[IGFmaglist] Draft Open Letter on Funding
Patrick Ryan
patrickryan at google.com
Tue Jul 30 09:32:35 EDT 2013
Dear all,
Yes, we can wait, but:
- The Indonesian situation is not rumor, we have independent
confirmation from our sources who work on those matters that it's real.
- The category of funding that we're talking about primarily is money
that the host country* pays to the UN*, although the Indonesians also
want help with their efforts on the ground, it's that first piece that
they've protested (and again, this is not rumor, and the Indonesians made
this case in meetings in Paris and in Geneva and in Beijing at ICANN);
- The Ministry of Foreign Affairs is ready to send the cancellation
letter anytime, which would give us a written position of the government.
They were going to send over the weekend but we've asked them to hold off,
but if the MAG wants the letter, we can ask for it, not sure that would be
helpful, though, since a definitive statement would be very difficult to
reverse;
- Chris, you are right that the trust fund has not previously supported
in-country funds (I've confirmed this as well in various calls I've had
with UN colleagues on funding). In fact, there's no information on any
in-country expenditures of any kind, either UN expenditures paid for by
host country or the host country's expenses;
- And finally, it's true that none of this has been in the official
mandate of the MAG: budget, host country selection, etc, that's all been
historically the IGF Secretariat and host governments. That doesn't meant
that the multistakeholder community shouldn't ask for more transparency and
involvement, however.
In the end, the MAG will need to support any of these proposed changes as
well as the position. If that support isn't there for this, there's no
value in me pushing it alone (and in fact significant downside for being
such a loud voice in this).
Patrick
------
*patrick ryan *
public policy & gov't relations sr. counsel, free expression and int'l
relations
patrickryan at google.com | +1.512.751.5346
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 3:21 AM, Peter Major <pmajor at bluewin.ch> wrote:
> Dear Chris, Markus and MAG Members,****
>
> ** **
>
> Thank you Chris for quoting Bill Graham. It is very helpful. I agree with
> Chris and Markus to proceed with caution. I think we should maintain the
> funding model for the IGF. It would be useful to know the official position
> of the host country’s government before deciding on any further steps.***
> *
>
> Sorry not being able to participate in the upcoming virtual meeting, but
> hope to have access to a short summary.****
>
> ** **
>
> Best regards****
>
> ** **
>
> Peter Major****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Igfmaglist [mailto:igfmaglist-bounces at intgovforum.org] *On Behalf
> Of *Chris Disspain
> *Sent:* mardi 30 juillet 2013 08:47
> *To:* Patrick Ryan
> *Cc:* Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org
> *Subject:* Re: [IGFmaglist] Draft Open Letter on Funding****
>
> ** **
>
> 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<https://docs.google.com/a/google.com/document/d/1gFbL06F7ZdE205jj8vO9HmCZGK80Oi3Da-DRDBeQRu0/edit> (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)****
>
> 1. Do you have any comments to this draft letter?****
> 2. Would you be willing to sign the letter?****
> 3. 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*<https://docs.google.com/a/google.com/document/d/1gFbL06F7ZdE205jj8vO9HmCZGK80Oi3Da-DRDBeQRu0/edit#null>
> * 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<http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/2013/TrustFund/Project%20document%20IGF2011-2015.pdf>and in Resolution
> 65/141 of 20 December 2010<https://docs.google.com/a/google.com/file/d/0BylRrf_lFlA9UGlwYkVDZGtnNDA/edit>.
> 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<http://www.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***
> *
>
> ** **
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org/attachments/20130730/22507d58/attachment.htm>
More information about the Igfmaglist
mailing list