[governance] IGF financing

[veni markovski]

David,
I may have missed the initial mail, and tried to find it in the 
archives, but unsuccessfully.
Having said that, I hope that people are not going to be taken away 
by what Chris has said, but rather by the question who is pushing 
certain agendas around the IGF - there were hints here that these are 
"known groups", "businesses", I only miss the "international 
situation" for the picture to be completed - and remind me of the 
communism in the socialist block.
It's amazing that today Chris gets all the bashing - perhaps just 
because he's the one to speak openly, and say what's in the heads of 
many people, but who don't dare to write that.
It's also amazing that the NW coalition (North - West) continues to 
dictate loudly what should be, and what should not be discussed - be 
that on this mailing list, or at the IGF. It's time to kind of wake 
up, and admit the reality - the huge majority of the people don't 
care about domain names and IP addresses. They care how much they pay 
for their Internet, and if they can access any site without 
restrictions, or without being afraid that someone may come after 
them for doing that. Of course, it is understandable that the 
Americans and the WestEuropeans would not think about this, as they 
take this (as well as many other things!) for granted.
When someone from the rest of the world suggests something different, 
something that will change the way people have access to the 
Internet, then (s)he will be attacked by the same NW coalitioners....

So sad.

Veni

At 16:45 6/13/2007  -0700, you wrote:
>A number of advisory group members met
>tonight to discuss today's meeting and I am sending this to you and 
>the list to
>express our concerns.
>
>Firstly, we were under the impression that even though the advisory group has
>yet to be officially reconstituted we were meeting here following yesterdays
>open consultation as the advisory group in anticipation of formal 
>approval from
>the Secretary General. In fact this meeting has turned into another open
>consultation seeking to set the agenda for and structure of the igf.
>
>I want to make it clear that most of us have no problem with critical internet
>resources being an agenda item in a main session if agreed. Rather, we are
>concerned that there appear to be fundamental changes being mooted which are
>unacceptable to and may lead to the withdrawal of some non government and
>perhaps even government participants.
>
>Overall the topics and format of Athens were a success and to ensure 
>the continued
>enrolment of all stakeholders should be maintained.
>
>Chief amongst our concerns is the concept, that seems to have been 'agreed' in
>today's session, of final recommendations arising from the igf. In effect, a
>negotiated document. This is way outside of the mandate of the igf and is,
>simply, unacceptable to the majority of non government people here.
>
>We are dismayed that this meeting seems to have been taken over by government
>officials well versed in international manoeuvring or 'UN games'. It is likely
>that this will marginalise the legitimate concerns and interests of developing
>countries for whom issues such as access are key. This is not what these
>meetings were intended to be.
>
>There is a grave danger that financial support and general involvement of non
>government participants will be withdrawn.
>I intend to raise these issues at the meeting in the morning but 
>thought it courteous
>to let you and the rest of the list know in advance.

____________________________________________________________
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