[IGFmaglist] Draft Open Letter on Funding

[Markus Kummer]

Patrick, all

We had many exchanges on various lists and also some off-line discussions. I tried to explain that it was the responsibility of the Host Country to fund the event and that bailing out the Indonesian government would be counterproductive in the long run, as it would set a negative precedent and such money out of the funding of the central operation, i.e. the Secretariat. So far we have not been very successful in providing adequate funding to the Secretariat and I simply don't understand why we should, in addition, now also fund the annual meeting. 

The IGF model was based on a partnership with the Host Countries which are willing to fund the annual meeting. This has worked well so far and is a considerable contribution to the success of the IGF. Trying to change this model would weaken the IGF, instead of strengthening it, as most donors would prefer funding the meeting. Events are easier to fund than ongoing Secretariat activities. 

As Chris rightly points out, apart from the Host Countries, Governments so far have been the biggest donors to the IGF Trust Fund that has been set up for the funding of the Secretariat. We hope that the private sector will also step up its contributions.

Like Chris, I urge caution and strongly advise against sending this letter.

Meanwhile, we are waiting to hear whether Indonesia is honouring its commitment to host the IGF 2013 or whether it is withdrawing its offer. Should the latter be the case, then we will look at alternative venues. There have been serious expressions of interest and I am confident that we will find a solution. 


Best regards
Markus




On Jul 30, 2013, at 8:46 AM, Chris Disspain <ceo at auda.org.au>
 wrote:

