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

[parminder]

On Tuesday 30 July 2013 01:33 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
> Dear Parminder
>
> I did not say there is "nothing wrong with the document".
Anriette

Your email to which I responded ends as follows

" 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."

It is absolutely appropriate then for me to say that it is your 
position  that there is nothing wrong with the Indonesian organising 
group's strategy or with the concerned document . I repeat it. Please 
justify how your above comment means anything else.

No I dont twist words, but try to untwist twisted words, so that a clear 
responsible political dialogue can take place.

(Meanwhile, as I asked before, if you believe that there is nothing new 
or odd with what the Indonesian organising group did, as per your above 
statement, I dont know what questions are you going to ask the MAG 
tomorrow, and why would you care to ask them. Sorry, I also tend to 
point out obvious inconsistencies. )


>
> 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 refer these ad hominem comment to the co-coordinators for their views 
and decisions. I will wait for a week, till the 6th of August, to be 
told what views they have on these comments and whether they propose any 
action. If I dont get any response or get a response that no action is 
contemplated, I will proceed to express my views on what I think 
'Anriette does' on this list in a similarly unconstrained manner as she 
has expressed personalised views about me...


>
> 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 you know of similar questionable things being done earlier, it for 
you to have pointed them out, and to point them out now... No, i dont 
know of them. Adam's email suggests that things were rather fine and 
straight at Kenya. I really remember no company logos hanging around, 
nor I am sure speaking/ chairing slots were proposed or given against 
donations.

parminder

>
> 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
>>


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