[governance] Update from today's MAG call
Suresh Ramasubramanian
suresh at hserus.net
Sat Aug 3 05:05:14 EDT 2013
I don't quite see where my position diverges from what you quoted.
There is clearly an explicit firewall to guard against undue benefits given to sponsors irrespective of their affiliation to different stakeholder groups.
--srs (htc one x)
----- Reply message -----
From: "parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net>
To: <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
Subject: [governance] Update from today's MAG call
Date: Sat, Aug 3, 2013 1:47 PM
BTW, the IGF does impose the 'non commercial participation' condition in
order to be recognised as national and regional IGFs
from the website http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/igf-initiatives
"Regional and national IGF initiatives should follow the principles
and practices of open, inclusive, non commercial, and
multi-stakeholder participation in both formulation of the
initiative and in any other initiative related events."
I dont remember seeing the non commercial part earlier, so it could have
been put recently, but I may be wrong....
The elaboration of 'no quid pro quo' that was described in my email to
Grace should follow from theconditionof 'non commercial participation'
principles and practices. .... Of course, thereby the model to be
followed by the regional and national IGF in this regard is the model
followed by the UN IGF, which was recently described by Markus.
Maybe those who are opposed to such a top-down imposition can write to
the IGF secretariat and the MAG about it....
parminder
On Saturday 03 August 2013 12:27 PM, parminder wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday 03 August 2013 12:00 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
>> Regardless of the definition of IG and the nature of the IGF, it
>> stands to reason that a multistakeholder process can accept funding
>> from across stakeholder groups.
>>
>> There is nothing in either your definition or any others that you
>> mentioned that precludes such funding as long as a firewall between
>> sponsorship and content / agenda exists.
>
> from my email to Grace, less that 24 hours ago
>
> "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.... "
>
>
>
>>
>> --srs (htc one x)
>>
>>
>> ----- Reply message -----
>> From: "parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net>
>> To: <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>> Subject: [governance] Update from today's MAG call
>> Date: Sat, Aug 3, 2013 11:39 AM
>>
>>
>>
>> It is important to first agree on what the IGF is....
>>
>> One view may be that it is just an annual conference on IG (and George's
>> latter email suggests that this is what he takes it to be).
>>
>> Another, and my, view, is to see the IGF as a new experiment in
>> democracy.. In an earlier posting I had called it as representing
>> version 3 of democracy where participative spaces are no longer ad hoc
>> but attempted to be institutionalised, with an ongoing and a rather
>> autonomous presence.
>>
>> Now, what norms we agree on for the IGF depends on how we see the IGF.
>> One cannot be loosely shifting between these two conceptions, choosing
>> norms that would rightly apply to one kind (for instance, the IGF being
>> just a regular annual conference) and then, at other times, pushing its
>> certain 'monopoly' legitimacy in the area of developing public
>> policies.... That is the biggest problem in the current context.
>>
>> For those who consider the IGF just as any annual conference, my
>> response is that the term 'IGF' came out of a world summit, and has a
>> specific meaning and context attached to it. It cannot be loosely
>> mis-used by anyone. And if they just want to arrange an annual conferece
>> why do they not use any other name - why do they want to borrow from the
>> special legitmacy of the IGF, given to it by a world summit, and thus
>> seek to eat their cake and have it too.... This merits a clarification/
>> response.
>>
>> For those who really consider IGF as a special policy related body, they
>> need to accept univeral democratic norms for public institutions, and
>> there is nothing bottom up or top down about such democratic norms.
>> Democracy is a human right, and human rights, and the norms related to
>> them, are not open for different groups and communities to interpret as
>> they would like to.
>>
>> Therefore, those who consider IGF just as an annual conference on IG are
>> requested to chose another name for their conference, and not to usurp a
>> term that the global community has already invested with a deep
>> democratic meaning.
>>
>> And those who do consider the IGF as a key public policy related body,
>> with an exclusive legitimacy of some kind, should then not swing between
>> the above two possible conceptions of the IGF, and when it comes to
>> funding try to see the IGF as just any conference, but for other
>> purposes see it as a special policy related body.
>>
>> parminder
>>
>> On Friday 02 August 2013 09:35 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
>> >
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130803/dbe89953/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