<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<TITLE>Message</TITLE>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.18783"></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial><SPAN class=646245511-11072009>I
agree with this suggestion and this analysis.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial><SPAN
class=646245511-11072009></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial><SPAN
class=646245511-11072009>MBG</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir=ltr>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr lang=en-us class=OutlookMessageHeader align=left><FONT size=2
face=Tahoma>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> Sivasubramanian
Muthusamy [mailto:isolatedn@gmail.com] <BR><B>Sent:</B> Saturday, July 11,
2009 1:37 AM<BR><B>To:</B> Jeanette Hofmann<BR><B>Cc:</B>
governance@lists.cpsr.org<BR><B>Subject:</B> [SPAM]Re: [governance] IGF Review
Question 6 start<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>Hello Jeanette Hofmann and
All,<BR><BR>The phrasing is rather conversational, more in the nature of
discussing this with the Caucus at this stage. The phrasing definitely needs
work when this idea forms part of the statement from the Caucus to the IGF
Secretariat.<BR><BR>Here is the logic. The scale of funding suggested for
Panelists ( and for participants ) appears to be sizable in terms of the
actual physical, direct outlay by the IGF Secretariat as expenses for
organizing the IGF. But $ 700,000 or even a million or a little more is
minuscule if we pause for a while to assess and understand the true cost of
the IGF. Calcuate the time spent by 1,000 of the most active particiapnts in
deliberations in preparation of the IGF, in lists, in observing MAG meetings,
in email communications with fellow participants and the time that actually is
spent traveling to attending the IGF. A hundered hours spent by everyone
of the 1000 participants is a fair estimate ? Plus 150 hours travelling to and
attending the IGF. For these 1000 participants alone, it is
(100+150) X 1000 = 250,000 hours of time that be valued at at least $ 50 per
hour, considering the profiles and positions of most participants, which
amounts to $ 12.5 million for 1000 participants spent invisibly. Calcuate the
cost of time of more active participants, for instance, those assigned to IGF
work by Governments, Business Corporations, the MAG members and the host team,
and their support personnel. That would be an equal or a larger sum. Add to
that the actual IGF outlays by the host, sponsors and the IGF Secretariat. Add
to the that the cost of sending and receiving email messages like this, and
the invisible cost of online space for discussing IGF issues. <BR><BR>For most
participants, especially for me, the "economic cost" ? of an event such
as this would be a concept a bit too technical, but my guess is that if we
assign an economist to estimate the true cost of a year's IGF meeting, he
would place his estimates somewhere (way) above $ 100 million every year.
<BR><BR>A hundred million is spent visibly or invisibly, but for want of a
visible and direct million, the quality of panels are compromised, the
diversity of participation is compromised. My suggestion for a $700,000
(unconditional) fund was kept low at that level, for a start. I would consider
even more liberal budgets for panelists and participants as mariginal expenses
that would double or triple the quality of the IGF.<BR><BR>Thank
you<BR>Sivasubramanian Muthusamy<BR><BR><BR><BR>
<DIV class=gmail_quote>On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 4:34 PM, Jeanette Hofmann <SPAN
dir=ltr><jeanette@wzb.eu></SPAN> wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid; MARGIN: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex"
class=gmail_quote>Hi,<BR><BR>the suggestions below seem unrealistic and a
bit over the top. I find it important that the secretariat has steady
funding to do its job (independent of stakeholders' interests) and that
funding is available for active participants (i.e. workshop organizers) from
least developed countries.<BR><BR>The secretariat can encourage IGF
supporters to donate money but it is not responsible for providing such
funding. We should be careful about how we phrase such
matters.<BR><BR>jeanette<BR><BR>Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid; MARGIN: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex"
class=gmail_quote>
<DIV class=im>Hello Coordinators,<BR><BR>As part of point 6, we may have
to suggest to IGF to work on ways of getting the IGF better funded to
extend unconditional travel support ( as opposed to travel support from a
Business Trust which may have implied conditions ) at least for panelists.
