[governance] Update from today's MAG call

Kivuva Kivuva at transworldafrica.com
Mon Aug 5 02:35:39 EDT 2013


+1 Izumi and Anriette
______________________
Mwendwa Kivuva
twitter.com/lordmwesh
google ID | Skype ID: lordmwesh


On 5 August 2013 08:42, Izumi AIZU <aizu at anr.org> wrote:

> I quite agree with Ian.
>
> I was mostly holding my hands off from the keyboard on this thread.
> I did not have much time to read all messages carefully and compose the
> words
> which do not harm anyone, or being misunderstood, then asked to answer or
> clarify. I had tons of other things, honestly, which I cannot meat the
> deadlines
> these days. I assume there are many others like me.
>
> Thank you Anriette for trying to clarify, and trying to be productive. And
> also
> pointing out the physical and mental burden of being engaged here.
>
> I think what we really need is mutual respect. Some of us are non English
> native and don't know how exactly we should express our feelings, or
> read the feelings behind a post.
>
> And I think we need to focus main line of our business - how to make our
> IGF a success
> despite this financial burdens.
>
> izumi
>
>
>
>
> 2013/8/5 Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
>
>> perhaps we all need to remember that taking offence can be as
>> counter-productive to good dialogue as giving offence. Please everyone, let
>> many things pass and lets keep our attention on the substantial issues we
>> do need to address.
>>
>> Ian
>>
>> -----Original Message----- From: parminder
>> Sent: Monday, August 05, 2013 1:11 AM
>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Anriette Esterhuysen
>>
>> Subject: Re: [governance] Update from today's MAG call
>>
>>
>>  "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<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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ______________________________**______________________________
>> 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<http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing>
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/**info/governance<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<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
>>
>>
>
>
> --
>                         >> Izumi Aizu <<
>
>           Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo
>
>            Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
>                                   Japan
>                                  * * * * *
>            << Writing the Future of the History >>
>                                 www.anr.org
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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/20130805/50f5fa25/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