[Rigf_program] Regarding UN ESCAP [was Poll: APrIGF 2014 Host Evaluation - Call for Preferences & Comments]

Adam Peake ajp at glocom.ac.jp
Fri Sep 6 11:40:48 HKT 2013 

I didn't know this history. 

Perhaps given ESCAP's new interest in enhanced cooperation they might now start to show interest in IGF?  3rd time lucky.

Parminder, could you introduce the ESCAP participants to the APrIGF.

Adam


On Sep 6, 2013, at 11:53 AM, Ang Peng Hwa (Prof) wrote:

> Fyi and for the record.
> 
> UNESCAP has been disappointing in its record of involvement with the
> APrIGF. In the Singapore meeting, and based on the suggestion of
> Parminder, the Bangkok office was approached a couple of times for
> support. We were looking for financial support first. But nothing there. A
> rep? Yes, at first. Then maybe. Then, sorry.
> 
> In Tokyo, there was no one from ESCAP either.
> 
> I have recounted the sorry episode to Parminder.
> 
> In Chinese culture, a big shot must be approached three times. Only when
> he says no the third time then can you take it that he means no. I suppose
> from that perspective, no harm giving UNESCAP another shot. (Pun
> unintended.)
> 
> Regards,
> Peng Hwa
> 
> 
> 
> On 5/9/13 3:30 PM, "Adam Peake" <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:
> 
>> Hi Parminder:
>> 
>> You have sent your comments to the right place, I think you can now
>> consider them being considered!
>> 
>> Government participation is a challenge, we've tried a couple of ways to
>> get more govt members involved with not enough success.  There was one
>> government person in the lunch meeting where we considered the proposals
>> to host the 2014 meeting (and thank you to her for joining and talking
>> part.)
>> 
>> That said, overall attendance by governments is quite high, and thanks to
>> the Korean hosts/Korean government for that.
>> 
>> About your second point, I hope we are all aware of this challenge and
>> the separation of program committee and host committee means there is
>> little or no likelihood of such problems.  Supporters should be
>> recognized and thanked, or there wouldn't been a well functioning meeting
>> and many from participants fromdeveloping countries would not be able to
>> attend, but balance important.  I think this Seoul IGF has it right.
>> 
>> Adam
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Sep 5, 2013, at 3:30 PM, parminder wrote:
>> 
>>> Thanks Adam
>>> 
>>> If possible please consider the suggestion that I gave in my last email
>>> in the proposed agenda item in today's meeting about review of process.
>>> 
>>> To sum
>>> 
>>> 1. Ask for government agencies support and partnerships
>>> 
>>> 2. Make clear that there will be no quid pro quo for funding support in
>>> terms of visibility (inside the forum), agenda shaping or speaking slots
>>> (generally, taking from UN IGF norms in this regard).
>>> 
>>> 3. Seek a plan for involving local level UN agencies
>>> 
>>> 4. Seek a plan for partnership with and outreach to NGOs, especially
>>> those that work on issues related to marginalised sections of the
>>> society ( all these should be serious considerations for selection)
>>> 
>>> Separately, at the APrIGF MSG level, please approach UNESCAP and other
>>> regional UN agencies to be a part of the APrIGF organising/ management
>>> system.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> best, parminder
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Thursday 05 September 2013 09:22 AM, Adam Peake wrote:
>>>> Hi Parminder,
>>>> 
>>>> Can't speak for everyone or the MSG, so just my understanding.
>>>> 
>>>> The meeting RFP is online
>>>> 
>>>> <http://aprigf.asia/documents/APrIGF_Request_for_Proposals_Local_Host.pd
>>>> f>
>>>> (and was developed though discussion on the open list, which of
>>>> course doesn't make in perfect, but does mean it was created through a
>>>> transparent process.)
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Sep 2, 2013, at 1:21 PM, parminder wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> Dear All
>>>>> 
>>>>> I will not get into comparative evaluation since I can be considered
>>>>> an interested party :). I of course will like to have it in my country
>>>>> which is India.
>>>>> 
>>>>> On another note, as I see the bids, while they mention the likely
>>>>> corporate sponsors that the potential hosts should be able to attract,
>>>>> there is no mention of the existing/ likely partnerships with
>>>>> national/ state/ local government agencies. If I remember right, the
>>>>> official document of APrIGF which is used for inviting bids for
>>>>> hosting APrIGF does not make this demand, of listing government
>>>>> involvement/ partnerships, while it does ask for potential corporate
>>>>> funding sources. (I may be wrong. Can the secretariat please forward
>>>>> to me the concerned document. Thanks.)
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> You're right, there's no requirement to list government involvement or
>>>> support, only to invite government speakers.  And it might be a good
>>>> idea to make recommendation that the host seek government support for
>>>> holding the meeting.  But best to discuss this to make sure there
>>>> wouldn't be any unexpected consequences.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> Also, I have since long been asking for involvement of regional UN
>>>>> agencies in organising APrIGF. As far as I know there has been no
>>>>> serious effort made in this direction. But again I may be wrong and am
