[governance] Is this the same in Internet Governance?

[Adam Peake]

Kind of ironic as this issue was pretty much what Veni was commenting
on, and making accusations about, when he left the list a few years
ago.

FWIW: I am a part-time consultant for the IGF secretariat, means I
might be working for them in Baku.  I won't know for sure until a
month or so before (this is the same each year), but as a result I
tend not to comment on substance of the IGF.  Though couldn't resist
during the last open consultation :-)

Adam



On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 11:35 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> 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
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>

-------------- 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