[governance] IGF financing

Bertrand de La Chapelle bdelachapelle at gmail.com
Mon Jun 11 12:44:36 EDT 2007

Wow, interesting.

Should I consider myself not cautious or clever enough :-) for daring to
utter an idea like : "a multi-stakeholder forum could/should be financed in
a multi-stakeholder way ?" And remember I indicated with appropriate rules
of transparency.

I'm afraid your reply is not of the same tune as my modest contribution and
the tonality is a bit harsh, as if I were suggesting something horrendous. I
respect your position, as usual, but as I suppose you are speaking in a
personal capacity and not as coordinator, maybe we should let people discuss
it. That's the purpose of this list, isn't it ?

I am not sure this question can simply be brushed aside by your answer. And
I'm not sure we understand the same thing when we speak of multi-stakeholder
financing. In particular, you did not mention the distinction I was making
between "automatic resources" and "ad hoc resources". Do you think that a
foundation providing transparent financing to a Dynamic Coalition would be
bad ?

Anyway, I'd be happy to learn what your own preference would be, what
concrete solution you favor : just governments ? or just the UN ? or just
some international organizations ? The key question is, again : what is the
appropriate financing structure for the IGF in order to guarantee regularity
of resources and independence from lobbies and pressure groups ? Can we
address this issue calmly, with the attention it deserves ?

In any case, using words like "what recently happened at IGF would be
scandalous. In some countries it will veer towards criminal" was not
necessary to make your point. Especially in a response to that post. Unless
you imply - without saying - that those words are applicable to what I
mentionned or you hope I might be encouraged to shut up by fear of being
accused of the above. In such a case, I sincerely hope we can avoid this on
this list. There are enough important issues that need to be discussed in a
mature manner, and I am merely, as usual, trying to provide some
constructive input.

Best as ever


On 6/11/07, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>  No Bertrand, Multistakeholder financing is a very bad idea. And, an even
> worse principle. When we speak MS, I am often afraid this idea is lurking
> somewhere. But most people are cautious/ clever enough not to mention it
> expressly. In fact, that's the big difference between how things,
> less-than-ideally, may actually be, and when we openly start articulating
> such things as acceptable principles.
> When Milton said, it is simple – those who fund IGF will push their
> agenda, and so those others who want their agenda pushed should step up
> their contribution – I responded that however practical it be, this looks
> like a principle which will take us to not good outcomes at all – for CS and
> for public interest. For instance, I want my agenda pushed, what should I
> do. I don't have money to contribute. And I cant go to my government (per
> Milton's advise) because my government doesn't share my agenda. And he
> called it moral posturing, I hope you don't come back in the same vein. For
> me and many in public interest advocacy it is an important principle, and I
> cant let such formulations pass by..
> It if fine for private parties to finance public functions and bodies
> where there is a plurality – like a foundation funding a university program
> or an NGO. It is also fine to extend part financing, under certain
> conditions, to core public bodies which are monopolistic (states, UN bodies
> etc)  in their constituency and mandate, but then the proportion of private
> funding needs to be adequately low for any one interest group (as well as in
> total proportion to public funds) , and it should be governed with strict
> rules of propriety etc. Under such rules what recently happened at IGF would
> be scandalous. In some countries it will veer towards criminal.
> Many in the CS (outside the typical IG/IS groups) who are sometimes
> suspicious of the term multistakeholder feel so because they known such
> bodies can easily show tendencies to move towards 'privatised governance'.
> We may be realizing their worst fears.
> 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* <http://www.itforchange.net/>
>   ------------------------------
> *From:* Bertrand de La Chapelle [mailto:bdelachapelle at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, June 11, 2007 7:37 PM
> *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; Norbert Bollow
> *Subject:* [governance] IGF financing
> Dear all,
> Following the various post, including Norbert's one below, I'd like to
> insert two general comments in the discussion :
> First, as the IGF is an innovative experiment in multi-stakeholder
> governance, it would make sense that its funding be multi-stakeholder as
> well, wouldn't it ? Proportions can be discussed, given the variable
> contributory capacities, but the principle would make sense, IMHO.
> Second, a combination of "automatic resources" for regular activities,
> including the annual event and some secretariat functions, and "had hoc
> resources" could also be envisaged, provided the later are transparent. In
> particular, there is no reason to prevent some actors from getting good
> visibility when they support some useful activity, such as funding for
> participation of developing countries participants or supporting the
> activities of a dynamic coalition.
> Best
> Bertrand
>  On 6/11/07, *Norbert Bollow* <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
> Milton Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
> > a) vested interests can be expected to use financial support as leverage
> > over the activities of the IGF
> >
> > b) we need to find a way to institutionalize support for IGF that
> > minimizes this problem (we will never eliminate it)
> Would it be an improvement if the IGF process was funded out of
> the U.N. budget?
> If yes, what would be the process for trying to achieve that?
> What would be the chances of success for this?
> Greetings,
> Norbert.
> --
> Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch>                    http://Norbert.ch
> President of the Swiss Internet User Group SIUG  http://SIUG.ch
> --
> ____________________
> 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")

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
("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/20070611/3b43315e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20070611/3b43315e/attachment.txt>

More information about the Governance mailing list