[bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] IGF - and the corporatisation scandal
Anriette Esterhuysen
anriette at apc.org
Tue Jul 30 11:31:58 EDT 2013
Dear Adam
Responses below.
On 30/07/2013 12:40, Adam Peake wrote:
> Hi Anriette,
>
> The document, both from the host website and google doc are both helpful and worrying.
>
> Helpful: we can see expected total cost, $2.2 million, not sure that's been shared before, and a detailed breakdown of the costs involved in hosting an IGF. The UN costs are not $900,000 for security or whatever the rumor last week, look to be just under $700,000: including interpretation (largest cost), scribes, web staff (i.e. remote access). Security including site visit just over $100,000 (meeting under the UN flag with the immunities and myth that provides, security required onsite as it is UN territory). Scribing costs in the past have sometimes been covered by sponsors, so the hosts might be able to cut some expenditure by passing that along to a supporter (I know they were told this...)
Agree..it is helpful, but what would be really helpful would be more
transparency on IGF financing all round. As well as on UN processes and
rules and requirements.
> Worrying: it is an extremely naive document, and it would be worse if the proposals were implementable: generally they're not. That it's been online for so long we have to expect it's been used, and that's bad -- seems they have raised over $1million, hopefully not based on the options in the proposal. Have to hope that the Secretariat/DESA is now explaining to the Indonesian group why it's so wrong (and not implementable).
>
> My understanding:
>
> Cannot put commercial advertising alongside the UN logo making the hosts ideas to use all literature including the book for ads/sponsorship not possible. This has been made clear on the MAG list many times over the years. Advertising inside the venue is not possible (there's the village for that purpose, and space is mainly for the community). So there goes another opportunity.
Good to have this confirmed. My memory is not always reliable, but I do
recall seeing sponsors material in IGF bags, and also banners.. but
perhaps that was just in the exhibition areas. In Baku I think there
were banners from some sponsors inside the venue. And at other IGF's I
recall seeing some sponsor banners outside the main venue, and in the
gala venues...but I might be wrong.
> The host country jointly organize the opening and closing ceremonies with the UN, they do not have an unlimited number of slots (2 or 3 including their official representatives of govt and the IGF chair), so there's nothing there for a sponsor. Hosts can appoint a chair to each main session: good luck trying to sell that, it's essentially a non-speaking roll, perhaps they person would wear a company t-shirt and cap...
In the Google doc (that is the only doc I saw) the offer to 'open or
close' sessions was only there for governments. The offer to nominate a
speaker for the closing ceremony was made to the private sector. I am
not at all expressing approval for this. But my point was that this does
not exactly amount to 'speaking slots for cash'.
> Not sure it's helpful you keep picking on Nairobi as if there was something wrong with how that meeting was organized.
I did not mean to say there was something wrong with how Nairobi was
organised. I know how hard Alice and the rest of the team worked to
organise it. My point is actually that I don't think it is possible for
a host country with limited resources to host an IGF without additional
financial support.
> See the partner pages, the main sponsors were Kenyan govt ministries or agencies. Compare to the list of speakers <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/2011-igf-nairobi> and the slots the host can influence; among the sponsors only IDRC got a slot (and as you know IDRC have been a very longstanding partner in ICT and Internet policy research in Kenya, a logical choice.) So what are you trying to say? There are enough people around who will pick-up on your comments as something sinister (while no doubt expecting magic funds to fly them to the next meeting.)
I should probably just go back to not posting to the governance list at
all. It is hard to find the time to draft messages so carefully that
they are not misinterpreted. Please do read my messages again. I was not
criticising the Kenyan IGF.
I also did not say that previous IGFs 'sold' speaking slots. I said that
they do give branding opportunity to sponsors, and that I would be
surprised if sponsors did not get invitations to events/dinners, etc..
But this is very different from allowing sponsors to influence the agenda.
IDRC had a speaking slot and a moderating slot if I recall. APC proposed
IDRC people as speakers and moderators, so their presence might have had
nothing to do with their sponsorship. I simply pointed to the Nairobi
website to make the point that host countries have previously given
sponsors some branding, and used the 'bronze/gold' etc. categories for
sponsorships. The African IGF also used this last year. The Baku IGF
website also acknowledges sponsors - http://igf2012.com/ I was NOT
picking on Kenya!!
