[governance] Update from today's MAG call

Sun Aug 4 11:11:12 EDT 2013

> "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 .....(Anriette)

Would you point out where did I make that claim?

When I pointed out the document and described the problems with it, you responded in your email "But I don't see how this is a new model"

Ok, lets now try to understand it. When a problematic practice is brought to the notice of someone who is part of the oversight mechanism  over that kind of practices (MAG here) and that person says s/he sees nothing new about it, for all practical purposes, it means, s/he sees nothing wrong with it....

Say, one makes an appeal about some practices of alleged net neutrality violation to a member of a committee having oversight over the matter, and the member responds by saying there is nothing new here, it means there is nothing wrong with the practice - for all practical purposes and the specific context of the issue being raised. That is how it will for instance be reported next day in the newspapers.

Therefore, I responded by saying that two MAG members seem to feel "there is really nothing wrong with the document under question". I think, in the specific context, it is a rightful assertion to make.

To which you responded by personal insults and ad hominem comments.... I have said nothing at all to you after that. After that I have just been defending - and attacks are coming from multiple levels.

That is the story, and you cannot twist it any other way.

BTW if to move from 'nothing new here' to 'nothing wrong here' is twisting words and deserves such personal insults, why would not the much greater mis-characterisation 'parminder claims I support commercialisation of the IGF' not be twisting words, and trying to score political points....

If you state a view point, especially from a responsible position, dont shrink from discussing and defending it. This is civil society, accountability seeking and political debates are the mainstay of it, not simple backslapping while stonewalling debates.

For your kind consideration. While I will like you to reconsider disengaging with this, still important, discussion and advocacy space,

parminder

On Sunday 04 August 2013 04:52 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
> 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 --------------
____________________________________________________________
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