[governance] The Forum's financial independence

Fri Jun 8 05:25:53 EDT 2007

Dear all,

What you all agree upon is that there is an issue of common concern and
interest for all actors (including governments I hope) :
"How to ensure the financial independence of the IGF ?" (without forgetting
the accountability dimension).

Let's discuss possible solutions rather than getting into a new debate among
ourselves on the dangers (however real) of capture by specific interests who
may like to influence the agenda through funding.

Best

Bertrand

On 6/8/07, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
>
> >Those believe that the
> > IGF should do X must be willing to step and support it financially if it
> > does X; just as those who prefer that it do Y instead of X can be
> > expected to be more generous with it if it forgoes X and does Y.
>
> Milton (and Lee)
>
> While I agree with the spirit of your email about broadening and
> diversifying IGF's funding base, I have deep problems with both your and
> Lee's formulation of the issue. This is a trading house logic, not that of
> constitution of public policy bodies. As per what you say above, the final
> outcome of your recommended process will be  - those who have the ability
> to
> pay more will have greater influence over policy.
>
> > I agree with Lee and wish to emphasize how naive it would be for anyone
> > to think that financial support is not being, and will not be, used as a
> > point of leverage to affect what the IGF does.
>
> One is not being naïve, what is at stake here is the basic principles of
> public institutions. One obviously knows how money actually influences
> politics. However things move to a completely different level when such
> connections are mentioned 'officially'. We recognize a stage of great
> political decadence when such a stage is reached.
>
> In many countries such clear linkage of finances with public policy agenda
> in key public policy bodies constitutes a criminal offence. And I consider
> global public policy spaces as sacrosanct as national ones. I know many
> others do not, often in quite an opposition to their enthusiasm for a
> connected global world.
>
> >It is
> > therefore incumbent upon CS to develop political support among their
> > governments and private sector to support the IGF if it looks as if it
> > will become a meaningful forum.
>
> To quote from IT for Change's submission to the recent IGF consultations
>
> " To be able to undertake the above activities, and to fulfill other
> required responsibilities, IGF must seek to establish a more substantial
> structure. This requires adequate funding for which a strong case should
> be
> made out and the issue taken up with various possible sources of funds.
> This
> includes governments who may be interested in promoting fair, open and
> representative global public policy structures for IG."
>
> So while we understand the need of diversifying and widening the funding
> base, it doesn't mean that we become insensitive to the basic public
> policy
> issues involved in open linking of public policy agenda with finances in
> manner that strongly seeks to subvert a public policy institution that
> came
> out of the decisions of a world summit.
>
> Parminder
>
>
> ________________________________________________
> Parminder Jeet Singh
> IT for Change, Bangalore
> Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities
> Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890
> Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055
> www.ITforChange.net
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Milton Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu]
> > Sent: Friday, June 08, 2007 2:00 PM
> > To: guru at itforchange.net; governance at lists.cpsr.org; Lee McKnight
> > Subject: Betr.: RE: [governance] Muti-stakeholder Group structure
> > (someideas)
> >
> > I agree with Lee and wish to emphasize how naive it would be for anyone
> > to think that financial support is not being, and will not be, used as a
> > point of leverage to affect what the IGF does. Those believe that the
> > IGF should do X must be willing to step and support it financially if it
> > does X; just as those who prefer that it do Y instead of X can be
> > expected to be more generous with it if it forgoes X and does Y. It is
> > therefore incumbent upon CS to develop political support among their
> > governments and private sector to support the IGF if it looks as if it
> > will become a meaningful forum. In this regard, I too am encouraged by
> > Kummer's response.
> >
> > Dr. Milton Mueller
> > Syracuse University School of Information Studies
> > http://www.digital-convergence.org
> > http://www.internetgovernance.org
> >
> > >>> LMcKnigh at syr.edu 07-06-07 22:24 >>>
> > Parminder,
> >
> > I read this the opposite way, actually: it's a good sign if people are
> > making real or implicit threats about what the IGF may or may not do, it
> > means it matters to them. Not bad for a 1 year old!
