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

[Anriette Esterhuysen]

I will raise this question (about if and how the document was used, and
if this is different from previous IGFs etc.) at tomorrow's MAG meeting.

Btw, the meeting is open to observers.

Anriette


On 30/07/2013 07:40, parminder wrote:
>
> On Tuesday 30 July 2013 01:53 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
>> Thanks for this Norbert. Do we know if the document was being actively
>> used to raise funds or secure sponsorships?
>
>  But how does that matter if similar practices, as you say, has always
> been followed, and consequently can be considered to have become the
> norm in the IGF context?
>
> BTW i did raise this particular question in my initial postings on the
> issue as a serious thing that we need to have information on...
>
> Also, the right place, I would think, to ask this question is on the
> MAG list, and perhaps then to inform us about the response...
>
> parminder
>
>
>>
>> On 29/07/2013 19:21, Norbert Bollow wrote:
>>> Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org>:
>>>
>>>> Has anyone actually read this proposal in full?
>>> Yes I did - both for the version on Google docs and for the somewhat
>>> different version that was quite prominently on the host country
>>> website until very recently (it was still there the day before
>>> yesterday, but it's gone now.)
>>>
>>>> Assuming it is an
>>>> official proposal (which is just an assumption) it does not actually
>>>> offer proper speaking slots for cash at all.
>>> It is true that it did not come quite as low as that, but it
>>> nevertheless went quite far on the path of commercialization -
>>> acceptable for a commercial conference, but IMO quite unacceptable for
>>> a UN conference or any other kind of diplomatic process.
>> Agree.. it did not go quite as far as that, which was what I was trying
>> to point out.
>>
>> And yes - I agree with you completely, the tone made it sound like a
>> commercial conference. My first reaction was also that it looked as if
>> they were letting people who sponsor come in and dominate proceedings,
>> but then I looked more closely.
>>
>> As I said previously, I was not expressing approval of this commercial..
>> just saying I have seen it before, including in regional IGFs - and
>> global IGFs have not been free of branding.
>>
>> Anriette
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Apparently the perspective of the relevant people at the UN on this is
>>> similar to mine.
>>>
>>> Markus Kummer recently (Mon, 29 Jul 2013 19:08:42 +0200 to be
>>> precise, i.e. 12 minutes ago) posted the following on ISOC's Internet
>>> Policy mailing list:
>>>
>>> : As regards the commercialization of the event, the UN is very clear
>>> : in this regard: this is a no go area and I understand that the IGF
>>> : Secretariat requested them to withdraw this document back in
>>> : February. As far as I know it has not been on their website for some
>>> : time. Unquote
>>>
>>> Greetings,
>>> Norbert
>>>
>
>

-- 
------------------------------------------------------
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 --------------
____________________________________________________________
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