[governance] Markus Kummer in the situation Re: IGF Bali
Nnenna
nne75 at yahoo.com
Sat Jul 27 18:20:58 EDT 2013
[Warning: this is a long email]
Dear all
Very many thanks to Markus Kummer, for putting things into focus. Coming from my background: Digital Solidarity Fund (Yes, that WSIS one), National IGF fundraiser and organiser, regional IGForganiser and fundraiser and continental IGForganiser and fundraiser... I would like to share my thoughts and maybe chip in a few ideas for IGF going forward.
1. On the political front, we need to understand why countries bid/offer to host events. These reasons will help us smell stuff upfront. Why did Indonesia bid to host the IGF? As civil society, have we asked the IGF secretariat about the conditions for hosting an IGF. What exactly do host countries agree on? Is the "Standard Host Country Agreement" enough? Have we seen that agreement? Does the host country share it within its "willing to host committee" before they bid?
2. What values do host countries get from IGF? As Markus says, 1 million $ is so tiny an amount for Indonesia that canceling a global meeting because of that amount is as fake me growing a 1 meter long hair!
3. I do not know who put up the Fundraising Proposal. It is not a scandal, but it just clearly shows that the people who drafted it do/did not understand what the IGF is and how it functions. Having said above that I have been in many levels of IGForganisation, I know first hand that the reasons that governments "accept" for hosting these events are some times ridiculous.
4. On the budget itself, I think it is not that huge and not that complicated. Organisers of IGF know that. What I see from it is that a host country needs to think "Between 2 and 3 million $) as hosting cost.
5. The budget itself is in parts: a) venue and security. This seems to be the part tied up to the UN. b) Technical and multimedia. This part does not seem to be cast in stone c) logistics and general hospitality. Local transport and meals fall here. Nairobi did not do airport pick up and we paid for our visas on arrival? d) costs borne by participating organisations and individuals. This is actually the BIGGER amount that we seem not to be talking about here.
6. Having said all of the above, my gut feeling is that it has got to the "reality time" of events (organisers know this). This is the time you realise that you may ACTUALLY need more money than you had originally budgeted for. And you begin to question the value that the whole thing brings you. The "is it worth all the trouble?" "Why did I get myself into this?" time.
Between the time of the rumours and today, I have done more work on my "Bali" folder. I am one of those that believe IGF Bali will hold, after the question "Who will do the bail out?" must have been answered.
Going forward:
1. To the UN, I will say to check the security ratings of the IGF meeting itself. Does it still need to be as high as the first sessions?
2. Definitely, I think the UN should fund the security part of the IGF. This makes it easier for host countries to concentrate on funding venue, logistics, and hospitality
3. It is okay for ICANN and other corporations to fund certain parts of the meeting, but my shot will be to clearly mark these out. The technical and multimedia, to me, appear to be the easiest entry. Since these are Service-Provider-related services. Contracting is easier when it happens B2B. I dont think ICANN should send funds to DESA for translation or other media services.
4. It is important for would-be hosting countries to understand how the budget plays out. Security costs in Indonesia should not be compared to Nairobi, as Markus has clearly pointed out below. So the message is not that "The UN is requesting Indonesia to pay 900K$ for their staff and security" That message is wrong. The message is that "The Bali location will need 900K$" to satisfy the security and UN-functionality of the meeting."
In closing this rather long email, I wll say that the budget hassle and tussle that is going on is not in itself a bad development. It only just shows that some more issues need to be discussed. I am certain that the MAG is learning the lessons and will use them well.
And would-be host countries, and organisers too.
Best of the weekend,
Nnenna
Nnenna Nwakanma | Founder and CEO, NNENNA.ORG | Consultants
Information | Communications | Technology and Events | for Development
Cote d'Ivoire (+225)| Tel: 225 27144 | Fax 224 26471 |Mob. 07416820
Ghana: +233 249561345| Nigeria: +234 8101887065| http://www.nnenna.org
nnenna at nnenna.org| @nnenna | Skype - nnenna75 | nnennaorg.blogspot.com
________________________________
From: SalanietaTamanikaiwaimaro <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com>
To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch>
Cc: IGC <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2013 12:41 PM
Subject: Re: [governance] Markus Kummer in the situation Re: IGF Bali
Spoken with much wisdom and experience. Markus helps to put things in perspective, and in its proper context.
Thanks Norbert.
Sent from my iPad
On Jul 28, 2013, at 12:01 AM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>
> 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
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
____________________________________________________________
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130727/0c8c46d8/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
More information about the Governance
mailing list