[governance] Update from today's MAG call

Fri Aug 2 04:39:40 EDT 2013

"Can one now expect that this is also made a basic condition for regional and national IGFs, among some basic conditions that are listed for such initiatives, and these conditions are enforced". 

Parminder, can you clarify on this sentence? 
In my opinion, I do not think that this is a sound proposal to start imposing conditions on say national IGFs. Is multistakeholdersim not about getting all stakeholders on board to discuss these issues? For example if say Kenya is holding the Kenya IGF and a telco company  decides it will put in money since it has been part of the process, should that not be accepted? At KICTANet, we have a multistakeholder model that brings even the corporate stakeholders on board, NOT necessarily to influence the IGF but as partners.  Further, different national IGFs have different models of fundraising. What works in Kenya may not work in say Tanzania. Kindly clarify. 
RgdsGG
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2013 09:38:55 +0530
From: parminder at itforchange.net
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: Re: [governance] Update from today's MAG call

    Kudos to Markus for making a such clear
      affirmative statement on the isuue of commercialisation of IGF......
    And for also having strongly disapproved of the Indonesian fund
    raising document/ strategy in February itself, and for asking the
    local organising team to discontinue it and take the document off
    their website. To make things clear in such strong words is really
    good " the only thing that can be sold on the premises of the UN
    meeting is food, and that has to be at a reasonable price".

    Can one now expect that this is also made a basic condition for
    regional and national IGFs, among some basic conditions that are
    listed for such initiatives, and these conditions are enforced.
    Safeguarding policy spaces from commercial/ corporatist influences
    is as important at regional and national levels as at the global
    level.

    As mentioned earlier, I remain rather concerned that the Chair of
    Asia Pacific IGF called the provisions in the controversial
    Indonesian IGF fund raising document as, and I quote

    ".....providing some traditional "value" back to contributors. The
    deal is nothing new - it seems to be a rather standard sponsorship
    arrangement."

    If indeed it was a rather standard sponsorship document, why did
    then the MAG Chair disapprove of it and ask for its withdrawal? 

    I am not sure therefore how they do it at the AP IGF, but I do see
    enough reason to be concerned about it.  If any clarification in
    this regard is to be forthcoming, I would welcome it.

    There seems to be a consdierable lack of clarity about what the IGFs
    - as a somewhat formal (and therefore, and to that extent,
    monopolistic) 'policy dialogue space' and a new insitutionalised
    form of 'participation in governance' and a new experiment in
    participative democracy - mean and how they must be organised, and
    strongly insulated from private interests. And for this sake, one
    need to be almost paranoidly pro-active rather than being slack and
    accommodative. Insitutions of democracy are built with such extreme
    care and caution, and being stickler to basic norms.

    parminder 

    On Wednesday 31 July 2013 06:32 PM,
      Norbert Bollow wrote:

      Here's a quick update from today's MAG call (I listened in as an
observer.)

Almost all of the discussion was around how to proceed in regard to 
2013 IGF meeting. Markus said that cancellation is not an option. There
are two serious expressions of interest from potential host countries
to step in on short notice if Bali doesn't work out. Failing that,
there's the option of having the meeting at the relevant UN HQ, which
for the IGF would mean Geneva, but since it might be difficult to get
so many rooms, that might mean that only a scaled down meeting could be
held. Also hotel rooms can be problematic in Geneva. Google/Vint Cerf is
willing to do a fundraising effort to try and save the Bali IGF. Some
preliminary news, on the basis of which the MAG might be able to
recommend something, is hoped for by the end of next week.

The current recommendation is not to cancel flights to Bali that have
already been booked, but also not to book a flight to Bali if you have
not booked yet. 

The commercialization problem was only touched on briefly. Markus said
that the basic rules are fairly simple: UN meetings cannot be
commercialized, there can be no sponsor's logos on the premises of the
UN meeting (and this rule has been enforced, he gave an example where a
compromise had been made in which sponsor's banners were put up outside
the premises of the UN meeting but in a place where they were visible
from the meeting's cafeteria), the only thing that can be sold on the
premises of the UN meeting is food and that has to be at a reasonable
price.

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.

Greetings,
Norbert

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130802/156014d5/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