[governance] IGF Cancelled

[Nick Ashton-Hart]

There is a standard fee that is part of convening any UN meeting to cover the costs of UN staff organising it, as well as those things.

Cutting the UN connection is, to my way of thinking, an incredibly bad idea on pretty much every level - without the IGF the UN has no standing meeting to discuss Internet governance per se.  This would create a vacuum and that vacuum would be filled - and if any of you think it would be filled with a more or even equally multi-stakeholder forum, there's a proverbial bridge in Brooklyn you may wish to buy; contact me offlist to make arrangements to take possession and transfer funds ;)

parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
>On Friday 26 July 2013 10:16 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>> On 26/07/13 12:34, parminder wrote:
>>>
>>> On Friday 26 July 2013 09:16 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>>> On 26/07/13 11:31, Ang Peng Hwa (Prof) wrote:
>>>>> According to third party sources I asked, ie not the Indonesians, 
>>>>> one major item that added to the cost is that the UN had
>apparently 
>>>>> asked for US$900k to fly personnel and security equipment for the 
>>>>> event.
>>>>
>>>> Time to cut the UN apron strings.
>>>
>>> Why sure, we can check with Google. They will be quite happy to run 
>>> the global internet policy dialogue.... It is most astounding that 
>>> after subverting and ditching the tradition of strictly public 
>>> funding for policy spaces and activities, and adopting the
>neoliberal 
>>> and anti-democratic (and fancy) multistakeholder funding model, now 
>>> that it has collapsed one is to blame the public systems for it....
>>
>> But $900k is ridiculous,
>
>Yes, we consider looking at local security detail etc.... but we in 
>developing countries are quite aware of how whispers of inefficiency, 
>corruption etc are used deviously to discredit public systems, which is
>
>not to say that they should not be improved, and internal efficiencies 
>cannot be sought... Lets get down to seeing how this figure of $900, if
>
>it is true, - and I know the power of rightfully placed rumours - can
>be 
>brought down. That is a different talk...
>
>> and given that a lot of the obstruction of the IGF has come from UNOG
>
>> (funding constraints, censorship, Secretariat-led policy direction), 
>> other options have to be considered.
>
>Again, similar standard 'logics' against public system. Beyond a point 
>one cannot keep responding to them. BTW, it is the 'multistakeholders' 
>that were strictly against UN based stable funding for the IGF during 
>the proceedings of the WG on IGF improvements , and what censorship are
>
>you talking about..... and dont know what you mean by secretariat -led 
>policy, which secretariat BTW is now led by an ISOC appointed and paid 
>person.......
>
>> We have WTO, ISO, etc as intergovernmental organisations that are 
>> notionally separate from the UN, so why not the IGF as well
>
>No problem for it to be notionally separate from anywhere, till it 
>remains a public system and not corporate driven... (there is a limit
>to 
>which the multistakeholder front for corporate control can be employed)
>
>> - a free-standing international multi-stakeholder conference.  This
>is 
>> independent of the question of how it is funded
>
>Sorry to say, that it must take extreme political naivete - and I know 
>you arent politically naive - to say that what a policy space is and 
>does is "independent of the the question of how it is funded".... There
>
>is lots of lots of literature, norms as well as legal frameworks with 
>regard to democratic political systems that deal with precisely this 
>connection.... and this connection is universally seen as very strong 
>and important to always be mindful of.
>
>> - but it's clear there will be no funding flowing from the UN anyway,
>
>
>give the dog a bad name and then hang it... Starve the UN of funds,
>dont 
>allow the IGF improvement working group to decide on UN funding for the
>
>IGF and then use the argument 'there anyway isnt going to be any flow
>of 
>funding from the UN'.... Doesnt work.
>
>
>> so I don't see how cutting the UN loose would make the situation
>worse.
>
>If you are intent on not seeing how corporate controlled policy spaces 
>will be lot worse than where we are today, I really cannot do much
>about 
>it...
>
>parminder
>
>>
>> -- 
>>
>> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm
>> Senior Policy Officer
>> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers*
>> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala
>Lumpur, 
>> Malaysia
>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
>>
>> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement
>knowledge 
>> hub |
>http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone
>>
>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org 
>> <http://www.consumersinternational.org> | 
>> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational 
>> <http://www.facebook.com/consumersinternational>
>>
>> Read our email confidentiality notice 
>> <http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>. Don't 
>> print this email unless necessary.
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130726/cb28f16b/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