[governance] Completely Ignored [was East Africa IGF - day 2, discussion of ITRs]
parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Thu Aug 2 04:18:18 EDT 2012
Peng Hwa (and Izumi)
On Tuesday 24 July 2012 05:17 PM, Ang Peng Hwa (Prof) wrote:
> Parminder,
>
> Back from a meeting between the emails.
>
> First things first. Thank you for your email. I cannot imagine
> ignoring your email. (In fact, the 2011 email shows that neither you
> nor the issue was ever "completely ignored.")
It is not about ignoring me. It is about the issues that not only were
ignored, they are still being ignored. You still havent answered, any of
the questions that I raised in my 2010 conversations, 2011 email or even
in the present exchange. You havent told me why UNESCAP was not
approached when most other regional IGF involve the regional UN
commissions, you havent told me why efforts were not made to connect to
non-technical community NGOs before preparation begun, including those
persons/ groups who were involved with WSIS Asia Pacific caucus for
instance, why almost no government seems to be involved, i have no
clear information on who were on the organising committee (simple
information, isnt it, why not share it), who set up the organising
committee, who all funded the event, how many and which all participants
to the event were funded and on what criteria etc......
Now, before you hasten to think that I am being especially non
understanding and harsh on you, pl know that I ask the same questions
from the global IGF (in fact IGC has been doing it consistently) and I/
we also did our best to get much of this into the report of the CSTD WG
on IGF improvements. So, if I dont ask these question vis a vis an event
calling itself the regional AP IGF, I will be being very inconsistent
(which unfortunately, some people on this list are being)
> I like to think that I would have answered at least some of your
> suggestions but I honestly cannot recall it now.
No, you did not. The proof of it is, you still havent even when I ask
again.
>
> Be that as it may, I may have felt that you were "mollified" (aka
> agree to disagree) because at that time, you had questioned the
> legitimacy of the APrIGF. I had said that the legitimacy argument
> would in fact play into the hands of those who question the legitimacy
> of civil society, an argument that I thought you accepted. Hence the
> friendly invite for 2011.
>
> I'm wondering if the debate is now moot because:
>
> 1. The IGF Secretariat has now come up with the guidelines for what a
> regional or national IGF should contain. (The Secretariat itself
> clearly has no problems with others using the IGF to indicate
> their national or regional IGF is part of the UN-level IGF.) This
> is a rather low bar and the APrIGF meets it.
>
It is not enough if they set the bar low , it is not that civil society
is just sitting to receive with fulsome gratitude whatever the IGF
secretariat does or communicates (no, that is not how we have worked
traditionally) .We make and let know our positions. The question is, are
you fine with the low bar set for regional IGFs? If so, why did we fight
so much for raising the bar for the global IGF through our engagements
with the WG on IGF improvements, Will be very grateful for an answer,
especially from Izumi who was on the WG.
> 1. The APrIGF is now under AP*. Some processes have been put in
> place for approval of the venue, chair of the PC, etc.
>
I dont think many people here know what AP* is, and therefore you will
have to elaborate. I see it as a group largelyoforganisations that tend
to see themselves as the technical community, right! So, perhaps, the
equivalent of what you are declaring as the grounds of legitimacy for
the so call AP IGF will be someone saying global IGF is now very fine
and immune from criticism because' it is now under ISOC'..... I dont
know whether you are aware of it or not, but some such proposal, to put
IGF under the ISOCs, were mooted during the IGF, but most civil society
strongly opposed it.
In this background, your claim that your AP rIGF is legitimate because
'now' it is under a loose unclear technical community umbrella group
sounds to me rather revisionist from a civil society point of view.
> 1. This year, there was a call for panels and some of the panelists
> were funded. The next APrIGF will have a similar CFP.
>
No, that is not enough. There has to be a representative, participative,
transparent process from the very start. I am most surprised that you
are still not committing to one. You are just saying there was a call
for proposals, and next year too there will be one. Also, I want
information of which panels were funded and on what creteria.
thanks for your engagement,
parminder
> You can expect the APrIGF to be more transparent in the future. And of
> course your suggestions to improve its governance and processes are
> always welcome.
>
> Regards,
> Peng Hwa
>
>
>
> From: Parminder Singh <parminder at ITforChange.net
> <mailto:parminder at ITforChange.net>>
> Date: Tuesday, July 24, 2012 1:30 PM
> To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>, AngPH <tphang at ntu.edu.sg
> <mailto:tphang at ntu.edu.sg>>
> Subject: Re: [governance] Completely Ignored [was East Africa IGF -
> day 2, discussion of ITRs]
>
> Peng Hwa,
>
> You have mentioned in your email how I had raised a number of issues when you had first organised the so-called APrIGF in Hongkong in 2010. Indeed, after a few exchanges IT for Change agreed to be present at the meeting on the condition that we would basically say the same things at the meeting about its legitimacy etc as we had been arguing. You kindly consented and we did attend the meeting and made our point.
>
> However, what surprises me is your conclusion that we were somehow mollified by our conversations with you at Hongkong and then at Vilnius. There is no question of such mollification without the issues we raised being addressed, and as is evident, they never were.
>
> What is even more surprising are your comments, quote below from your email of the last week, about the second so called APrIGF in Singapore.
>
>
> "When I organized the meeting in Singapore, you did not raise any objection." and, again later in the email " In Singapore, you did not raise any objections. And I thought that's where the issue stood." (Peng Hwa)
>
> It has obviously entirely skipped your memory, but when you wrote to me inviting me for the Singapore meeting, I wrote a detailed email to you which not only raised the same issues that I had raised earlier, but also suggested, in considerable detail, what in our opinion is the right way to go about organising the APrIGF (so much so for all this talk from various parties that I should be constructive etc, which I must say is a more than a bit patronising). I reproduce below my email to you before Singapore. I would not make your response public which is up to you to decide whatever to do about. I however must say that I had even at that time asked for your permission to make my email public but was persuaded not to, pending further f2f discussions etc which never happened.
