> (021) 4042 7727
>>>>>>> Skype joaocaribe
>>>>>>> Enviado via iPad
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> > Em 01/09/2014, às 11:33, Jeanette Hofmann
>>>>>>> <jeanette at wzb.eu <mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu>> escreveu:
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > Hi all,
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > at the BB meeting yesterday we discussed the idea of a
>>>>>>> BB statement that would ask the UN to make the IGF a
>>>>>>> permanent body instead of renewing its mandate for another
>>>>>>> limited term of 5 or 10 years.
>>>>>>> > This idea found broad support among the attendees of the
>>>>>>> BB meeting.
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > Later on I discussed the content of such a statement
>>>>>>> with other stakeholders at the IGF and I got the
>>>>>>> impression that we might be able to draft a
>>>>>>> cross-stakeholder statement together with the technical
>>>>>>> community and the private sector. (Individual governments
>>>>>>> support such a statement too but I am not sure it would be
>>>>>>> possible within the few days available to coordiante
>>>>>>> enough signatures by governments to make this an all
>>>>>>> inclusive statement.)
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > Right now, a multi-stakeholder statement coming out of
>>>>>>> this IGF is only an idea that needs further exploration
>>>>>>> within the respective groups. So, with this email to the
>>>>>>> bb list and the IGC list I am asking for your opinions to
>>>>>>> find out if such a cross-stakeholder statement would find
>>>>>>> support in civil society.
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > jeanette
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > P.S. Lately, I have been unable to post to the IGC list.
>>>>>>> If this email does not appear on the IGC list, would
>>>>>>> someone be so kind to forward it?
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>> >bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>>>>>> <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>>>>>> > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>>>> >http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>>>>>> <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -- --
>>>>>>> Joana Varon Ferraz
>>>>>>> @joana_varon
>>>>>>> PGP 0x016B8E73
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>>>>>> <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Anne Jellema
>>>>>>> CEO
>>>>>>> +27 061 36 9352 (ZA)
>>>>>>> +1 202 684 6885 (US)
>>>>>>> @afjellema
>>>>>>> *
>>>>>>> *
>>>>>>> *World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500,
>>>>>>> Washington DC, 20005, USA |www.webfoundation.org
>>>>>>> <http://www.webfoundation.org/> | Twitter: @webfoundation*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>>>>
>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140902/eca90257/attachment.htm>
More information about the Bestbits
mailing list