> Patrick, All,
> 
> May I respectfully request we slow down a little and examine the possible consequences of the suggested action and letter.
> 
> First, some history, for those who were not around at the time, provided by Bill Graham…
> 
> "It's worthwhile to recall a little history…..
> 
> Back in the darkened halls of Tunis in 2005, when the deals were being struck on the Internet governance text in the WSIS Tunis Declaration, after much head banging and with failure (aka "success" vs "big success") looming, there seemed to be convergence toward agreeing to create the IGF as a stop-gap measure. I was head of Canadian delegation at that time. We had proposed the idea of the IGF, and I chaired the negotiations at that time. The challenge was to figure out how that could happen. There was not going to be any funding for it, and a number of governments (similar to the group that didn't sign the 2012 ITRs) were not anxious to have it run by the UN. The fear as always was that the countries not supportive of the Internet would use their political clout in the UN to try to force something.
> 
> Australia, Canada, the US were looking for alternatives, joined by a few European countries approached ISOC (Lynn & Matthew Shears) to see if they would consider hosting it, if supported by the private sector and possibly by governments. Reluctantly they agreed, and Australia proposed ISOC. A number of other countries grouped together and absolutely refused. They insisted that for IGF to have any credibility it had to be UN based. I won't go into the wrangling that took place that resulted in the current arrangement, where the IGF is funded by voluntary contributions, but is housed under the auspices of EcoSoc, but that is where we ended up. Contrary to statements on some lists, governments have been the majority funders so far; principally the Swiss, Finns and Sweden (if I am not mistaken). It certainly has not been civil society or business."
> 
> On top of this, I think it is important to draw a distinction between funding the IGF Trust Fund and funding an IGF. 
> 
> The Trust Fund is used to fund the ongoing workings of the secretariat and the MAG. It is open to donations from all sources and is in need of funds. 
> 
> Actual IGF meetings have always been funded by the host government.
> 
> I'm not aware of any funds coming from central UN funds for an actual IGF meeting. I believe that hosting governments may have organised sponsorship of the IGF in the past but am not sure. Perhaps Markus or Chengetai could confirm this?
> 
> NB...what we do regarding individual meeting funding could have a detrimental effect on the Trust Fund funding.
> 
> What we seem to be discussing at the moment is a) sourcing private international funding for an IGF in Bali and b) spring-boarding from that into a fundamental change on the way the IGFs are organised. 
> 
> a) with all due respect to everyone's 'certainty' about the gossip and rumour that is currently running, I endorse Markus' position that it really is all just gossip and rumour unless or until the government of Indonesia tells the UN that they will not host the IGF. 
> 
> None of us have the slightest idea what is actually occurring within the Indonesian government right now regarding this. 
> 
> We have no clue what is being said, if anything, between the Indonesian government and the UN. 
> 
> We don't know what legal arrangements exist between the Indonesian government and the UN. 
> 
> We don't know whether the host is willing to accept funds or if the UN processes allow it to.
> 
> We don't know what method of funding, if any, would be acceptable…directly to the Indonesian government, directly to the UN, directly to suppliers?
> 
> How would we ensure that the funds were actually spent on the IGF? Who would be accountable and to whom?
> 
> 
> b) Even if there is a real problem with the Bali IGF and even if 'we' can help in some way with sponsorship or funding, it is unwise IMO to conflate that with a much broader issue of IGF funding generally. This broader topic requires a ground up analysis of the current position, a clear understanding of what we mean by funding (the secretariat, the meeting, both?), what the restrictions are on the acceptance of such funding (could a country that bans a search engine company accept funds that include contributions from that company?) and so on.
> 
> And, none of that is within the mandate of the MAG as far as I can tell.
> 
> You can see from the above that I have significant concerns about the proposed approach and the letter. That does not mean I think there is nothing that can be done. For example, if sponsorship is an acceptable thing for an IGF meeting then those willing to contribute could approach the Indonesian organisers and offer that. 
> 
> I'll leave it at that for now but as always, I'm happy to continue to debate the issues on the list or a call.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris
> 
> On 30/07/2013, at 09:21 , Patrick Ryan wrote:
> 
>> Dear MAG Colleagues,
>> 
>> As we discussed on Friday, we are working with other colleagues in the private sector and elsewhere to try and fundraise for the IGF.  In order for this to work, we still need a number of things from UNDESA, the Host Country and others.  
>> 
>> I've taken a stab at an open letter (a draft) to be sent to various parties that makes these requests (a version has been cut and pasted below as well).  
>> 
>> Along these lines, I have a few questions for each of the MAG members (past and present)
>> 	• Do you have any comments to this draft letter?
>> 	• Would you be willing to sign the letter?
>> 	• If the answer to 2 is no, are there any changes that you would like to be made for you to be willing to sign it?
>> I look forward to your comments.
>> 
>> Patrick
>> 
>> =========
>> 
>> DRAFT OPEN LETTER, CIRCULATING FOR COMMENT AND DISCUSSION
>> Please provide comments by going in Google Docs here to Insert>Comment, or by email to patrickryan at google.com
>> 
>> To: 	Mr. Ban Ki-moon, Secretary General of the United Nations
>> 	Mr. Wu Hungbo, Under-Secretary-General for Economic and Social Affairs
>> 	Mr/Ms __________, Government of Indonesia
>> 	Mr/MS __________, ID-IGF
>> 	
>> 
>> Dear _____, 
>> 
