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

Cheryl Langdon-Orr langdonorr at gmail.com
Fri Sep 6 11:54:39 HKT 2013 

Lets  hope so...

*Cheryl Langdon-Orr ...  **(CLO)*
 http://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr


On 6 September 2013 13:40, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:

> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.dotasia.org/pipermail/rigf_secretariat/attachments/20130906/e3ecd852/attachment-0001.html 
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
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