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

[Ang Peng Hwa (Prof)]

Parminder,
This looks like a long slow rally in a tennis game.
> However please do not claim that there is a 'record' of the fact that you have addressed these issues.
Ah, but that’s what I claim. Look at the Subject line. It’s my point: Your claim was that the issues were raised were “completely ignored”.

>> 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.

My rebuttal is that the issues you raised were not completely ignored. Maybe you felt they were not answered to your satisfaction. But they were not COMPLETELY ignored.
The record is of that point—that neither you nor the issues were completely ignored. Period.
On the other hand, my questions to you have also not been answered. See below. I’m not protesting though.
I don’t play tennis any more. Can’t find the racket. Knees are bad.
Thank you for agreeing to stop the rally. We should move on.
The programme committee of the recent APrIGF will be drawing up some process for forming a multistakeholder steering group and for hosting the next conference. This would be the time to send the list of issues to be addressed and questions answered. From our emails, I doubt that our responses will completely satisfy you. But I still think you do ask some good questions. And I can guarantee that you will not bre “completely ignored”. This is for the record.

Regards,
Peng Hwa

From: parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net]
Sent: Friday, 31 August, 2012 1:56 PM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Ang Peng Hwa (Prof)
Subject: Re: [governance] Completely Ignored [was East Africa IGF - day 2, discussion of ITRs]


Dear Peng Hwa,

Sorry, didnt respond to this earlier. Your email on another elist reminded me so.
On Sunday 12 August 2012 11:01 PM, Ang Peng Hwa (Prof) wrote:
Dear Parminder,

Thank you for your email. I cannot imagine ignoring your email. (In fact, the 2011 email shows that neither you nor the issue was ever "completely ignored.") As the evidence in the email trail and the conversations you agreed we show that neither you nor the issue have been ignored. It's on the record.

I dont think we will agree on this. However, the email trail does not at all show the issues that I had raised have 'not been ignored', which is the same as 'they have not been addressed'. Almost none of them have been. (Do you think telling me, well we should talk about these issues some time f2f amount to addressing these issues)

Like:

you have not told me if you did approach AP UN regional commission or not, and if not why so, and whether you do intend to approach it in future?

No information has been forthcoming about direct questions I asked - who are the funders, was the participation of some participants funded, if so, whose and on which criteria (all the the questions that we regularly ask the UN IGF)

Who sets up the advisory or steering committee, and on what basis. You havent even declared the names of the members of this committee even on my persistent asking. As someone living in AP area, I have at least a basic right to know such simple things about something which purports to, in some way, represent me.

How is your handing over of the ownership of what you call as the regional IGF to a group of technical community organisations (not that I have ever been clear what this term means) makes it 'community owned' and thus self legitimising.

And all those old  questions/ issues  that I have raised about why did you not perhaps start with civil society groups that were active at WSIS, and then build upwards, which would be a really participative excercise, and as you claim your initiative to be, *really* civil society led.

I understand that it is entirely up to you to respond to these questions / issues or not ... However please do not claim that there is a 'record' of the fact that you have addressed these issues.


snip
 You havent told me why UNESCAP was not approached when most other regional IGF involve the regional UN commissions,

I reacted to this right away when you told me this the first time in 2010 by emailing you either immediately or very soon after I got your email. I remember you saying that with the endorsement of UNESCAP we could then use the IGF logo. I also remember asking with astonishment why we had to get the endorsement of UNESCAP in order to use the IGF moniker. There was no rule for or against holding an IGF. We spoke at the APrIGF in Hongkong and I remember asking you who says so. You could not give me a good answer.

This does not correspond to my recollection of our exchange, at least certainly of what I was saying. I have associated closely enough the UN IGF processes to know that there is no such rule. I only said that such connecting to established 'public' regional instutions gives the initiative the kind of credibility which is needed for anyone to call it an AP regional IGF. Reminding you again that in both the existing regional IGFs in developing regions of the world, Africa and Latin America, the regional UN regional commissions play an important part. It is you who must really have a good reason to exclude the UN regional commission in AP region.

best regards, parminder







In my mind therefore, you and I had therefore come to a stalemate (glass half-empty POV) or an understanding (glass half-full POV). That was why I sent you the invite in 2011.

