[governance] Is this the same in Internet Governance?

[parminder]

Fouad,

Thanks for raising this very important issue. From the quoted article

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/feb/20/who-funds-thinktank-lobbyists

    "This is plutocracy, pure and simple. The battle for democracy is
    now a straight fight against the billionaires and corporations
    reshaping politics to suit their interests. The first task
    of all democrats must be to demand that any group, of any
    complexion, seeking to effect political change should reveal its
    funders."

It is our view, among civil society groups that I work with, that no one 
should be considered civil society who doesnt reveal all funding 
sources, in a completely transparent (preferably pro-active) manner, and 
is not ready to answer all questions in this regard.

What has been obvious to most for decades and centuries of devleopment 
of democratic thinking, seems to be completely lost on a lot of the so 
called IG civil society. There is this very dangerous talk of 'multi 
stakeholder funding' against 'public funding' for policy bodies (what to 
speak of just public interest civil society bodies). Since the civil 
society obviously has no funds to spare, this is just a poorly-disguised 
call for corporate funding for policy bodies. And this talk has flowered 
on this very list, and we have kept quite, nay mostly been supportive.

This is nothing other than the most powerful - plutocrats, referred in 
the above quote - seeking to control the reins of policy -making and 
-shaping bodies through control over their finances. And I have seen 
with horror how easily civil society have fallen prey to this game, and 
openly supported such moves.

Even in the Working Group on Improvements to the IGF (WGIIGF) this game 
played out, as one of the biggest contestations. Whether there should be 
any global public funding at all for the IGF become a big sticking 
point. And the final resolution was; no, IGF should entirely be 
supported by private funds, whether of corporates, or by voluntary 
donations by countries who have obvious partisan interests vis a vis 
global policy regimes. And what a victory for civil society - that evil 
UN was able to be kept at bay. We can celebrate!

So, who are we, of the IG world, to be surprised or feel wounded to read 
such news items like this one - that special interests have been bank 
rolling the so called civil society bodies. We have gone much further; 
we have advocated and ensured that even policy bodies are exclusively 
financed by private funds, so that what you cant do by your legitimate 
representation in a policy developing system, you can do through control 
over its funds. A brave new post-democratic world indeed. And we have 
been less than silent accomplices in building it.

One should have heard the long and strident arguments of our much valued 
partners of the mustistakeholder brigade - you know who - against 
greater transparency in IGF funding. However, these things look to IG 
civil society as minor issues relative to that big demon - UN taking 
over the Internet. (In the end though, and I give the credit largely to 
two government participants - one from the North and another from the 
South - one of the very very few real accomplishments of the report of 
the WG on IGF Improvements is that it calls for full disclosure - on 
both sides, incomes and expenditure - regarding IGF finances. )

Significantly, since an opposition to any UN funds for the IGF was 
sweet-coated by the 'UN taking over the Internet' bogey, an alternative 
innovative way of direct public funding of the IGF through routing of 
the fees or taxes collected by the ICANN + system from the users was 
proposed, but it was equally cynically shot down. So you see, the 
problem is not only with UN's 'tainted' public funds - as some want to 
see it - it is against any funding which is automatic and which doesnt 
give the rich and the powerful discretionary levers of control over the 
global IG policy system.

Quite unhappily, there wasnt even any civil society support for this 
proposal.

In the circumstances, going back to the original article about corporate 
money and politics, I think IG civil society has a lot to think about 
its own conduct and outlook in this matter.

parminder

On Thursday 08 March 2012 06:12 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote:
> We need to know who funds these thinktank lobbyists.
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/feb/20/who-funds-thinktank-lobbyists
>
>    
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120308/8c620917/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