To begin with IGF may have to set up a fund to extend comfortable
assistance to about 200 lead participants ( panel speakers, team
organizers etc. ) which may have to cover standand class airfare for
distances upto 4 hours and business class fare for distances in excess of
4 hours, and hotel rooms for 5 days in one of the top two recommended
hotels with incidentals considering the fact that most of the panel
speakers invited would be high profile individuals who are required to be
well treated, This would require the IGF to find between $500,000 - $
700,000 as unconditonal support from Business, Governement, well funded
NGOs and International Orgnaizations and from the UN. Such a fund would
enable the IGF to bring in really diverse opinion to the IGF from Experts
who are not the ususal IGF participatns. It would also help those
participants who have a keen intrerest in contributing to panels but have
difficulty in traveling to the IGF.<BR><BR>Sivasubramanian
Muthusamy<BR><BR>Sivasubramanian Muthusamy<BR>Blog: <A
href="http://isocmadras.blogspot.com"
target=_blank>http://isocmadras.blogspot.com</A><BR><BR>facebook: <A
href="http://is.gd/x8Sh" target=_blank>http://is.gd/x8Sh</A><BR>LinkedIn:
<A href="http://is.gd/x8U6"
target=_blank>http://is.gd/x8U6</A><BR>Twitter: <A
href="http://is.gd/x8Vz"
target=_blank>http://is.gd/x8Vz</A><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV class=h5>On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Jeremy Malcolm <<A
href="mailto:jeremy@ciroap.org" target=_blank>jeremy@ciroap.org</A>
<mailto:<A href="mailto:jeremy@ciroap.org"
target=_blank>jeremy@ciroap.org</A>>> wrote:<BR><BR> On
08/07/2009, at 10:42 PM, Ginger Paque wrote:<BR><BR>
"6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what<BR>
improvements would you suggest in terms of its working
methods,<BR> functioning and
processes?"<BR><BR> Since the value and
effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with<BR>
near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe
that<BR> the review should focus on
addressing the issue of more<BR> inclusive
participation. More importantly, the energy not<BR>
needed in a review of the current process could be spent in
the<BR> search for ways to foster more active
inclusion of rarely heard<BR> and developing
country voices through, but not limited to,<BR>
remote participation.<BR><BR> And here we
include for example, Indigenous peoples worldwide,<BR>
people with disabilities, rural people and particularly
those<BR> who are the poorest of the poor and
often landless or migrants,<BR> those concerned
with promoting peer to peer and open access<BR>
governance structures built on an electronic platform,
those<BR> looking to alternative modes of
Internet governance as ways of<BR> responding to
specific localized opportunities and limitations,<BR>
and those working as practitioners and activists in
implementing<BR> the Internet as a primary
resource in support of broad based<BR> economic
and social development.<BR><BR><BR><BR> This requires a
willingness to consider the inherent limitations of<BR>
structures and processes that may have seemed natural or
inevitable<BR> in 2005, in the wake of a somewhat traditional
intergovernmental<BR> summit. For example, it may not be
most inclusive and appropriate<BR> for the "forum" of the
Internet Governance Forum to be conceived as<BR> an isolated
face-to-face meeting held in a far-flung city. Rather,<BR>
perhaps the IGF should take a leaf out of the book of other
Internet<BR> governance institutions such as the IETF and
ICANN, in which most<BR> work and engagement takes place
between meetings in online and<BR> regional fora, and for
which global face-to-face meetings are more<BR> of a capstone
for the work done elsewhere.<BR><BR> Similarly, we must no
longer avoid considering the need for new<BR> structures and
processes for the IGF that would allow it to produce<BR> more
tangible outputs through a process of reasoned deliberation.<BR>
In the past various such innovations have been considered
-<BR> including speed dialogues, moderated debates, and
roundtable<BR> discussions - but always the MAG has demurred
from going through<BR> with these reforms due to the reticence
of some stakeholder<BR> representatives. Although it may
be palatable to all - change never<BR> is - the IGC contends
that the IGF as a whole will suffer in the<BR> long term it it
does not prove its value to the international<BR> community by
adopting mechanisms for the production of non-binding<BR>
statements on Internet public policy issues.<BR><BR> --
JEREMY MALCOLM<BR> Project Coordinator<BR>
CONSUMERS INTERNATIONAL-KL OFFICE<BR> for Asia Pacific
and the Middle East <BR> Lot 5-1 Wisma
WIM<BR> 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg<BR> TTDI, 60000
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia<BR> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599<BR>
Mob: +60 12 282 5895<BR> Fax: +60 3 7726
8599<BR></DIV></DIV> <A
href="http://www.consumersinternational.org"
target=_blank>www.consumersinternational.org</A> <<A
href="http://www.consumersinternational.org"
target=_blank>http://www.consumersinternational.org</A>>
<DIV class=im><BR><BR> Consumers International (CI) is the
only independent global<BR> campaigning voice for consumers.
With over 220 member organisations<BR> in 115 countries, we
are building a powerful international consumer<BR> movement to
help protect and empower consumers everywhere. For more<BR>
information, visit <A href="http://www.consumersinternational.org"
target=_blank>www.consumersinternational.org</A><BR></DIV>
<<A href="http://www.consumersinternational.org"
target=_blank>http://www.consumersinternational.org</A>>.
<DIV class=im><BR><BR><BR>
____________________________________________________________<BR>
You received this message as a subscriber on the
list:<BR></DIV> <A
href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org"
target=_blank>governance@lists.cpsr.org</A> <mailto:<A
href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org"
target=_blank>governance@lists.cpsr.org</A>>
<DIV class=im><BR> To be removed from the list, send any
message to:<BR> <A
href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org"
target=_blank>governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</A><BR></DIV>
<mailto:<A href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org"
target=_blank>governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</A>>
<DIV class=im><BR><BR> For all list information and functions,
see:<BR> <A
href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance"
target=_blank>http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</A><BR><BR><BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR><INPUT
id=gwProxy type=hidden><INPUT id=jsProxy onclick=jsCall(); type=hidden>
<DIV id=refHTML></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>