[governance] Broader commercialization concerns (was Re: Update from today's MAG call)

[Norbert Bollow]

JFC Morfin <jefsey at jefsey.com> wrote:

> At 15:02 31/07/2013, Norbert Bollow wrote:
> >So it seems clear that the IGF is not in direct danger of getting 
> >commercialized - that objectionable Indonesian fundraising strategy 
> >has simply been declared dead
> 
> Norbert, Anriette,
> 
> OpenStand does not mean commercialization but legitimate or 
> over-corporatization (that depends on the cooperation others bring or
> not).

Hi Jefsey

I see the scandal around that Bali IGF fundraising doc and the concerns
which you have been raising about “OpenStand” (which I certainly share)
as separate issues which this in common that they are in my view both
part of a very dangerous pattern of various attacks against the
principle that public policy questions should be decided in a
democratic manner rather than in a commercialized market-driven manner.

> -  The point here is not logos/banners (this is already the on-line 
> case: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/funding/86-donors).

From my perspective, the point in regard to the Bali IGF fundraising
doc is about how various aspects of the environment in which public
policy processes take place subconsciously influence the participants
in the public policy processes.

Leaving aside for a moment the question whether private sector
donations are an acceptable funding strategy for public policy
processes in the first place: If donations are accepted then it is
of course appropriate to make them transparent and to give the sponsors
the kind of recognition that they are currently given on the IGF
website, and the example that Markus gave about one situation where
sponsors' banners were put up outside the venue of the UN event but so
that they were visible from the cafeteria is also ok from my
perspective.

The flood of commercial messaging that the Indonesian fundraising team
had planned would however have profoundly influenced the total
atmosphere of the event, and I am glad that the UN has put their foot
down and said “no go”. 

Even more serious is the aspect that --even if in a limited way--
speaking slots were offered in exchange for money. The document did
explicitly not offer to sell panelist speaking slots, but it did
contain the following offers: For private sector sponsors: “Major
sponsors may recommend speaker(s) for the closing ceremony.” For
government sponsors: “Major sponsors may lead a session in the IGF and
be responsible for opening, summary, and the closing of events.”

> -  The point is about the ongoing research that is needed to further 
> the evolution of the Internet.

I agree that the point about “OpenStand” which you are emphasizing is a
legitimate and important one. 

> 2005 WSIS Tunis Agenda has mandated the IGF to be principally a 
> discussion forum to facilitate a multilogue among stakeholders and 
> "identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of the 
> relevant bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make 
> recommendations". Reasonnable corporate influence, pressure and 
> lobbying is legitimate. What is a fault is the lack of governments 
> (and their international organizations) funding and civil-society non 
> commercial voluntary work coordination.

The Tunis Agenda mandate for the IGF also specifies that the IGF shall
be “democratic”. From that perspective, it is IMO a clear no-go to give
corporations power to exert pressure (such power is there automatically
when an event depends on voluntary private sector funding) while public
interest representatives don't have any comparable kind of power.

On this basis it is my view that the IGF should be funded from the UN
budget together with the host country governments. Private sector
donations should be neither solicited nor accepted.

Let's face it, developing global public policy and doing that in an
appropriate way costs money. Ultimately that cost is borne by the
population of the world, regardless of whether the money is extracted
say through taxation of corporations and it then goes towards the UN
budget, or if the corporations sponsor those UN events that they wish
to support. In both cases the money is ultimately paid by consumers as
part of the price of services rendered. The difference is just that for
one of the funding paths it is *possible* to organize it in accordance
with democratic principles.  

Greetings,
Norbert

-- 
Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC:
1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person
2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept

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