[governance] Re: Day 2 - CSTD IGF WG

[Marilia Maciel]

Another thing that called my attention was that, according to official
interpretation, the IGF is not part of the UN, it is a forum of the
Secretary General. Therefore, UN funding would not be possible without a
recommendation from the GA. According to what we heard/I understood, UN
washed their hands and vividly encouraged the WG to look for ways for the
IGF to get for money.

I am not against voluntary contributions. We should encourage them, of
course. But I think that stable funding has to be guaranteed to IGF core
activities and to the participation of MAG members and speakers, especially
those from developing countries, based on clear criteria of eligibility.
And I think it is unfair that some UN rules are imposed to the IGF, weather
we like it or not, but when it comes to being secured by UN, then IGF is
just an appendix of the SG. So I made the following comment on the floor:

Regardless of feasibility of public funding, I would like to support
Parminder's request for a formal written explanation about on what grounds
UN DESA is arguing that the IGF is not part of the UN. I think we should be
cristal clear on the uderstanding of this, as it impacts the IGF in the
future. We are always being told to abide by UN rules, even of matters that
are dear to us and that maybe the IGF community would have a different view
on how to proceed. I remember clearly that when was there was a launch of
the book about freedom of expression, UN authorities showed up to forbid
one advertisement that mentioned the name of a country, for instance. I
mention this because it is a public, well-known fact. That seemed pretty
awckward to us, but I think that people accepted, on the understanding that
we had a two-way street relation with UN. I am thinking that maybe this
relation with UN is assymetrical and that our responsabilities are not
consistent with the support we have received

Best,
Marília



On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 9:50 AM, Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org> wrote:

> We are discussing about the Funding part.
>
> After the coffee break, Chengetai made some reporting of IGF budget
> areas.
>
> There is no system to accept small funds
> For private sector - they need “invoice”, but UN system does not issue
> invoices
>
> Nothing has been denied by UN DESA.
>
> Anything is possible if there is a political will.
> Donor meetings – had with open consultations and main meetings.
> Donors can’t say this or that – it is for all project as a whole.
> No more power with other stakeholders.
>
>
> Then Anriette made the following remarks remotely, and with her permission
> I am posting it here.
>
> Anriette Esterhuysen:
>
> My contribution: I support a mixed model of funding. I think that
> making the IGF responsible for raising its own funds can encourage a
> result-oriented approach to IGF management an implementation.
>
> However, for the IGF to have the capacity to raise the necessary
> resources it needs core capacity. I would like a model whereby the
> SG's office provides
> (1) in-kind support as mentioned by the US
> (2) that this in-kind support is stated clearly (e.g. communications,
> office space, etc.)  and given an estimated dollar value in IGF
> budgets
> (3) that some core operational expenditure, e.g. the salary of the
> Executive Coordinator be funded through the UN. Ideally a 35% UN 65%
> voluntary funds in m view would give the IGF the financial
> sustainability it needs.
>
> It would also demonstrate UN ownership ad commitment without
> compromising the independence of the IGF. Overall I would like to see
> the IGF adopt a process of strategic management that involves annual
> action plans and budgets towards which donors and the UN contributes,
> with all information about these contributions published and made
> available to the IGF community on a regular basis.
>
> Swiss said they have no problem with transparency, and support ways to
> insure no interference.
> We hope to renew our contribution for 2012.
>
> Parminder is trying to explain his/our view - on public funding, with
> innovation, support Anrittte, but go with 60-40.
>
>
> Soon for lunch
> ---
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/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
>
>


-- 
Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
FGV Direito Rio

Center for Technology and Society
Getulio Vargas Foundation
Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120112/282641e9/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/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