[governance] Markus Kummer in the situation Re: IGF Bali

[Norbert Bollow]

Datum: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 11:32:09 +0000
Von: Markus Kummer <kummer at isoc.org>
An: "internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org" <internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org>
Betreff: Re: [Internet Policy] IGF Bali


Dear all,
 
It is great to see so much enthusiasm around the IGF!  We all agree
that the IGF needs a more solid financial base - but the current model
should be maintained insofar as the funding should go to the central
operation and not to the host countries! Patrick made some good points,
especially as regards cluster funding. This really ought to be pursued
further. Having said that, I feel that it is necessary to take a step
back and to look at some of the basic facts. First of all, the UN has
not received any official confirmation that Indonesia is withdrawing
its offer to host the 2013 IGF. The UN has accepted the offer, but it
has not yet issued an invitation to the event. The
Under-Secretary-General of the UN is the convenor of the meeting, on
behalf of the Secretary-General, in accordance with the Tunis Agenda.
Only he would be able to cancel the event. However, cancelling is not
an option. Currently, the UN in New York is in touch with the
Indonesian authorities at various levels to find out whether they are
willing to honour their commitment to host the 2013 IGF. I made the
point at yesterday's MAG call that bailing out the Indonesian
organizing committee would create a moral hazard. Nick picked up this
point - it would indeed be a dangerous precedent that in the end might
weaken the IGF instead of strengthening it. Hosting an IGF meeting is a
considerable effort, both in terms of workload as well as in terms of
funding. We do not have the figure of how much each host country has
spent in the past, but estimates vary between USD 2-3 Millions. This
should be no surprise to the Indonesian hosts as the IGF Secretariat
had explained to them the obligations of a host country as early as in
2010. It seems that the organizing committee was not able to deliver.
The question now is who should bail them out - the Indonesian
Government or the international community? The missing USD 1 Million is
peanuts for a major economy such as Indonesia - if the Government is
not willing to come up with that kind of money then it is clear that
there is no political support to host the meeting. Again, as Nick
pointed out, shifting a UN meeting back to HQ or to another venue would
not be a first - this has happened before and it never was the end of
the world. I fully understand that there would be a considerable amount
of discomfort related to changing travel arrangements and maybe loosing
money on cheap non refundable tickets. However, good news is that we
have serious expressions of interest from other potential host
countries. The budget transparency has been with us for some time. This
is a complex issue and we should avoid mixing apples with pears. There
is on the one hand the Trust Fund that finances the Secretariat and, on
the other hand, the budget of the host country. Both budgets are part
of proprietary agreements between the UN and the donor or the host
country, respectively. They can only be disclosed if all Parties to the
Agreement agree to do so. The UN may be bureaucratic, but whatever UN
staff do is based on rules and regulations set forth by UN Member
States. There is simply no point in discussing whether these rules are
too cumbersome or not. Hosting a UN event away from Headquarters
follows rules based on Resolutions adopted by the UN General Assembly -
that is the UN's highest legislative authority. These rules are not
negotiable. The basic principle is that the extra costs arising from
hosting a meeting away from UN Headquarters need to be funded by the
Host Country. These costs include funding transport and per diem for UN
staff, such as interpreters, security personnel, secretariat and other
technical staff. For staff that need to be replaced at HQ (e.g.
security personnel, interpreters) it also includes so-called
replacement costs (that is to pay for the people who replace those who
went to the conference). It is obvious that these costs vary greatly
from venue to venue. Nairobi, for instance, is a UN HQ which brings
down the cost, as no security personnel or interpreters need to be
flown in. Indonesia will invariably more expensive, as most UN staff
would need to be flown in. The Host Country has the option of
transferring all the funds directly to the UN or assuming some of the
costs directly, such as paying for flight tickets and hotel rooms. The
UN asks the host country to provide transport from airport to hotels
and hotels to venue. It is up to the host country to decide how
generous it wants to be with providing free meals and other extras -
but that is not a requirement. The standard Host Country Agreement
provides the legal framework for the meeting. It puts the UN flag over
the meeting and guarantees diplomatic immunity to all participants for
any word spoken or written in the context of the meeting. For
understandable reasons, this fundamental right is not negotiable. The
IGF, with its open door policy, has expanded this notion of diplomatic
immunity well beyond the boundaries of  what is usually accepted by UN
conferences. Any participant with "proven expertise and experience" is
accepted without an onerous accreditation process, as it is normally
the case for ECOSOC accreditation and other UN conferences. This is a
huge accomplishment in terms of furthering multistakeholder cooperation
under the UN flag. Putting up with UN rules and regulations is a prize
worth paying for this! To cut a long story short: let's stay calm and
see whether Indonesia is ready to abide by some of these basic
principles and willing to fund the IGF. If they can explain with a
reasonable and reasoned budget where the shortfalls are, then we can
see whether there is any need for the international community to chip
in - but, as I said earlier to some of you: we are not there yet! I do
hope that in the end we will go to Bali - but at the same time we
should keep all the options open and be ready to shift to another
venue. Best regards Markus 

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