[governance] Update from today's MAG call
Suresh Ramasubramanian
suresh at hserus.net
Sun Aug 4 07:42:35 EDT 2013
I don't think you need to justify yourself. Not with parminder the only person to accuse you.
--srs (htc one x)
----- Reply message -----
From: "Anriette Esterhuysen" <anriette at apc.org>
To: <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
Subject: [governance] Update from today's MAG call
Date: Sun, Aug 4, 2013 4:52 PM
Dear all
This message will be my last to this list for a while. I will take -
another - break from the IGC list. I don't feel comfortable
participating in a space where differences in views, understanding or
interpretation of facts cannot be discussed without participants
resorting to vitriol, bullying, attack, counter attack or defense. I
know this does not apply to the majority of people on the list, but in
the online world the vocal minority is very powerful. My withdrawal is not a signal that I feel the co-coordinators are not doing their job well. I think they are doing their best, under very difficult circumstances.
The drift, and tone of this discussion demonstrates why civil society so
often struggles to be an effective voice, and why the IGC in particular is not able to realise its potential as a) a space for discussion and building of understanding and b) a space for mobilisation when it is needed.
This particular discussion shifted from being focused on content: a serious matter (whether or
not IGF fundraising strategies were compromising IGF principles or not,
and whether space and influence over the content was 'for sale' or not)
to being focused on 'who said what' and claims that specific individuals endorses commercialistion
(first Paul, then myself, and one or two others). Even if one leaves the
claims aside, the discussion shifted away from WHAT the issue was and
WHAT ACTIONS to take, to allegations around the claimed stances of
individuals participating in the discussion. This is bound to move focus away from any kind of joint action.
Many people tried to keep it focused on the issues, and to get to a more
detailed understanding of what the document really implied, what UN
rules are and what actions the IGF Secretariat and UNDESA had taken.
I think the most useful actions at this point are to:
1) gather more information, from the Secretariat, UNDESA the MAG
meeting, and from the Indonesian organising group and government (mostly
done already)
2) based on this thorough understanding, develop, as Andrew Pudephatt
supported by others have proposed, strategies for preventing "capture of
global convenings by powerful interests and perhaps propose ethical
parameters that are both practical and appropriate for the funding of
IGFs
3) to keep these strategies and parameters minimalist and flexible, in order to respect and recognise that different circumstances in different parts of the world, but also to consolidate the basic principle of "preventing capture"
In response to Parminder's claim that I support commercialisation of the
IGF and the approach in the funding proposal we read on Google docs, I
will post once again my first two messages on this topic. In subsequent
messages I qualified my comments even further, particularly in response
to Adam.
My first message clarified that the MAG had not seen this document and proposed that more transparency would be helpful.
Posted on 28/07/2013 22:18
"This document has never, to my knowledge, been made available to the
MAG. Other MAG members on these lists can confirm or provide contrary
information.
Nor has any other host country funding document or strategy - again to
my knowledge - been made available to previous MAGs.
The MAG's mandate is to develop the programme of the IGF. Broadening
this mandate was discussed during the WG IGF Improvements but that basic
mandate has not changed.
The Secretariat has when requested provided access to information about
its budget and the UN Trust Fund.
Personally I believe that more transparency around the host country
agreement is needed. That would be one mechanisms for preventing, early
on in the process, such abuse of the values and principles that we think
of as IGF organising principles.
Anriette"
My second message questioned whether the allegation that speaking slots were being sold was accurate, and said that it did not look like a new model. I did askif I missed something, allowing for being wrong, as I was speaking from my perceptions of previous IGFs rather than insider knowledge.
Posted 28/07/2013 23:10
"Has anyone actually read this proposal in full? Assuming it is an
official proposal (which is just an assumption) it does not actually
offer proper speaking slots for cash at all. With the possible exception
of private sector sponsors being able to 'nominate' speakers for closing
ceremony. As I said earlier, the MAG has not seen this document (unless
I missed it).
But I don't see how this is a new model. Or am I missing something?
There is information in the document that states that sponsors will get
a certain number of invitations for participants to the high-level
event, gala dinner, etc. but nothing that seems that different from
previous IGFs.
Government sponsors get the benefit of chairing meetings. This is not
new. All IGF have had host country chairs drawn from supportive and
relevant ministries that formally open and close main sessions.
Private sector sponsors can nominate a speaker for the closing ceremony.
I would be surprised if this was not the case in all previous IGFs.
Donors and international organisations can have side-events or
pre-events. Also not new.
Everyone gets their logos everywhere and can have banners all over the
place. How is this different from previous IGFs? All IGFs have given
sponsors some recognition. E.g.
http://igf.or.ke/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=43&Itemid=55
Is this different because of the scale? I don't particularly like it,
but I have worked with the UN on big events since 1996 and finding
harmless (as harmless as possible as this is always tricky) ways of
recognising sponsors have always been part of the process.
It seems that people feel the Idonesian organising committee is selling
influence in turn for sponsorship, but don't really see evidence of
that beyond the standard 'indirect' influence of branding.
If I have missed the relevant text then please point me to it.
Anriette"
Parminder says that I should justify how my words (quoted again below)
means anything other than support for the Indonesian organising group's
strategy:
" It seems that people feel the Idonesian organising committee is
selling influence in turn for sponsorship, but don't really see evidence
of that beyond the standard 'indirect' influence of branding." He leaves
out the next sentence: "If I have missed the relevant text then please
point me to it."
My response is that what I said in this message as a whole is that the
model did not seem that new to me. I ask if I am missing something. I
obviously did, as has since been clarified (e.g. banners only allowed
outside, etc.).
I clarified that speaking slots were not for sale. This was important to
me as it is such a serious allegation, and I simply don't think it is fair to
make such an allegation against the Indonesian organising committee
without clear evidence. I stand by this interpretation of the document.
I asked people to point me to relevant text if I have missed it.
I don't express support for commercialisation. I asked if the difference was a question of
scale. I say I don't particularly like the way in which sponsors are
given recognition. I say that I have previous experience of working with
the UN on big events and
"finding harmless (as harmless as possible as this is always tricky)
ways of recognising sponsors".
In this phrase I recognise that it is tricky to find harmless ways of
recognising sponsors - but it is often a reality. Even in the case of
the IGF and when abiding by IGF rules.
While I did say that the model did not seem completely
new to me, I did not express support for such a model, and I
felt that implying that I did was a misrepresentation of what I was
trying to say, and ignored the questions I asked.
Anriette
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130804/82df42a9/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