[governance] Re: Day 2 - CSTD IGF WG

[Marilia Maciel]

and the chair mentioned that civil society's statement on funding for
developing nation WG members to be discussed after lunch (about 2 hours
away).

On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>wrote:

> 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
>



-- 
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/20120112/51a7ba1d/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