Now, before you hasten to think that I am being especially non understanding and harsh on you, pl know that I ask the same questions from the global IGF (in fact IGC has been doing it consistently) and I/ we also did our best to get much of this into the report of the CSTD WG on IGF improvements. So, if I dont ask these question vis a vis an event calling itself the regional AP IGF, I will be being very inconsistent (which unfortunately, some people on this list are being)

With the greatest of due respect, I think your consistency is misplaced. The first two APrIGFs were in essence startups. For the 2010 meeting, Edmon was raising funds, organizing logistics, chairing the programme committee, designing the website, sending out the publicity, etc. And Edmon actually had three overlapping meetings happening in that week. In the following  year, Edmon certainly helped but most of what he did the year earlier was handed over to me.

With any new effort, it is natural that people are cautious about how much weight to give to it. The most obvious group to appeal to are those directly involved in the more technical matters of the Internet. It is the also a point of having a regional meeting—to publicise Internet governance to the larger community.

This year was a lot better as there were three different groups—the local organising committee in Tokyo to handle logistics, the secretariat handled by Edmon’s dotAsia and the programme committee that I chaired. With the workload more spread out, it’s easier to give more thought to some of the issues you have raised.


In this background, your claim that your AP rIGF is legitimate because 'now' it is under a loose unclear technical community umbrella group sounds to me rather revisionist from a civil society point of view.

What do you propose as a solution then?


This year, there was a call for panels and some of the panelists were funded. The next APrIGF will have a similar CFP.
No, that is not enough. There has to a representative, participative, transparent process from the very start. I am most surprised that you are still not committing to one. You are just saying there was a call for proposals, and next year too there will be one. Also, I want information of which panels were funded and on what creteria.

Who can disagree with representative participation and a transparent process?

Fwiw, the organisers of the 2012 meeting will have meeting to discuss ways to improve the APrIGF.  Izumi has been at the forefront in sending the group a wish list of things that the next committee should look into. You are welcome to send us your wish list.

Regards,
Peng Hwa

PS. For those who want to know more about AP*, the APStar.org website gives more details about the group. AP* is a loose grouping of mostly technical associations in the Asia Pacific region involved with the Internet, a sort of association of associations.





From: Parminder Singh <parminder at ITforChange.net<mailto:parminder at ITforChange.net>>
Date: Thursday, August 2, 2012 4:18 PM
To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>, AngPH <tphang at ntu.edu.sg<mailto:tphang at ntu.edu.sg>>, Izumi Aizu <iza at anr.org<mailto:iza at anr.org>>
Subject: Re: [governance] Completely Ignored [was East Africa IGF - day 2, discussion of ITRs]

Peng Hwa (and Izumi)
On Tuesday 24 July 2012 05:17 PM, Ang Peng Hwa (Prof) wrote:
Parminder,

Back from a meeting between the emails.

First things first. Thank you for your email. I cannot imagine ignoring your email. (In fact, the 2011 email shows that neither you nor the issue was ever "completely ignored.")

It is not about ignoring me. It is about the issues that not only were ignored, they are still being ignored. You still havent answered, any of the questions that I raised in my 2010 conversations, 2011 email or even in the present exchange. You havent told me why UNESCAP was not approached when most other regional IGF involve the regional UN commissions, you havent told me why efforts were not made to connect to non-technical community NGOs before preparation begun, including those persons/ groups who were involved with WSIS Asia Pacific caucus for instance, why almost no government seems to be involved,  i have no clear information on who were on the organising committee (simple information, isnt it, why not share it), who set up the organising committee, who all funded the event, how many and which all participants to the event were funded and on what criteria etc......

Now, before you hasten to think that I am being especially non understanding and harsh on you, pl know that I ask the same questions from the global IGF (in fact IGC has been doing it consistently) and I/ we also did our best to get much of this into the report of the CSTD WG on IGF improvements. So, if I dont ask these question vis a vis an event calling itself the regional AP IGF, I will be being very inconsistent (which unfortunately, some people on this list are being)


 I like to think that I would have answered at least some of your suggestions but I honestly cannot recall it now.

No, you did not. The proof of it is, you still havent even when I ask again.


Be that as it may, I may have felt that you were "mollified" (aka agree to disagree) because at that time, you had questioned the legitimacy of the APrIGF. I had said that the legitimacy argument would in fact play into the hands of those who question the legitimacy of civil society, an argument that I thought you accepted. Hence the friendly invite for 2011.

