[governance] Update from today's MAG call

[parminder]

On Friday 02 August 2013 02:09 PM, Grace Githaiga wrote:
> "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.

Grace,

Happy to clarify.

First of all, it should be clear that I only seek that those conditions 
be made applicable  to national and regional IGFs that many of us here ( 
as also the UN IGF MAG Chair and others)  agree that it is appropriate 
and necessary to apply to the UN IGF.

Inter alia, such conditions are that while private companies can donate 
money to the IGF, which goes into a trust fund, all measures will be 
taken to ensure that there is not the least possibility of any quid pro 
quo at all for these donations, including providing positions on the 
MAG, giving speaking/ chairing slots, special recommendations for 
speaking slots, special invitations to what could otherwise be 
selectively closed high-level (policy related) meetings,  logos in and 
around the spaces where actual policy deliberation takes place, and so 
on....

Do you indeed disagree with my position, whereby do you think that these 
above conditions, with regard to policy spaces, that democratic 
propriety demands UN IGF must observe, should not be made applicable to 
national or regional IGFs?

Before I go on, I just want to make sure that I really understand what 
you are saying here, and you understand my position.

parminder

>
> Rgds
> GG
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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/b02eef7c/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