[governance] East Africa IGF - day 2, discussion of ITRs

Thu Jul 19 05:53:48 EDT 2012

Izumi

I am surprised at your surprise. I have been raising these issues about 
the so called Asia Pacific IGF since the very first meeting in Hongkong. 
I attended the first meeting kind of under protest just to raise these 
issues with the hope that they may get addressed in the subsequent 
meetings. Since you have been more actively involved in just this 
meeting you may check with Peng Hwa about our ongoing private and public 
conversations on this issue.

On the specific issue of inviting Asia Pacific regional commission, 
while I have spoken of it before, I cant see how it can elude the 
collective mind of the organisers when most regional IGFs have an 
important role for regional UN commissions. What one remembers and what 
one forgets also represent mindsets and world views and this 
corroborates my observation of dis-balanced  representation in and 
ownership of what gets called as asia pacific regional IGF. BTW, I am 
unable to know who the organisers of this meeting are other than the 
Japanese ISP association and .asia, because no such information is 
available on the website. Why would such basic information about 
ownership and representation of the event get forgotten to be put out. 
Does this not violate basic standards of transparency. The report of WG 
on improvements to the IGF, of which you were a member, goes to good 
length about  nature of representativity of different groups in managing 
IGFs, completely transparency of funding etc.... Would these standards 
not apply to events that presume to the tag of regional IGFs?

And I cant see why, when you want to call your event as 'the regional 
IGF', are you sensitive to simple questions about transparency, 
responsiveness and accountability.

parminder

On Thursday 19 July 2012 02:25 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote:
> Dear Parminder,
>
> I was bit surprised to see your note below.
> First, I offer my apology for not responding to your earlier email on Apr 25.
> I honestly to not remember why I ignored your request, or put it more directly,
> I have little  memory about your request. I did not intend to ignore, but yes,
> in essence I ignored your request. I am sorry. I can come up with my excuses,
> when you sent that to the list, I was on the road, etc. That does not
> count, I know.
>
> However, when it comes to the substance of your request, asking for
> clarification of the organizers, I already mentioned that it was led by JAIPA,
> the ISP association. About the funding, that time, it was very unclear even
> for us who and how we could manage the necessary funding. Now, today,
> you can see the list of sponsors, largely industry yes. Our government put
> not money at all.
>
> As for involving the UN Regional commission, I did not know you have
> asked for that. I checked online, and found no evidence. Sorry. And
> while I do not mind seeking their involvement for coming years, I am
> not sure if that is essential for claiming regional IGF.  At least, we
> have not heard any request from either IGF secretariat, or government
> members we have contacted directly and indirectly, nor any civil
> society members in this region.
>
> I again apologize, but am not sure that missing a single response be interpreted
> as evidence of non-transparency. That, to me, is exaggerating the things and not
> helpful for constructive dialogue.  If you take your request that
> seriously, I wonder why you have not reminded me one more time before
> making this assertion. If I were you, I would have sent a friendly
> reminder, before making such unilateral criticism.
>
> izumi
>
>
> 2012/7/19 parminder<parminder at itforchange.net>:
>>
>> On Thursday 19 July 2012 09:18 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote:
>>
>> Hi Adam and all,
>>
>> Asia Pacific regional IGF, is also ongoing since yesterday, for three days.
>>
>>
>> Dear Izumi and Peng Hwa,
>>
>> My best wishes for the meeting. However, that reminds me that when you
>> announced this so called regional IGF I has asked you for a few
>> clarification vide my email to the IGC on 25th April (enclosed and also
>> content cut pasted below). I am surprised that as the main organisers
>> neither you nor Peng Hwa considered it necessary on answer my queries.
>> par minder
>>
>> Disclosure: I was invited for the meeting but refused to attend because of
>> its overly business ownership, and non transparency as inter alia evident in
>> not responding to my direct questions about the event. I have been trying to
>> persuade the organisers for three years now to make the event more open and
>> inclusive, especially for more marginalised groups etc . And among other
>> things invite the Asia Pacific UN regional  commission to be part of the
>> meeting as Latin American and African regional IGFs have done. But this has
>> been to no avail.
>>
>> Below is the content of my email of the 25th April.
>>
>> Dear Izumi
>>
>> Can you proffer more information on who is organising this meeting, who is
>> is funding it etc...
>>
>> In general, as you know, I am quite against policy dialogue forums (which I
>> understand this meeting is supposed to be, taking from the UN IGF) being
>> organised primarily by the business sector, especially when such a forum
>> claims a monopoly and therefore authoritative position, which is implied in
>> the name of 'the' 'Asia Pacific regional IGF'.
>>
>> Mine is a somewhat unpleasant task of raising what may appear to be
>> difficult question with regard to sincere and hard work being put in by
>> people like you and Peng Hwa, both of whom I greatly respect. But all of us,
>> most of all civil society, must be subject to accountability and to hard
>> questions when required. So, my apologies for that. However, I do request an
>> open discussion on the subject here in the IGC.
>>
>> I do not think that you would much look forward to a time when the policies
>> that determine what education our children will have, and how, will be
>> determined by processes led by private companies in the business of digital
>> content, educational software etc. Do you? Or, to a time when our health
>> policies will be determined by processes led by big pharma companies and
>> private hospital chains. However, what is being done in Internet governance
>> today is precisely and inescapably leading us towards such a model of
>> governance and policy making. To that extent, we will have to take
>> responsibility for our actions. I am merely trying to take responsibility
>> for mine in raising these questions at this time. And I look forward to your
>> responses. Apologies once again if this is inconvenient and/ or an incursion
>> on your busy time.
>>
>> regards, parminder
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120719/c2411d01/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