[governance] IGF Cancelled

[Marilia Maciel]

On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 3:13 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>wrote:

>
> Such a proposal for using ICANN collected funds to support the IGF was put
> forward in the WG on IGF Improvements by my organisation as well as by
> India, and supported by developing countries. Why did other non gov
> stakeholders (including civil society) and developed countries oppose this
> proposal.... Can at least the civil society members of that group who are
> on this list explain.... I can see why private sector or corporate funded
> technical community did not want it... can also see the agenda of US
> supporting developed country constituency.... but why did civil society
> oppose it... If the IGF is really their most loved child...
>

Hi Parminder!

As a participant on the WG on IGF improvements, I would just like to
comment on what I recall from memory:

- The issue of allocating sustainable and predictable public UN funding to
the IGF was tabled and discussed among members despite the time constraints
we had. As I remember, most CS representatives, including myself, supported
this proposal of UN public funding (meaning: public UN funding and private
voluntary funding should coexist). As you said, there was strong opposition
and the proposal was not included in the report. But we must also
acknowledge that UN posed main obstacles to that. UNDESA came to one of our
meetings with the purpose to tell us that it was fruitless to put forth
such a proposal (UN funding), because UN funds were being cut all across
the board. If the UN executes decisions of member countries, maybe it is
also fair to say that countries that support UN public funding for the IGF
also lacked political articulation and let DESA "impose" that line on the
group, saying it was an "impossible topic". Sometimes it seems to me that
no one wants to put more money (either because they dont believe in the
importance of the IGF or because current lack of transparency on fund
management - a real big problem - prevents them from willing to commit). It
is a vicious cycle and a blame-game.

- If I remember correctly,  the proposal to use ICANN funds to support the
IGF was not properly discussed in the group. When the proposal was tabled,
the group started to dwell on procedural issues: if the group had
competence to propose it, if the UN had legitimacy to propose it, if it was
juridically feasible to propose it, if we could propose it in a group in
which ICANN was not represented, etc...  Some group members were openly
against it, but, to my understanding, this proposal did not get to be
discussed in depth and substance, reason why I think it is not accurate to
say that CS members were against it... Speaking on my own behalf: I needed
more time to think and understand all the implications, but the discussion
did not continue. I think (i dont remember exactly) the vehemency of
opposition made clear that the group would not have consensus on that issue
and, since the report was consensus-based, we moved on.

Marília
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130727/b9870976/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