[governance] Update from today's MAG call
George Sadowsky
george.sadowsky at gmail.com
Sat Aug 3 05:10:10 EDT 2013
On Aug 3, 2013, at 8:09 AM, parminder wrote:
>
> 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).
I understand that my e-mail may have suggested that to you, but I take the IGF to be somewhat different, and I describe it more fully below. However, it does share a number of characteristics with a conference. it brings people together around a common subject. It facilitates the exchange of information and of views regarding common problems in the space that it addresses. It promotes continual networking among people who share views. It permits the discussion and potential resolution of problems. It has the possibility to create more shared understanding of issues. It involves multiple sectors (stakeholders) of activity. The objectives of different sectors, as well as those within each sector, will vary. Finally, it is not a decision making body which, in my opinion, is one of the essential reasons for its success.
I don't think it is important to define specific agreement on what IGF is. Different participants will come with different expectations, and will get different things out of the experience. You are correct in that it is important to agree that the Internet and its governance is the central theme, and that in itself surely defines a critical and comprehensive scope. It is certainly a space for free and rank discussion of points of view, as well as a space for education in aspects of an increasingly complex topic space.
>
> 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.
But what happens when there are different points of view within the group? Is it reasonable to force one view for the purpose of defining norms, or when there are different views of what the IGF is? Or is the variation in views a part of a healthy environment that should be valued in making progress toward better understanding?
>
> 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.
There is a black and white dichotomy to this discussion that i think does not fully reflect reality, which generally contains many dimensions, each of which contains shades of gray in addition to pure end positions. The suggestion seems to be that if one doesn't subscribe to a specific notion, they should leave in order to make this group homogeneous.
I suggest that this makes it appropriate to turn the question around. Rather than asking what the IGF is, perhaps it's more relevant to ask what this civil society group is and what its purpose is, and to what extent diversity of views can and should be tolerated within such a civil society group. Specifically, should this list be restricted to those who have one specific outlook to the exclusion of others, as may be inferred from the suggestion below? And, as a corollary is the narrowing or elimination of diversity _within_ civil society really important compared to an objective of convergence across multiple sectors and stakeholders?
Perhaps I don't understand the point here. If that's how my comments are perceived, then clarification might well be helpful.
>
> 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.
I see the IGF as a key public policy related discussion space, not a body, with considerable but hardly exclusive legitimacy. This is a halfway position within the spectrum of views suggested above. Does this group tolerate such positions that appear to be seen by some as compromise positions or equivocation? Is there room in this group for diverse views, or do they just get in the way of creating unified positions vis-à-vis other stakeholder groups?
There is a larger issue suggested here, which is the manner in which the various representatives of stakeholder groups regard the other groups and their representatives, but that's a semi-independent issue that is more appropriately the subject for a separate message.
George
>
> 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
>>> 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
> 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/20130803/4977861a/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