I'm wondering if the debate is now moot because:

 1.  The IGF Secretariat has now come up with the guidelines for what a regional or national IGF should contain. (The Secretariat itself clearly has no problems with others using the IGF to indicate their national or regional IGF is part of the UN-level IGF.) This is a rather low bar and the APrIGF meets it.

It is not enough if they set the bar low , it is not that civil society is just sitting to receive with fulsome  gratitude whatever the IGF secretariat does or communicates (no, that is not how we have worked traditionally) . We make and let know our positions. The question is, are you fine with the low bar set for regional IGFs? If so, why did we fight so much for raising the bar for the global IGF through our engagements with the WG on IGF improvements, Will be very grateful for an answer, especially from Izumi who was on the WG.




 1.  The APrIGF is now under AP*.  Some processes have been put in place for approval of the venue, chair of the PC, etc.

I dont think many people here know what AP* is, and therefore you will have to elaborate. I see it as a group  largely of organisations that tend to see themselves as the technical community, right! So, perhaps, the equivalent of what you are declaring as the grounds of legitimacy for the so call AP IGF will be someone saying global IGF is now very fine and immune from criticism because' it is now under ISOC'.....  I dont know whether you are aware of it or not, but some such proposal, to put IGF under the ISOCs, were mooted during the IGF, but most civil society strongly opposed it.

In this background, your claim that your AP rIGF is legitimate because 'now' it is under a loose unclear technical community umbrella group sounds to me rather revisionist from a civil society point of view.



 1.  This year, there was a call for panels and some of the panelists were funded. The next APrIGF will have a similar CFP.

No, that is not enough. There has to be a representative, participative, transparent process from the very start. I am most surprised that you are still not committing to one. You are just saying there was a call for proposals, and next year too there will be one. Also, I want information of which panels were funded and on what creteria.

thanks for your engagement,

parminder

You can expect the APrIGF to be more transparent in the future. And of course your suggestions to improve its governance and processes are always welcome.

Regards,
Peng Hwa



From: Parminder Singh <parminder at ITforChange.net<mailto:parminder at ITforChange.net>>
Date: Tuesday, July 24, 2012 1:30 PM
To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>, AngPH <tphang at ntu.edu.sg<mailto:tphang at ntu.edu.sg>>
Subject: Re: [governance] Completely Ignored [was East Africa IGF - day 2, discussion of ITRs]


Peng Hwa,



You have mentioned in your email how I had raised a number of issues when you had first organised the so-called APrIGF in Hongkong in 2010. Indeed, after a few exchanges IT for Change agreed to be present at the meeting on the condition that we would basically say the same things at the meeting about its legitimacy etc as we had been arguing. You kindly consented and we did attend the meeting and made our point.



However, what surprises me is your conclusion that we were somehow mollified by our conversations with you at Hongkong and then at Vilnius. There is no question of such mollification without the issues we raised being addressed, and as is evident, they never were.



What is even more surprising are your comments, quote below from your email of the last week, about the second so called APrIGF in Singapore.





       "When I organized the meeting in Singapore, you did not raise any objection." and, again later in the email  " In Singapore, you did not raise any objections. And I thought that's where the issue stood."  (Peng Hwa)



It has obviously entirely skipped your memory, but when you wrote to me inviting me for the Singapore meeting, I wrote a detailed email to you which not only raised the same issues that I had raised earlier, but also suggested, in considerable detail, what in our opinion is the right way to go about organising the APrIGF (so much so for all this talk from various parties that I should be constructive etc, which I must say is a more than a bit patronising). I reproduce below my email to you before Singapore. I would not make your response public which is up to you to decide whatever to do about. I however must say that I had even at that time asked for your permission to make my email public but was persuaded not to, pending further f2f discussions etc which never happened.

parminder



My email in response to an invitation to attend the Singapore so called APrIGF is below. On 5/3/11 12:36 AM, "Parminder Singh" <parminder at ITforChange.net> wrote:


  Dear Peng Hwa,

 It is always nice to hear from you, and hope you are doing well!

 Thank you for inviting me to chair a session during the proposed meeting. I do quite appreciate the utmost sincerely and serious application that you bring to your efforts to keep a dialogue on Internet Governance alive in the Asia Pacific region. However, for the reason mentioned below in some detail , I am constrained to decline your kind invitation.

