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

Thu Jul 19 08:54:06 EDT 2012

Without commenting on the specifics of the current Asia Pacific Regional IGF of which I know little, the interaction between Parminder and Izumi raises I think, some very significant and disturbing larger issues for our work.  

We base much of our approach on the "legitimacy" of "bottom-up" processes of governance, however if there is a cost (as in the case of an IGF or even participation in an IGF) to this bottom up process of achieving legitimacy and if there are no "public" means for managing that cost only private ones does that not imply that "legitimacy" is a privilege only for those who either have or have access to the wealth to cover those costs. 

The counter argument is made that if something is important enough then some form of crowd sourcing of the means to cover the costs will be found, but the effort involved in that form of crowd-sourcing is by any economic standards far and away in excess of simply finding someone rich enough to sign a cheque.  

In this world then, where there is an absence of specific accommodation being made for a broadened base of participation, is "legitimacy" something available to be purchased by the  the rich or well connected?

M

From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance- at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of parminder
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2012 4:19 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: Re: [governance] East Africa IGF - day 2, discussion of ITRs

On Thursday 19 July 2012 02:25 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: 

Dear Parminder,
(snip)

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.

I did not say it is essential for claiming regional IGF, because i have no idea what is essential for claiming regional IGF. But by your statement you seem to have some idea about what may be essential to claim an IGF. Can you please tell us about it. 

If by some stroke of luck (going against the structure and political economy of luck in this area), IT for Change landed funds enough to organise an international event, and we chose to call it the Asia Pacific regional IGF and called some civil society persons, and some government guys, and some small businesses, and maybe forgot big global businesses, etc etc... would it work in your opinion or not. Or would it be considered impermissible to claim regional IGF. What criterion we must fulfil for as you put it for 'claiming regional IGF'. Just asking. 

parminder 

  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  <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net> <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/20120719/33e9620e/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