[governance] IGF financing

Parminder parminder at itforchange.net
Tue Jun 12 22:07:07 EDT 2007 

 

>Should I consider myself not cautious or clever enough :-)

 

No, no, not at all, Bertrand. Everyone knows how cautious, clever, erudite
etc etc you are. And I have complimented you on these qualities on numerous
occasions. Only the first two sentences of my email were intended for you
where I disagreed with your idea. Immediately afterwards – starting, ‘when
we speak MS-ism’, I entered into my thoughts on the general problems with
MS-ism and how it often works, 

 

Of course you have clearly and honestly shared an idea, and people should
discuss and have views on it. I for one strongly registered my views. Maybe
a bit too strongly, but there was an existing context to my response in the
exchanges on this list in the last few days, and I request you to see my
email in that context, and not merely as a response to your floating of an
idea. 

 

>I'm afraid your reply is not of the same tune as my modest contribution and
the tonality is a bit harsh.

 

I sincerely apologize if I gave such an impression. As ever, my intention
was only to enter, what I consider is, a constructive engagement with your
ideas. (note that I too gave adequate explanations etc). However, on the
tonality issue, I request you to see it in the light that this wasn’t an
one-off idea/ exchange between you and me, but situated, as I said, in the
context of some recent event and subsequent discussions. Immediately on
giving a quick reaction to the idea mooted by you, my reply got immersed in
this context and situation, and was addressing the whole context of the
discussions on the list and not just your email. You can see these other
emails have various kinds of tones, and I am really sorry but one has to
pick up different threads in a single email when responding to emails on an
elist that have some level of connections. 

 

You say – ‘And remember I indicated with appropriate rules of transparency’.
What happened around the Geneva meeting – I mean the email exchanges - has a
central importance to such rules, and perception of moral/ legal grounds of
such rules. I cannot see your financing idea as separated from this real
world context. Unfortunately, a good amount of the discussion on this list
of this event has not given me a good feel about there being an adequate
context and understanding, and/or an ideological environment, for evolving
and adherence to such principles. Remember that efforts to evoke such
transparency were called muck-racking, tabloid-level fluff etc. In absence
of such an understanding and commitment to the need and meaning of such
transparency, my fears of private funds are obviously justified.  And I will
like to hear your views on this, in the stated context.

 

>but as I suppose you are speaking in a personal capacity and not as
coordinator, maybe we should let people discuss it.

 

Where is the question, and I am very sure people will discuss it despite me.


 

>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.

 

Ok, I think it is easier to discuss with/ explain to you what I mean, and
the basis of my strong views on this issue, since you are a public official.
How would you respond to a hypothetical situation like, say Carrefour
company, which is looking to enter the retailing sector in India, proposes
that it funds part of French diplomatic operations in India. Just for
France’s image, patriotism etc’s sake, nothing sinister. And then they do
begin funding part costs of the ambassador, embassy etc
. And then one fine
day you unearth a letter (through muck-raking efforts, of course) where
Carrefour (or a group of diplomatic mission funding companies) have
indicated that they may withdraw support if they see France staying lax (all
a hypothetical situation, of course) at WTO instead of arguing more
aggressively to promote access of global retailing services companies to
global markets, especially in developing countries. Once gain for no narrow
interest of course, just for the sake of promoting free trade in a free
world etc 

.Or worse still, as possession of financial strings do have a
way to move down such a path, writing to the Foreign minister of France,
again with the same threat, if she/he doesn’t put the specific issues of
Indian government clearing Carrefour’s investment proposal on the table when
India is pushing its case with France for opening up its nuclear fuel
supplies
.. How does all this sound
. Horrendous ? Criminal? Am I then right
in making the criminal connection, which as I said, isnt in regard to your
email, but the general context of discussion on this list with regard to the
necessary safeguards of ‘transparency’ that you propose. We cant discuss
ideas and principles in isolation from existing discussions, views and
values in the group on what does transparency etc means in context of
private funding. For me this connection is obvious. 

 

I keep wondering why we use different standards for public activity,
accountabilities etc for national and global level
 Even - and this is
ironical –those among us who are most enthusiastic about a globalised (and
to some extent a de-nationalised) world
 On this, I expect to hear the
argument (general comment, again not aimed at you Bertrand), that well, the
global governance systems will be different and evolve their own bases,
principles etc
 to this, my humble submission (you cant say, that I am not
learning :-)) -  such differences and evolution  can only be in progressive
ways – MS-ism, more openness, better and more equal representation of all
sections and people , based more on shared human values etc etc, not in
regressive ways – in-transparency of funding, pay for governance services –
more you pay the better, privatized governance, stake-based rather than
rights based etc etc
  

 

Engaging specifically with your proposal, if you call the idea ‘diversified
financing’ I will support it. In any case all your arguments and those of
others in support of your idea come from the logic of diversifying funding
or, as you say in a latter email, broadly sourced funding. So why not name
the idea also as such. Multistakeholder funding means stakes based funding,
and that’s unacceptable. Everyone has equal stakes in public bodies – that’s
why they are public, and stakes cant be linked to funds. This idea in its
present name, in my view, seems to represent a direct prescription of
privatized governance. 

 

Thanks, and best regards

 

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: Bertrand de La Chapelle [mailto:bdelachapelle at gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 10:15 PM
To: Parminder
Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Norbert Bollow
Subject: Re: [governance] IGF financing

 

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

Bertrand 



On 6/11/07, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net
<mailto: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

 <http://www.itforchange.net/> 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
<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
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/20070613/491ad0ef/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20070613/491ad0ef/attachment.txt>

More information about the Governance mailing list