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

[Chaitanya Dhareshwar]

Interesting to see how this is unraveling. I honestly thought I was the
only one here who's clueless about this procedure and was feeling pretty
foolish for not reading up/googling about it before.

Given the IGF has been happening a while now, would the MAG not try to
familiarize themselves with the proposal documents in full? I'm asking out
of want, to learn - not to apportion blame.

-C


On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 2:40 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org>wrote:

> 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
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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/20130729/78dadcc7/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