 As mentioned in our conversations before the similar meeting last year, I do not think it legitimate to call any meeting as a regional IGF without a minimum standard of broad participation and 'ownership', especially of public interest actors. Last year I was told that it was the first time and the meeting has been planned in haste, and that things should improve for subsequent meetings. However, in this invite for the 2011 meeting I see no indication about who all are on the organizing committee, how was the agenda and speaker selection arrived at, etc.

 Apart from the basic legitimacy question, holding of such meetings under the banner of national/regional IGFs has a negative reverse impact on the global IGF to make it look like it too was just another annual conference on IG, which I do not think it is (though some people do) . I think that the global IGF is, or at least is supposed to be, an innovative experiment in deliberative and participatory democracy for global governance of the Internet. At least some basic features of the global IGF suggests the possibility that the global IGF can, if we have the political will for it, hopefully evolve to be something close to this ideal. These features are; strong mooring in a public institution - or a set of them, a good amount of public funding (though not at all of the kind, and extent, that can be considered satisfactory), a multistakeholder group deciding the agenda of the meeting and the speakers through an intensively consultative process, and such.

 While some of us are struggling to ensure that the annual IGF has an even greater public and democratic character, organization of completely private meetings opaquely planned and executed, with unknown sponsors and key drivers, like the proposed meeting being called the Asia Pacific Regional IGF, is to us a retrograde step. It is for this reason that we cannot associate with it, and in fact oppose it to be held under its proposed name.

 I do understand how difficult it is to be  innovative and entrepreneurial in such matters and actually pull an event like this together; and in relation how facile it may be considered to criticize such almost valiant efforts. I must therefore engage constructively and suggest what could alternatively have been done and would, in my opinion, have been the better option. Though I cannot suggest funding options right away, it is possible that the Asia Pacific UN regional commission (ESCAP) could have shown some interest in this event. Was it even approached at all? Funding from governments of some countries could also been explored apart from sourcing 'monopoly funds' (akin to Internet tax) that are collected by registrars and such registries that use the commons resources of geo-political expressions like ctlds. In any case, wider participation of public interest actors is always possible to seek. There was this Asia Pacific Civil Society Caucus at WSIS, which is now defunct but one can recollect some key names of those - individuals and organizations - who participated actively. Then there are Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus members from Asia Pacific quite active in the Internet Governance  Caucus. There are also MAG members from this region. I have no indication that these actors had any role at all in shaping an activity which is being called the Asia Pacific Regional IGF.

 I must once again mention that I hold you and your sincere efforts towards a continued dialogue on Internet governance in our region in great esteem. And this statement is made most sincerely because I have known you and your work closely. The proposed meeting should simply have been named something like 'an regional dialogue on IG' or some such thing rather than a regional IGF. In this regard we have the example of EURODIG. I do hope that such a change can still be made so that it leaves no room for confusion regarding the nature of the proposed meeting.

 We should do nothing to contribute to promoting privatized realms of governance for such an important social, economic, political and cultural phenomenon as the Internet. We fear that through privatized governance models for the Internet, what is really being done is to challenge the very essentials of democratic thought and ideals for all aspects of our social life.

 I look forward to hear your response to the issues that I have raised, and discuss them at as much length as may be required. However, meanwhile, I may have to take the contents of this letter to the public domain, since it really is not a response to you individually but a much larger engagement with issues concerning democracy and public interest, specifically about the nature of institutions that can serve these ideals.

 With respect, and the very best regards

 Parminder

 On Thursday 28 April 2011 06:38 AM, Ang Peng Hwa (Prof) wrote:
 APrIGF
Dear Parminder,

 Greetings from Singapore!

 I append below the draft programme for the coming APrIGF in Singapore. This will be jus before the ICANN meeting.



 1.  Can you make it?
 2.  Can you participate in a panel or chair one? We have the plenaries as well as the workshops.
 3.

 Regards,
 Peng Hwa






________________________________
CONFIDENTIALITY:This email is intended solely for the person(s) named and may be confidential and/or privileged.If you are not the intended recipient,please delete it,notify us and do not copy,use,or disclose its content.

Towards A Sustainable Earth:Print Only When Necessary.Thank you.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120913/8eed2dae/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