>> The undersigned individuals and entities are all supportive of the Internet Governance Forum (“IGF”) and would like to participate jointly in an effort to keep the IGF in Bali this year.  The issues related to the possible cancellation are budgetary nature.  Many of us are working on a private-sector effort to help defray the costs of the IGF for now and the future, but we need your help to make this work.
>> 
>> The principle for funding UN meetings is found in Resolution 40/243 of 18 February 1986, which finds that meetings should be held at UN Headquarters, except "when a Government . . . has agreed to defray . . . the actual additional costs directly or indirectly involved."  As we know, all IGF meetings are held away from UN headquarters by design, and the IGF is not a government-only event as envisioned in 1986, the time that Resolution 40/243 was passed.  Instead, the IGF is multistakeholder as described in the Tunis Agenda, WSIS-05/TUNIS/DOC/6 (Rev. 1)-E, Paras. 72-80.  In order to finance the IGF’s activities, a trust fund has been organized by UNDESA in GLO/06/X01 and in Resolution 65/141 of 20 December 2010.  This Resolution addresses involvement and voluntary financing, and the U.N. General Assembly:
>> 
>> 19. Stresses that  the  consideration of improvements to the Internet  Governance Forum should be based on the inputs to be provided to the working group by all Member States and all other stakeholders [ . . . ] exploring further voluntary options for financing the Forum and improving the modalities of the preparation process and the work and functioning of the secretariat of the Forum; (emphasis added)
>> 
>> In light of the funding concerns, the premise in the Tunis Agenda is to include all stakeholders further, Resolution 65/141 stresses the need to find voluntary financing options.  In this spirit, we are mounting an initiative to provide the required financing to move the IGF forward.  However, we have the following requests:
>> 
>> Request #1, for UNDESA, the Government of Indonesia and the ID-IGF Committee: tell us what the fundraising goal needs to be. 
>> We ask the parties above to share with the community in a definitive and transparent way what the fundraising target is that is required to keep the IGF in Bali this year, together with details of the uses of the funds.  With a clear target number from the three parties above, the community can set targets for its fundraising effort, and further, the community can also evaluate what areas may be able to be supported through in-kind services.
>> 
>> Request #2, for the Indonesian Government: Reassure the community that the government will host the IGF if the funding issues are satisfied.
>> Even if the funding issues are addressed, the IGF will require the execution of a Host Country Agreement.  In order for the community to engage in fundraising activity for the IGF this year, we respectfully request assurance from the Indonesian government that the HCA will be signed.  Along these lines, a letter from the Indonesian Government to assure the community of the host country’s commitment will help counter the many rumors and reports in the press and provide a stable environment for our fundraising efforts.
>> 
>> Request #3, for UNDESA: Clear the path for Tides.  As of right now, if any individual wants to fund the IGF, they need an individual contract with UNDESA to do so.  Yet, Resolution 65/141 encourages the community to “explor[e] further voluntary options for financing the Forum.”  Consistent with this Resoultion, a non-exclusive proposal from Tides.org is in circulation with UNDESA and it is a matter of finalizing that agreement for Tides as a donoer (Tides is a non-profit that works with foundations, donors, corporations, social investors,  government institutions, community organizations, activists, social entrepreneurs, and others for social good benefit).  If the Tides proposal is finalized, it could broadly widen the ability for individuals and entities to contribute----and provide a model for other similar funds in the future.  Note that it will be crucial to ensure that all contributions are disclosed in a transparent way.
>> 
>> Request #4, for UNDESA: Share the budget details with the community.  This builds on Request #1, and we ask for further transparency in the IGF budget.  Although the projected budget for 2011-2015 is available on the IGF website, the budget has been significantly revised since 2011 and the revisions and current version are not available to potential sponsors.   Additionally, there have never been any details on in-country costs from any prior IGF, and while venue and other related local expenditures may not be necessary, the costs that are incurred by the UN and the IGF Secretariat for the in-country portion (for translation, security, personnel) should all be public.
>> 
>> Request #5, for UNDESA: Involve the MAG regularly on site selection issues and open the site-selection process up to transparency.  In the past, the selection of the host country has been a matter that’s solely between the Secretariat and the host countries, with no input from the MAG on either process or selection. Yet site selection is crucial to the functioning of the IGF.  In the future, the site selection procedures should be more transparent with clear public deadlines set for submission by candidate countries, together with information about what the IGF can do for local economies.  Although the ultimate decision on site selection can be made by UNDESA, we request that a committee of MAG members be constituted to participate in the selection and review process. This should start immediately for the selection of a location in 2014.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> cc:	Markus Kummer
>> 	Chengetai Masango
>> 	Members of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group
>> 	[ . . . ]
>> 
>> Sincerely,
>> 
>> 
>> Parties signing this open letter:
>> 
>> 
>> ______________
>> 
>> ______________
>> 
>> ______________
>> 
>> ______________
>> 
>> ______________
>> 
>> 
>> ------
>> patrick ryan 
>> public policy & gov't relations sr. counsel, free expression and int'l relations
>> patrickryan at google.com | +1.512.751.5346
>> _______________________________________________
>> Igfmaglist mailing list
>> Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org
>> http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Igfmaglist mailing list
> Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org
> http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org