[governance] IGF Cancelled

Fri Jul 26 09:40:35 EDT 2013

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

For all of you who need to get tickets for price reasons, or those who have tickets and are concerned:

Check your travel insurance. Most credit cards come with travel cover that deals with cancellations of meetings. If you don't have good coverage and haven't bought tickets yet, get some that will cover you and go ahead.

On the larger point:

We can all speculate all we like but it doesn't mean anything. Until the Indonesian government says what it is doing (or not doing) we have to, in all prudence, soldier on - and assume that even if something happens to Bali as a destination there will be a meeting of the IGF somewhere, and continue with all our plans.

Otherwise: we will end up downing tools and then having to pick them up again when there is less time left to finish the prep work.

William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch> wrote:
>We are on a semi-open MAG call now so I believe I can say: an
>Indonesian gentlemen from the private sector came on and said there's a
>budget shortfall and the meeting is canceled.  However, Markus pointed
>out that the government has not made any definitive statement to that
>effect and that the UN is urgently trying to get clarification.
>Moreover, Chengetai has been in contact with Jakarta and has not been
>told this by anyone with direct governmental responsibility.  So
>obviously things are churning in Jakarta and we probably shouldn't
>react immediately based on varying voices, tweets, etc.
>
>
>On Jul 26, 2013, at 3:24 PM, Robert Guerra <rguerra at privaterra.org>
>wrote:
>
>> Agree with Anriette's assessment to wait for official news before
>jumping on the "igf bali got cancelled bandwagon"
>>
>> suffice it to say - the situation is a complex one. The govt. is
>week, internal indonesian politics that are at play. Sources familiar
>with Indonesia tell me that the ICT minister is involved in a scandal
>and likely will be sacked when ramadan ends. The news could be seen as
>a manoeuvre to raise attention and help with fundraising..
>>
>> What we need to look for are statements from the Indonesian
>president's office and/or the IGF secretariat on the status.
>>
>> Prudent planners are also looking at contingencies - ie having the
>event take place elsewhere - but, crossing fingers that won't happen.
>>
>> Will keep folks updated
>>
>> Robert
>> --
>> R. Guerra
>> Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081
>> Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom
>> Email: rguerra at privaterra.org
>>
>> On 2013-07-26, at 3:28 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>
>>> Dear all
>>>
>>> No formal notification has yet been sent by the Indonesian
>government,
>>> as Donny has pointed out. This was also confirmed to me by the
>>> Secretariat yesterday.
>>>
>>> Let's wait until it is official before assuming that the IGF in Bali
>is
>>> cancelled.
>>>
>>> On de-linking the IGF from the UN... I agree with Parminder and
>Nick.
>>> It would be a substantial blow to efforts to create more inclusive
>>> international governance processes. It would reinforce efforts to
>make
>>> an existing intergovernmental body like the ITU (which has a
>narrower
>>> more technocratic focus, and which is only just beginning to
>recognise
>>> the need for being more inclusive) responsible for being the
>UN-based
>>> space to deal with internet policy. It would undermine efforts of
>>> UN-bodies like UNESCO and the CSTD who are trying to be more
>inclusive.
>>>
>>> It would also make it MUCH harder to get meaningful developing
>country
>>> participation in internet policy.
>>>
>>> Perhaps a new forum can be rebuilt somewhere else, with some other
>>> funding. Yes, one could do that and find ways of involving civil
>>> society. Technical community, developers, standard setters and
>business
>>> people will come along, and so will a few governments who a) have
>the
>>> resources and b) are not fully committed to international
>governance.
>>> But most governments from the developing world are not likely to
>>> participate effectively.
>>>
>>> More over, ground gained at regional and national levels could also
>be
>>> lost. Is our longer term project not to achieve more democracy and
>>> social justice in ALL global governance? I have always believed
>(naively
>>> perhaps) that the IGF has been, and could be, a significant
>milestone on
>>> this path.
>>>
>>> The IGF still has to improve, substantially. At times this feels
>hard to
>>> achieve considering the lack of resources and capacity. The UN
>system
>>> has to be challenged and perhaps this threat of the IGF being
>cancelled
>>> should really galvanise us to look at the model and the
>relationships.
>>>
>>> But at this point in time I feel the loss would be huge.
>>>
>>> Anriette
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 26/07/2013 07:59, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>> - --
>>> - ------------------------------------------------------
>>> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
>>> executive director, association for progressive communications
>>> www.apc.org
>>> po box 29755, melville 2109
>>> south africa
>>> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
>>> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
>>>
>>> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJR8iUnAAoJEJ0z+TtuxKewxNYIAOABClttEss+tdwTJ5xk+r/Y
>>> 3/tJFOf8ShXNlozE2069kJXwICSlqShJ0xFZutaueZhzSgbOQ1lo0K98tQ3gDwPY
>>> zRhf8w3itEqso8TzG6oYXNV4YvSzNYlpVPfPD0hmvKN/XCAo08TP2aTYSvxP7slh
>>> KRnn3S0cIfp5p8oFY8oanmRuhzqEzvAbdOlF6eTYE/jam9MuuNC5ST2U71aUbiPX
>>> G2s86cwoyM331X90mmYseYfOxgLttrDQskp9inSRH/xoMmFM7NUE0OlDwc3cHCMu
>>> Z0jEODPFDQ+UM2m0/hySBdie/APcuyRSFGHOCqQoorPdSsRaigPceJVkjVR3Osw=
>>> =4rMD
>>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
>
>**********************************************************
>William J. Drake
>International Fellow & Lecturer
>  Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
>  University of Zurich, Switzerland
>Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency,
>  ICANN, www.ncuc.org
>william.drake at uzh.ch
>www.williamdrake.org
>***********************************************************

- - Sent from my handheld thingie; please forgive linguistic mangling and brevity.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: APG v1.0.8

iQFEBAEBCgAuBQJR8nxTJxxOaWNrIEFzaHRvbi1IYXJ0IDxuYXNodG9uQGNjaWFu
ZXQub3JnPgAKCRDGL9fGMqbWTR7NCACfZMWF0CpwfIBP+/PIkle/0FR2A2ZlKhJM
XVkWUYVZwkjA0iMZb9OylgD/XOJtkeDhEdFJ4THIvw2KHfnNCSMHUip7F4zb/aZH
ijbd3TVyXAUkTSs+KP05AhBMrHu5HDSHh2uAkd/IuGKlwqNNf3YLAs2QVtnR9GtW
kyrxQjKPvvHcCCnbltZFdU1tdXH9DVAHUbqKRlPi/NX+JUk+1Wmutc6igVudZjey
wpgusWUKyJhHT+gGG4zSpUd5GKAZOI6AJuBbWVtMtVCRrAf7uFpi0Fi4kiRnGOgF
3xD+qMO89hjfLmKSbMMyWXT81zrhtJEKEur4T19Kas1pksVRXlAx
=fBVt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-------------- 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