> Nairobi was interesting in the effort made to link the IGF to the local community: lectures by some of the notable IGF guests organized at local universities, visits to the iHub, meetings with industry groups, meetings with local civil society. I know this kind of arms-length value-add was explained to the Indonesian host team, but seems they have ignored.
I think this approach used at the Nairobi IGF was fantastic, and
certainly helped to make it the biggest IGF to date, and a very
successful one. As for what has been explained to the Indonesians, and
what they have done, I don't have enough knowledge about it pass
judgement. We need to hear from them.
>
> Baku had problems: the hosts seemed to want to link the IGF to their local IT exhibition "Bakutel" (the conference in the other half of the meeting facility.) UN made clear that the UN logo and IGF brand could not be used. Some rumor that the two were linked in local press, but nothing on site. A problem just about dodged there. Egypt where Suzanne Mubarak's billion dollar scams took center stage.
In my view, while branding for sponsors can be a problem and make the
IGF look commercial, the real danger lies in precisely that kind of
thing - Egypt springing the First Lady on us unexpectedly. Also the
government of Azerbaijan placing speakers on the closing panel that
appeared to have no other purpose other than spouting government
propaganda and contradicting the repression of free speech that we
experienced first hand during the event.
If the Indonesian organising committee was actually selling spaces in
the programme, on panels, open forums, etc.. it would extremely serious.
My point was that it was not clear from that document that they were
actually doing that. They seemed to be leaning overboard to get
sponsors, which is risky, but not quite the same as letting sponsors buy
space on the agenda.
> There needs to be clarity about what's permitted and what's not, hope you will raise this in the MAG. Not just the UN rules about it's logo and how ads/promotion inside the venue, but standards we as a community think appropriate for the IGF.
Will raise it. The MAG mandate is limited, but as concerns have been
expressed about the Indonesian financing strategy affecting the
programme and basic character of the IGF, it is important for the MAG to
talk about it - and I believe for the Indonesian organising committee
and the secretariat to provide clarification.
This also has relevance for regional IGFs. How far should one go in
establishing rules and procedures...
I would think that some basic, easy to understand principles are what
are needed. Here is what the secretariat developed, and placed on the
IGF website. Is it enough?
*IGF initiatives organizational principles*
Regional and national IGF initiatives should follow the principles and
practices of open, inclusive, non commercial, and multi-stakeholder
participation in both formulation of the initiative and in any other
initiative related events.
In order to be listed on the IGF website as an IGF initiative, IGF
initiatives should provide the following information to the IGF Secretariat:
1. A report of past activities indicating the members of the initiative
2. A list of members or main organizers comprising at least three
representatives of different stakeholder groups
3. A dedicated webpage or website, with a contact person and a working
email address
The IGF initiatives are kindly requested to include in their reports the
following:
Description of the organising process
Description of how the mutli-stakeholder model is maintained
The published agenda
The total number of attendees and a break down of attendance for each
stakeholder group at the IGF initiatives meetings
>
> Also need to ask what the IGF improvement group looked at in terms of funding and sustainability? What recommendations about commercial tie-in, what's acceptable (we need funds) and what's not? A lesson from all this is people CS recommends to these working groups must report back and seek advice from the community, collectively we might be able to reach sensible decisions.
The discussion in the IGF improvement working group on financing was
never fully recorded, as in the end there was no consensus on what to
include, or even on whether it was in our mandate or not.
As Parminder has said, he, and the government of India, proposed full
public funding through the UN. Some felt this was not realistic. Some UN
personnel shared that there are risks attached to his as well (just look
at what happened with UNESCO). Most people were able to agree to a
'mixed-model'.
Commercial tie-in was touched on indirectly but not explicitly. What was
discussed was the importance of contributions to the the IGF through the
UN Trust Fund not being tied to influence over decision-making over the
programme/secretariat hiring, etc..
Some people suggested that this was already happening. This resulted in
quite a lot of tension, particularly as some of the largest donor
countries were part of the working group, and they felt this was a very
unfair accusation.
General agreement between all in the working group was that transparency
is essential and that UN Trust Fund procedures seemed quite opaque,
which no one was comfortable with. The secretariat provided information
that was requested, which was appreciated, but I think we were left with
a feeling that the information should have been easier to get. E.g. the
secretariat to request permission from the UN Trust Fund administrators
in order to release certain information.
We also did talk about the need for a more flexible mechanisms for
funding, particularly small contributions.
