[governance] The Forum's financial independence
Parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Fri Jun 8 23:11:12 EDT 2007
Sure, Michael, I am completely with you on adhering to basic principles of
public funding of public policy institutions, and the dangers of getting
into dependence on private funding, however liberal and diverse.
I only spoke about it as an immediate imperative to counter some narrow and
sectional interests with deep pockets from getting away with
disproportionate influence on the IGF. And, probably a symbolic resistance
to such efforts.
In as much as even our private funding proposal strengthens the notion of
private funding of public policy institutions, I will rather tone it down as
essentially secondary to the basic principles involved here in the matter of
moves towards, as you say, privatization of public policy.
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: mgurst at vcn.bc.ca [mailto:mgurst at vcn.bc.ca]
> Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2007 8:25 AM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder
> Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'David Goldstein'
> Subject: RE: [governance] The Forum's financial independence
>
> Parminder and all,
>
> I'm really unsure as to why a process/institution we want to operate in
> the broad public interest should be expected (allowed?) to be funded by
> sectional or private interests?
>
> Shouldn't we be thinking through how to ensure that the IGF is funded in
> some way consistent with this as a principle.
>
> Perhaps micro-payments are the way to go but the way it is presented here
> suggests that this is "our" private interest being presented rather than
> someone else's.
>
> I would prefer a principled approach in this area and think it is
> something that we should not give away casually or without a fight
> whatever the positioning of those who argue for (are willing to accept)
> the privatization of public policy.
>
> MG
>
> >
> >>Fundraising from foundations would be a good place to start, and
> >> corporate
> > technology companies.
> >
> >
> >
> > Micro-funding from the wider constituency is an important digital age
> > concept and emerging practice for independence of political structures
.
> > We
> > sure should try something like this. And contribute money even if
> > initially
> > mostly of symbolic value. Wikipedia and creative commons are some
> examples
> > of public interest systems that have tried it successfully.
> >
> >
> >
> > A mutli-stakeholder global governance system, with some international
> > legitimacy, and which has possible implications beyond ICT governance
> > should
> > be an important structure to support. However, as David says, we need to
> > make a good case for it, and then push it with some energy.
> >
> >
> >
> > IT for Change is ready to get it rolling with a contribution of USD 500
> > :-)
> > (to be pooled in from personal contributions). And we wont link it with
> > pushing our agenda either.
> >
> >
> >
> > 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
> >
> > <http://www.itforchange.net/> www.ITforChange.net
> >
> > _____
> >
> > From: David Goldstein [mailto:goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au]
> > Sent: Friday, June 08, 2007 3:48 PM
> > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > Subject: Re: [governance] The Forum's financial independence
> >
> >
> >
> > 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
> > <mailto: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>
> > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> >> ____________________________________________________________
> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >> <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org> 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>
> > 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.h
> > tml> .
> >
> >
____________________________________________________________
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
More information about the Governance
mailing list