> parminder
>
> *My email in response to an invitation to attend the Singapore so called APrIGF is below.*On 5/3/11 12:36 AM, "Parminder Singh" <parminder at ITforChange.net> wrote:
>
> Dear Peng Hwa,
>
> It is always nice to hear from you, and hope you are doing well!
>
> Thank you for inviting me to chair a session during the
> proposed meeting. I do quite appreciate the utmost sincerely
> and serious application that you bring to your efforts to keep
> a dialogue on Internet Governance alive in the Asia Pacific
> region. However, for the reason mentioned below in some detail
> , I am constrained to decline your kind invitation.
>
> As mentioned in our conversations before the similar meeting
> last year, I do not think it legitimate to call any meeting as
> a regional IGF without a minimum standard of broad
> participation and 'ownership', especially of public interest
> actors. Last year I was told that it was the first time and
> the meeting has been planned in haste, and that things should
> improve for subsequent meetings. However, in this invite for
> the 2011 meeting I see no indication about who all are on the
> organizing committee, how was the agenda and speaker selection
> arrived at, etc.
>
> Apart from the basic legitimacy question, holding of such
> meetings under the banner of national/regional IGFs has a
> negative reverse impact on the global IGF to make it look like
> it too was just another annual conference on IG, which I do
> not think it is (though some people do) . I think that the
> global IGF is, or at least is supposed to be, an innovative
> experiment in deliberative and participatory democracy for
> global governance of the Internet. At least some basic
> features of the global IGF suggests the possibility that the
> global IGF can, if we have the political will for it,
> hopefully evolve to be something close to this ideal. These
> features are; strong mooring in a public institution - or a
> set of them, a good amount of public funding (though not at
> all of the kind, and extent, that can be considered
> satisfactory), a multistakeholder group deciding the agenda of
> the meeting and the speakers through an intensively
> consultative process, and such.
>
> While some of us are struggling to ensure that the annual IGF
> has an even greater public and democratic character,
> organization of completely private meetings opaquely planned
> and executed, with unknown sponsors and key drivers, like the
> proposed meeting being called the Asia Pacific Regional IGF,
> is to us a retrograde step. It is for this reason that we
> cannot associate with it, and in fact oppose it to be held
> under its proposed name.
>
> I do understand how difficult it is to be innovative and
> entrepreneurial in such matters and actually pull an event
> like this together; and in relation how facile it may be
> considered to criticize such almost valiant efforts. I must
> therefore engage constructively and suggest what could
> alternatively have been done and would, in my opinion, have
> been the better option. Though I cannot suggest funding
> options right away, it is possible that the Asia Pacific UN
> regional commission (ESCAP) could have shown some interest in
> this event. Was it even approached at all? Funding from
> governments of some countries could also been explored apart
> from sourcing 'monopoly funds' (akin to Internet tax) that are
> collected by registrars and such registries that use the
> commons resources of geo-political expressions like ctlds. In
> any case, wider participation of public interest actors is
> always possible to seek. There was this Asia Pacific Civil
> Society Caucus at WSIS, which is now defunct but one can
> recollect some key names of those - individuals and
> organizations - who participated actively. Then there are
> Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus members from Asia
> Pacific quite active in the Internet Governance Caucus. There
> are also MAG members from this region. I have no indication
> that these actors had any role at all in shaping an activity
> which is being called the Asia Pacific Regional IGF.
>
> I must once again mention that I hold you and your sincere
> efforts towards a continued dialogue on Internet governance in
> our region in great esteem. And this statement is made most
> sincerely because I have known you and your work closely. The
> proposed meeting should simply have been named something like
> 'an regional dialogue on IG' or some such thing rather than a
> regional IGF. In this regard we have the example of EURODIG. I
> do hope that such a change can still be made so that it leaves
> no room for confusion regarding the nature of the proposed
> meeting.
>
> We should do nothing to contribute to promoting privatized
> realms of governance for such an important social, economic,
> political and cultural phenomenon as the Internet. We fear
> that through privatized governance models for the Internet,
> what is really being done is to challenge the very essentials
> of democratic thought and ideals for all aspects of our social
> life.
>
> I look forward to hear your response to the issues that I
> have raised, and discuss them at as much length as may be
> required. However, meanwhile, I may have to take the contents
> of this letter to the public domain, since it really is not a
> response to you individually but a much larger engagement with
> issues concerning democracy and public interest, specifically
> about the nature of institutions that can serve these ideals.
>
> With respect, and the very best regards
>
> Parminder
>
> On Thursday 28 April 2011 06:38 AM, Ang Peng Hwa (Prof) wrote:
>
> APrIGF
> Dear Parminder,
>
> Greetings from Singapore!
>
> I append below the draft programme for the coming APrIGF
> in Singapore. This will be jus before the ICANN meeting.
>
>
> 1. Can you make it?
> 2. Can you participate in a panel or chair one? We have
> the plenaries as well as the workshops.
> 3.
>
>
> Regards,
> Peng Hwa
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> CONFIDENTIALITY:This email is intended solely for the person(s) named
> and may be confidential and/or privileged.If you are not the intended
> recipient,please delete it,notify us and do not copy,use,or disclose
> its content.
>
> Towards A Sustainable Earth:Print Only When Necessary.Thank you.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120802/1a5553d3/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
For all other list information and functions, see:
http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
http://www.igcaucus.org/
Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
More information about the Governance
mailing list