[governance] Update from today's MAG call
Thomas Lowenhaupt
toml at communisphere.com
Fri Aug 2 16:35:58 EDT 2013
George,
Agreed. And that would be acting like a professional.
Best,
Tom
On 8/2/2013 4:24 PM, George Sadowsky wrote:
> Thomas,
>
> I agree with you, but I don't like the idea of singling out only IGFs
> for application of this policy. IGFs are like many other professional
> meetings, and should be treated as such.
>
> How about this as an alternative? Professional meetings of any type
> should be transparent regarding the sources and processes of resource
> acquisition for their events and their other activities.
>
> George
>
>
>
> On Aug 2, 2013, at 8:48 PM, Thomas Lowenhaupt wrote:
>
>> With regard to bottom up, I agree that "national and regional IGFs
>> should be able to make the decisions regarding the nature of their
>> IGFs that are consistent with the needs an desires of those countries
>> and regions." But transparency as to the source and process of
>> resource acquisition should be required to use the IGF name.
>>
>> Tom Lowenhaupt
>>
>> On 8/2/2013 12:05 PM, George Sadowsky wrote:
>>> All,
>>>
>>> I think that national and regional IGFs should be able to make the
>>> decisions regarding the nature of their IGFs that are consistent
>>> with the needs an desires of those countries and regions. The IGF is
>>> not a franchise operation within which the top can dictate the
>>> behavior of the smaller meetings presumably feeding into it.
>>>
>>> In fact, it would be more appropriate if representatives of those
>>> smaller meetings agreed upon the policies associated with the global
>>> IGF, not the other way around. This should not be a top down
>>> operation.
>>>
>>> The reason that the "no commercial recognition" policy applies to
>>> the global IGF is that it is a UN sponsord meetng, and therefore UN
>>> rules apply. This is not true for regional and national IGFs.
>>>
>>> Note that I am not saying anything about the desirability or
>>> non-desirability of such a policy at lower levels, but rather that
>>> it is their decision to make on an individual basis, not a decision
>>> or even a recommendation that should be made at a global level.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Aug 2, 2013, at 5:49 PM, parminder wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto: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
>>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto: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 --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130802/347ad3bf/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
More information about the Governance
mailing list