> >
> > And yeah in politics it all comes down to budgets, so discussing that
> > isn;t brazen, it's basic.  Marcus is using this to say to others: 'how
> > about coming up with $$ for IGF too if you disagree?" which is just what
> > he should do.
> >
> > Lee
> >
> > Prof. Lee W. McKnight
> > School of Information Studies
> > Syracuse University
> > +1-315-443-6891office
> > +1-315-278-4392 mobile
> >
> > >>> guru at itforchange.net 6/7/2007 12:05 PM >>>
> > Excerpt from BD mail below -
> > "I didn't hear this threat at the meeting.  What are you referring to?
> > My
> > sense was that the ICANN crowd understood that there was no way this
> > could
> > be kept off the agenda in the face of so much demand."
> >
> > I thought this 'threat' was fairly well known ... See the attached mail
> > from
> > a MAG member suggesting that  ".... There is a grave danger that
> > financial
> > support and general involvement of non government participants will be
> > withdrawn...."
> >
> > This mail has been circulating in some elists that I am a member of,
> > and I
> > thought it a matter of great interest for the IGC ...
> >
> > Though the mail is  part of MAG's processes, by sending a formal
> > communication, quoting outputs from a meeting of some MAG members, to
> > Nitin
> > Desai and Martin Kummer (to which Kummer gave a fitting response, also
> > attached) qualifies for putting it in the public domain. I think that
> > this
> > serves the best interests of accountability, transparency and people's
> > right
> > to know.
> >
> > I feel sad that the mere act of broadening the discussions to include
> > the
> > agenda proposals of other stakeholders is resulting in such threats.
> > The
> > traditional' powers that be' apparently don't want democratisation of
> > the IG
> > space. Such a brazen use of the lever of financial support to
> > influence
> > substantive agenda of a global public policy body is a matter of grave
> > concern, on which I hope IGC will take some position.
> >
> > If these mails or their contents are not factually true, I would stand
> > corrected, would be glad to get a confirmation/rebuttal on this count.
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> > Guru
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: William Drake [mailto:drake at hei.unige.ch]
> > Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 1:59 PM
> > To: Governance
> > Subject: Re: [governance] Muti-stakeholder Group structure (some
> > ideas)
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > A couple of points on Willie's "Gramsci does IG" post...
> >
> > On 6/1/07 12:50 AM, "wcurrie at apc.org" <wcurrie at apc.org> wrote:
> >
> > > I wonder in reading the discussion how the notion of 'hegemony' might
> >
> > > come into play here. The response to the counter-hegemonic thrust of
> >
> > > civil society activism in WGIG, in the WSIS was to win a position
> > that
> > > no single government should have pre-eminence in IG. This conclusion
> >
> > > was accompanied by four
> >
> > FWIW, while there are bits that can be attributed to CS, most notably
> > the
> > forum, I would attribute that 'win' to the G77 and EU.  We echoed but
> > were
> > not the main voice.
> >
> > Snip
> >
> > > consultations in Geneva. It appears that critical internet resources
> >
> > > will be accepted as a theme for discussion in Rio. A veiled threat of
> >
> > > the withdrawl of funding for the IGF is made from the ranks of the
> > > hegemonic bloc. (I should point out that I am using the notion of
> > > hegemonic bloc as a descriptive term to indicate where power lies in
> >
> > > the arena of internet governance and not in any pejorative way - as a
> >
> > > simple statement of fact, if you will)  A number
> >
> > I didn't hear this threat at the meeting.  What are you referring to?
> > My
> > sense was that the ICANN crowd understood that there was no way this
> > could
> > be kept off the agenda in the face of so much demand.
> >
> > > of questions arise from this scenario:
> >
> > 1. why don't the developing countries
> > > arguing for critical internet resources put their money where there
> > > mouth is and put some real financial resources into the IGF
> > > secretariat so it can get the job done properly and see off the
> > threat
> > > of withdrawal of funds from the
> >
> > This has been a big problem from the start.  IGF is a classic unfunded
> > mandate.  Governments voted to create it and then looked at their shoes
> > when
> > the bowl was passed around.  I suppose the host countries have
> > excuses,
> > they'll be laying out cash to hold the meetings, but if more of the
> > others
> > had each given even a pittance, in the aggregate the secretariat would
> > not
> > be operating on a shoe string and looking for love in what some here
> > regard
> > as the all the wrong places.   With only the Swiss, Dutch and
> > Norwegians
> > ponying up, the significance of the contributions from ICANN and other
> > technical and administrative orgs is naturally amplified.  Then the
