[governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] IGF - and the corporatisation scandal

[Suresh Ramasubramanian]

As long as this doesn't carry over into the plenaries and workshops guest speakers from sponsoring ministries and industry are a courtesy, however one that has to be carefully managed to prevent the event from becoming a very public soapbox for a commercial or political agenda. 

That, and vetting the speakers that the sponsors bring forward for these keynotes. Like ramalinga raju of the satyam group at igf hyderabad, not long after the igf, got arrested for emptying millions of rupees from his company and driving it into bankruptcy. 

--srs

-------- Original message --------
From: Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org> 
Date: 07/29/2013  2:40 AM  (GMT+05:30) 
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> 
Cc: Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> 
Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] IGF - and the corporatisation scandal 
 
Has anyone actually read this proposal in full? Assuming it is an
official proposal (which is just an assumption) it does not actually
offer proper speaking slots for cash at all. With the possible exception
of private sector sponsors being able to 'nominate' speakers for closing
ceremony. As I said earlier, the MAG has not seen this document (unless
I missed it).

But I don't see how this is a new model. Or am I missing something?

There is information in the document that states that sponsors will get
a certain number of invitations for participants to the high-level
event, gala dinner, etc. but nothing that seems that different from
previous IGFs.

Government sponsors get the benefit of chairing meetings. This is not
new. All IGF have had host country chairs drawn from supportive and
relevant ministries that formally open and close main sessions.

Private sector sponsors can nominate a speaker for the closing ceremony.
I would be surprised if this was not the case in all previous IGFs.

Donors and international organisations can have side-events or
pre-events. Also not new.

Everyone gets their logos everywhere and can have banners all over the
place. How is this different from previous IGFs? All IGFs have given
sponsors some recognition.  E.g.
http://igf.or.ke/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=43&Itemid=55

Is this different because of the scale? I don't particularly like it,
but I have worked with the UN on big events since 1996 and finding
harmless (as harmless as possible as this is always tricky) ways of
recognising sponsors have always been part of the process.

It seems that people feel the Idonesian organising committee is selling
influence in turn for sponsorship, but  don't really see evidence of
that beyond the standard 'indirect' influence of branding.

If I have missed the relevant text then please point me to it.

Anriette



On 28/07/2013 16:57, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> Fine with me. As long as we don't accuse them right from the start
>
> --srs (htc one x)
>
>
>
> On 28 July 2013 7:52:02 PM Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>> Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
>>
>> > Before jumping to that conclusion, is there any indication that this
>> > cash for slots idea was an initiative endorsed and operated by the
>> > MAG or the secretariat, rather than by an uninformed local team?
>>
>> Even if it was done by an “uninformed” local team, there is an important
>> question in regard to how one reacts to these actions of that local
>> team.
>>
>> I'd suggest that it would be appropriate to ask the secretariat and
>> the MAG whether they were aware of this, and if so, what steps were
>> taken to inform the local team that that kind of promises in the
>> context of fundraising for a diplomatic process are really not
>> appropriate. Also ask what steps are being taken to prevent any
>> repetition of this kind of situation. This is not a small matter.
>> Possibly money was raised based on these promises, and a 'new IGF
>> model' is being proposed that might just catch on: If no action is
>> taken to prevent the IGF's credibility from being ruined in that way,
>> that might just happen.
>>
>> Greetings,
>> Norbert
>>
>> -- 
>> Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC:
>> 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person
>> 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept
>>
>
>
>

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


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130729/475b3be3/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