>>>>> happy to be corrected. Especially UNESCAP should be invited into the
>>>>> organising committee. (UNESCAP, incidentally, is now a member of UN
>>>>> Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation.)
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> The IGF's organized under UNDESA and I believe UNESCAP would be from a
>>>> different arm of the UN (As a par of ECOSOC having ESCAP participate in
>>>> the CSTD process is logical and a fit with the usual UN structures).
>>>> Informing regional UN organizations (also UNDP?) might be helpful, but
>>>> perhaps not in the organization of the event.  And I don't think we did
>>>> that this year, however there was  outreach to the regions governments,
>>>> and the local hosts have been successful in providing support for
>>>> representatives from some developing country governments.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> Lastly, connected to the recent controversy on what got called as
>>>>> 'commericialisation of the IGF' ( including by Markus Kummer), I will
>>>>> like to seek a clarification about what is the quid pro quo if any for
>>>>> the corporate funding that may be sought. And whether it is made clear
>>>>> to potential bidders that while 'voluntary' funding is welcome, it
>>>>> would not be against any special favours, of visibility, agenda
>>>>> setting or speaking slots.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> The agenda, workshops, speakers etc are developed by the program
>>>> committee, not by the local host.  Thus I think the risk of the type of
>>>> commercialization you are concerned about is minimal.  The program
>>>> committee runs an open process, from discussing the themes and agenda
>>>> to selection of workshops.
>>>> 
>>>> Hope this helps.
>>>> 
>>>> Adam
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> thanks, parminder
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Saturday 31 August 2013 10:26 PM, APrIGF Secretariat wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Dear MSG members,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> After several call meetings to discuss about the 2014 local host,
>>>>>> would like to further call for preference and comments from all the
>>>>>> MSG members to both proposals.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Attached again the revised comparison sheet and the 2 proposals.
>>>>>> 1. ISPAI & NIXI
>>>>>> 2. Department of Computer Science, University of Philippines Cebu
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Selection Process:
>>>>>> - Secretariat has sent the comparison sheet to both proponents
>>>>>> allowing supplementary information submission by 3 Sep
>>>>>> - MSG to further comment and indicate preferences on the mailing
>>>>>> lists by 4 Sep (Wed)
>>>>>> - Comments will be bring forward to draw a recommendation
>>>>>> - Meeting will be held in Seoul to ratify the final decision
>>>>>> *Remote participation is available and encouraged for those PC
>>>>>> members who cannot attend physically
>>>>>> *WebEx meeting details will be provided soon.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 1st meeting
>>>>>> Date: 5 Sep (Thu)
>>>>>> Time: 13:00 - 14:00 (Korea Time UTC+9)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 2nd meeting (Depends on progress on Thu)
>>>>>> Date: 6 Sep (Fri)
>>>>>> Time: 13:00 - 14:00 (Korea Time UTC+9)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Important To-Do:
>>>>>> - Please kindly confirm your participation on-site by 2 Sep (Mon) so
>>>>>> that KISA can prepare the lunch box for us?
>>>>>> - Could you also confirm your remote participation so that we can
>>>>>> ensure enough quorum and stakeholder representation?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thank you very much for your attention. We hope the process outlined
>>>>>> would help strengthen our transparency and multi-stakeholder
>>>>>> participation on the process.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Best Regards,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Yannis Li
>>>>>> Secretariat of APrIGF
>>>>>> DotAsia Organisation Ltd.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> --------------------------
>>>>>> Address: 12F, Daily House, 35-37 Haiphong Road, Tsim Sha Tsui, Hong
>>>>>> Kong
>>>>>> Tel: +852 5802 2500   ＿Fax: +852 5802 2502  ＿
>>>>>> http://www.aprigf.asia
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Rigf_program mailing list
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Rigf_program at aprigf.asia
>>>>>> https://mailman.dotasia.org/mailman/listinfo/rigf_program
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Rigf_program mailing list
>>>>> 
>>>>> Rigf_program at aprigf.asia
>>>>> https://mailman.dotasia.org/mailman/listinfo/rigf_program
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Rigf_program mailing list
>> Rigf_program at aprigf.asia
>> https://mailman.dotasia.org/mailman/listinfo/rigf_program
> 
> 
> CONFIDENTIALITY:This email is intended solely for the person(s) named and may be confidential and/or privileged.If you are not the intended recipient,please delete it,notify us and do not copy,use,or disclose its content.
> 
> Towards A Sustainable Earth:Print Only When Necessary.Thank you.


_______________________________________________
Rigf_program mailing list
Rigf_program at aprigf.asia
https://mailman.dotasia.org/mailman/listinfo/rigf_program

More information about the Rigf_secretariat mailing list