We did not touch on how host countries operate beyond acknowledging that
their contributions are very substantial, and should be given more
recognition. There was more.. but I would say that most of our
discussions focused on costs of participation of people from developing
countries (including speakers), and on being able to secure the
financial support to strengthen the secretariat's capacity.
The UN related costs did not come up.
Anriette
>
> Best,
>
> Adam
>
>
> On Jul 30, 2013, at 5:03 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
>
>> Dear Parminder
>>
>> I did not say there is "nothing wrong with the document".
>>
>> You tend to twist people's words in order to score political points,
>> Parminder. I find this tendency, and your general readiness to launch
>> into attack, very disappointing coming from someone (and an
>> organisation) whose views I generally respect.
>>
>> I said that it was not obviously a "new" model as I have seen similar
>> branding and sponsorship strategies at previous IGFs. I gave an example
>> of Nairobi.
>>
>> If this was not the case, and previous IGF host did not provide sponsors
>> branding, invites to events, etc. please let me know. I would be
>> pleasantly surprised.
>>
>> I also said that some of the claims about the document were not
>> accurate, or were exaggerated, such as that it offered speaking slots
>> for cash. I felt that these claims were disrespectful to the Indonesian
>> IGF organising committee - if we are to challenge them, let's at least
>> read their document carefully, and ask questions before moving into
>> attack mode.
>>
>> I did not express support for the document, or for the specific approach
>> to accessing resources for an event of this nature. I said, however,
>> that I have seen that approach in most of the large UN events that I
>> have been involved in - certainly those in developing countries. Much as
>> I don't like this approach, I have come to learn over the years that
>> even UN events or events hosted by governments often have to depend on
>> this as a means of mobilising resources (and facilitating participation).
>>
>> If civil society involved in the IGF wants to take a stance against
>> these branding strategies we should probably have done so earlier in the
>> IGF process.
>>
>> It is not too late to start now, but let's be realistic, let's first
>> learn more about how host countries have operated to date, and once we
>> have all our facts straight we can hopefully express concern and posit
>> alternative models.
>>
>> Anriette
>>
>>
>> On 29/07/2013 21:38, parminder wrote:
>>> So we have it from two prominent civil society members of the MAG (as
>>> also earlier the chair of the so called Asia Pacific Regional IGF)
>>> that there is really nothing wrong with the document under question -
>>> the Indonesian IGF organising committee's official funding proposal.
>>> That is really disappointing and actually painful to me, for I take
>>> this document to be a frontal attack on democracy, and on the
>>> possibility that the people of the world could direct the manner in
>>> which the Internet evolves and is governed.
>>>
>>> But perhaps they may re-think their positions now that the MAG chair
>>> has openly disapproved of the document and disassociated from it,
>>> speaking of 'commercialisation of the IGF'. And the document has been
>>> withdrawn from the host country website. (I had downloaded it
>>> suspecting such an eventuality, and it is enclosed.)
>>>
>>> That an act of whistle-blowing on such a grave threat to democracy has
>>> faced the kind of aggressive reaction on this list itself is a comment
>>> on the health of the IGC, and in general the IG civil society.....
>>> Despite being posted to three civil society lists, over the last few
>>> days there has been no civil society response to this outrage. The
>>> institution - of civil society - that is supposed to be the watchdog
>>> against abuse of power by the most powerful seem to be acting more
>>> loyal than the king.....
>>>
>>> I am travelling, and a bit constrained on time, but I will soon post a
>>> detailed response to Anriette's email, to which Bill agrees below, in
>>> which she affirms that there isnt anything quite wrong with with the
>>> Indonesian IGF committee's fund raising proposal document.
>>>
>>> parminder
>>>
>>> On Monday 29 July 2013 10:57 AM, William Drake wrote:
>>>>> -------- Original message --------
>>>>> From: Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org>
>>>>> Date: 07/29/2013 1:48 AM (GMT+05:30)
>>>>> To: parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
>>>>> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,"<,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>,"
>>>>> <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>,irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
>>>>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] IGF -
>>>>> and the corporatisation scandal
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This document has never, to my knowledge, been made available to the
>>>>> MAG. Other MAG members on these lists can confirm or provide contrary
>>>>> information.
>>>> confirm
>>>>
>>>>> 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?
>>>> No you are not
>>>>
>>>> Bill
>>>
>> --
>> ------------------------------------------------------
>> 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
>
--
------------------------------------------------------
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/20130730/fab30737/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