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

[parminder]

On Thursday 19 July 2012 07:03 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote:
> (snip)


> Sorry, Parminder, I would say APrIGF is not in the ideal state of 
> transparency and openess, but to me the way I like to see is of mutual 
> constructive engagement and dialogue. And you have not responded to 
> some of my replies such as why you did not send us the reminder. izumi 

Let me get the sensitivity issue sorted first, becuase I have many more 
probing questions to ask from the organisers of this event.

Izumi,

I think you should give up this defensiveness and blaming me for not 
being constructive and friendly, and simply address the issues at hand. 
One, as I have said I have been raising the same issues for three years 
now, and while IT for Change is a significant player in IG civil society 
space from Asia, we have refused to participate in this supposedly 
regional IGF even against funded invitations, and every time we have 
made our concerns and reservations clear, and done so in detail. What 
other constructiveness do you want from us.

I think Peng Hwa must clarify this issue at this stage, on how 
consistently we have raised the same issues and how consistently have 
they been completely ignored, even when promises were made that they 
would be addressed.

We are into IG work professionally, on behalf of the interests of 
certain constituencies. Do you expect us to just sit quite so that some 
feathers are not ruffled, and people's sensitivities not touched. In 
Baku, one of the organisers of what is being called as the regional AP 
IGF is going to solemnly get up and read some stuff as expressing what 
has come bottom-up from the Asia Pacific region. To that extent that 
person would be purporting to represent me/us among others. I have a 
right to speak that I dont agree with the process, and thus the 
substance, do I not have this right.   If you tell me that it is a 
private event held b you and others, and do not use the regional AP IGF 
name, you may do whatever you want to.

Secondly, are we not showing considerable double standards here. 
Anything about UN, about governments, is game for immediate, easy, even 
reflexive, criticism (and I agree it should be like that). (It is a 
different matter that in this case, the UN runs a much more transparent, 
inclusive, participative, open etc IGF that those who lay claim to the 
regional AP IGF.) Why should the organisers of a regional IGF be subject 
to different standards and treatments regarding accountability  than the 
global IGF.  I hope you answer this question.

I am surprised that some basic openness, inclusiveness, accountability 
and transparency related questions about the so called AP IGF seem to 
strike to you as if they are coming from an entirely unfamiliar planet 
('why did you not raise them before!'). You are giving a 
'well-I-did-not-think-of-it' of kind of response, which is surprising 
because we have been for years fighting for exactly the same principles 
for the UN IGF and other UN IG related bodies. You have also been a part 
of the WG on IGF improvement where each one of these issues and 
principles was discussed threadbare.

  So, why UN bodies etc are subject to such high standards, and non gov 
bodies not so.... Are there some deeper political issues here (I think 
there are, but let me not get into it at present). In fact, those who 
criticise UN bodies on these issues should have even higher exemplary 
standards.

Therefore, it further surprises me that in response to my queries, you 
are trying to quote practices in other regional IGFs, and not going 
either by your own sense of what is right and what wrong, or even going 
by global IGF's existing practises, even if we forget the WG report on 
IGF improvements which  you participated in developing. BTW, you did not 
answer my question, why those recommendations, as appropriate, should 
also not apply to regional and national IGFs.

This said, I believe that the AP IGF is in fact at the bottom among 
regional IGFs vis a vis all or most of the principles I stated . I am 
happy to have a full discussion on this issue.

parminder

>> 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/e1281a1d/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