> > governments that didn't pay complain about that.   Frankly, if
> > contributions
> > were to reflect service rendered, it's the US that should have been
> > paying.
> > Without the IGF, the headline from Tunis would have been, "UN summit
> > breaks
> > down in acrimony over US control."  Instead the US got to declare that
> > everything's great, we love the IGF, and then walk away.
> >
> > > hegemonic bloc.
> >
> > 2. Why do the developing countries taking up the issue of
> > > critical internet resources have such a poor sense of strategy that
> > > their interventions simply amount to waving a red flag at a bull.
> > They
> > > don't spell out what particular aspect of critical internet resources
> >
> > > they wish to address and there are quite a few to choose from such as
> >
> > > the whois debate. As a result the hegemonic bloc correctly reads
> > their
> > > proposal as yet another attempt to get control of ICANN and acts
> > > accordingly to neutralise it. Subtlety and
> >
> > Snip
> >
> > Strongly agree that the developing country strategy, at least as it's
> > been
> > expressed publicly (not quite unanimously), has sounded too backward
> > looking.  Revisiting "oversight" will not get us anywhere.  At the
> > same
> > time, the forward looking items IGC has raised, like the growing role
> > of the
> > GAC, are presumably not their main bones of contention.  I'd think a
> > better
> > option would be to support a Development Agenda focus that looks at how
> > the
> > respective bodies (emphatically, not just ICANN) do or don't promote
> > development substantively and procedurally, but then I'm biased.
> >
> > > some sort of outcome that could be contained in a 'message'?
> >
> > I propose we
> > > adopt Bertrand's proposal and write a letter to the UN SG outlining
> > it
> > > cc to the IGF secretariat. Then we should  move on to consider the
> > > substantive
> >
> > I'm not comfortable yet with the fourth stakeholder category, think
> > this
> > merits more discussion.  While in principle I agree with John that IGO
> > secretariats often have a measure of relative autonomy from state
> > interests
> > (consider the ITU's positions on IG under Utsumi, in the face of
> > strong
> > opposition from the US---Toure appears to have U-turned), in practice
> > the
> > reality in orgs relevant to IG is more variable.  For example, the
> > WTO,
> > WIPO, OECD and others almost invariably support the US agenda, or else
> > whatever compromises between the US and EU may be needed.  Moreover,
> > which
> > IGOs exactly would be considered the relative polity to be represented,
> > and
> > are their roles/stakes comparable to other orgs from the
> > technical/admin
> > environment?
> >
> > > issues and how we might engage with Brazil (and probably South Africa
> >
> > > and
> > > India) about the shortcomings of their strategy and the need to
> > > distance IGF Rio from Iran's proxy war with the US, with  Canada and
> >
> > > perhaps other OECD countries as potential allies and with the IGF
> > > secretariat about issues of substance. We could write formal letters
> >
> > > to the governments we think we should engage. We could propose that
> > > Brazil appoint a civil society liasion for the Rio iGF  asap. And we
> >
> > > should communicate formally with BASIS on these issues includng
> > > Bertrand's proposal.. A communication with ICANN may also be
> > > worthwhile on the issue of how to address the critical internet
> > resource
> > issue in a reasonable manner.
> >
> > There is only a month to get this together and given
> > > how long the IGC takes to get consensus, there is no time to waste.
> >
> > Willie
> >
> > > Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
> >
> > Yeses to the above, with the caveat that all this would require a level
> > of a
> > higher level of consensus and speed than we've managed in a long while.
> >  But
> > as Gramsci said, pessimism of the mind, optimism of the will.  Of
> > course, he
> > was in prison when he wrote this..
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > BD
> >
> >
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >
> > For all list information and functions, see:
> >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >
> > For all list information and functions, see:
> >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >
> > For all list information and functions, see:
> >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >
> > For all list information and functions, see:
> >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>

-- 
____________________
Bertrand de La Chapelle

Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32

"Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint
Exupéry
("there is no better mission for humans than uniting humans")
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20070608/d34fd729/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20070608/d34fd729/attachment.txt>