[governance] The Forum's financial independence
David Goldstein
goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au
Fri Jun 8 06:18:06 EDT 2007
Hi Bertrand et al,
Fundraising from foundations would be a good place to start, and corporate technology companies.
I think it could be easily made clear what is being funded and what the IGF is doing to any potential funders to make it clear the organisation is independent. A case for support would be invaluable with all this information.
No doubt there would be some who funding would not be accepted from. But this could be discussed later.
I'd also like to see the IGF do news releases occasionally to publicise the work that's being done. This would be essential if there were funders to publicise their assistance.
Cheers
David
----- Original Message ----
From: Bertrand de La Chapelle <bdelachapelle at gmail.com>
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Cc: Milton Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>; guru at itforchange.net; Lee McKnight <LMcKnigh at syr.edu>; Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
Sent: Friday, 8 June, 2007 7:25:53 PM
Subject: [governance] The Forum's financial independence
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")
_________________________________________________________________________________
How would you spend $50,000 to create a more sustainable environment in Australia? Go to Yahoo!7 Answers and share your idea.
http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/aunz/lifestyle/answers/y7ans-babp_reg.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20070608/082bcd7d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20070608/082bcd7d/attachment.txt>
More information about the Governance
mailing list