[governance] IGF Cancelled

[Jeremy Malcolm]

On 26/07/13 13:06, parminder wrote:
>
>> 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...

The seized postcards and posters, the unwritten rules about what you can
say about whom, etc.

> .. and dont know what you mean by secretariat -led policy, which
> secretariat BTW is now led by an ISOC appointed and paid person.......

Yes, what a farce.  But long before that, Nitin and Markus had shaped
the IGF into the image they had in mind for it all along, and it was
very easy for them in that position of power to ignore the submissions
about the IGF's structure and processes that didn't conform to that vision.

>> 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)

Just also to note that I'm not humming a new tune here in suggesting
that the IGF eventually cast off the UN.  Five years ago I wrote that "a
thin link between [the IGF] and the existing international system [is
justified] at least until the network builds up sufficient social
capital across all stakeholder groups to,break free and become fully
autonomous."

On the other hand I also take your point that when we try to reinvent
intergovernmentalism we tend to do it badly.  The GAC is one case in
point, the WTO another (and its love child, the TPP, worse still).

But one can draw strong parallels between the case for ICANN shedding
its links to the US government and the IGF breaking free of its roots in
the United Nations.

>> - 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.

Fair criticism.

>> 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...

No I do see that, and I would support any change that would turn the IGF
into a corporate controlled policy space.  But I don't think much of the
way the UN has handled it either.  If the mandate is not renewed by the
General Assembly next time, we'll have to reconsider this then.  So this
seemed like another apposite opportunity.

-- 

*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/20130726/2a4d6b8f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 261 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130726/2a4d6b8f/attachment.sig>
-------------- 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