Hello Ginger<br><br>A quick reply, "unconditional" used in the text makes a huge difference.<br><br>Shiva.<br><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 5:10 PM, Ginger Paque <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:gpaque@gmail.com">gpaque@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">Hi Shiva...
I simply have problems with "unconditional". I do understand your point,
but I think it can be misinterpreted. I also think that it is understood
that grants made through the UN or the IGF Secretariat cannot have any
strings attached as to position.
However, is there a different phrase or other word you can suggest to
convey your meaning?
Are there any other opinions on this? If I am the only one who objects
to "unconditional", we can leave it in.
Thanks. Best, Ginger
Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote:
> Hello Ginger, Hello All,
>
> Thanks for modifying this text, but what is wrong with the idea of
> unconditionality? That part is excluded from the text ?
>
> IGC statements are sometimes? rushed out at the last moment, and in
> the last minute rush as the deadline approaches, the time-constraint
> justifies a more-than-necessary compromise, or the point is dropped
> completely.
>
> I feel that it is signinficant to propose the clause of
> unconditionality, perhaps for further debate at the MAG, and later in
> the process of acting upon this point.
>
> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 11:20 PM, Ginger Paque > wrote:
>
> Shiva has had to run to catch a train, and has asked me to
> continue this discussion. I have tried to find a middle ground,
> which is the following. Do please comment and suggest revisions.
>
> The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the IGF Secretariat to
> apply to the UN General Assembly for substantial funding for IGF
> programs and participation to further enhance the quality of
> programs to foster greater diversity of participation.
>
> There are two aspects to be considered in this regard: a) Present
> IGF participants representing various stakeholder groups are
> highly qualified individuals with diverse accomplishments but it
> is also true that IGF participation needs to be further expanded
> to include more Civil Society participants known for their
> commitment and accomplishments outside the IGF arena on various
> Civil Society causes. And b) The present attendees of the IGF do
> not represent all participant segments and geographic regions. We
> mention in for example: Indigenous peoples worldwide, people with
> disabilities, rural people and particularly those who are the
> poorest of
> the poor, landless or migrants; those concerned with promoting
> peer-to-peer and open access governance structures built on an
> electronic platform, those looking to alternative modes of
> Internet governance as ways of responding to specific localized
> opportunities and limitations, and those working as practitioners
> and activists in implementing the Internet as a primary resource
> in support of broad-based economic and social development. Funding
> possibilities need to be improved and it requires various efforts,
> but availability of various categories of travel grants for
> participants may help improve attendance by those not yet seen at
> the IGF for want of funds. The IGF already has made some funds
> available for representation from Less Developed Countries, but
> such funding achieves a limited objective.
>
> The true cost of the IGF (including all visible and invisible
> costs to the IGF Secretariat, participating Governments,
> organizations and individual participants) would be several times
> that of the actual outflow from the IGF Secretariat in organizing
> the IGF, as reflected in the IGF book of accounts. If an economist
> estimates the total visible and invisible costs of the IGF, it
> would be an enormous sum, which is already being spent each year.
> With an increment in funding for travel support to panel speaker
> and participants, which would amount to a small proportion of the
> true total cost of the IGF, the quality of panels and the
> diversity of participation could be significantly improved.
>
> With this rationale, the Internet Governance Caucus recommends
> that the IGF should consider budgetary allocations supported by
> grants from business, governments, well funded non-governmental
> and international organizations and the United Nations. The fund
> could extend travel grants to 200 lead participants (panel
> speakers, program organizers), full and partial fellowships to a
> greater number of participants with special attention to
> participants from unrepresented categories (unrepresented
> geographic regions and/or unrepresented participant segments and
> even to those from affluent, represented regions if there is an
> individual need).
>
>
> Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>
> As I said before, I support funding the participation of
> people from least developed countries. I do think that the IGF
> secretariat should have a reliable funding that ensure
> independence from private sector donations.
>
> I don't support the funding of business leaders, business
> class flights and expensive hotels. Since I don't think we
> agree on this latter part, I suggested to omit such details.
> jeanette
>
> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote:
>
> Hello Jeanette Hoffmann
>
> The IGC which makes this statement is fully aware of the
> PRESENT realities and the statement stems from a positive
> outlook unconstrained by the present situation. Another
> million or two or ten or twenty for that matter, isn't way
> beyond the reach of the IGF body.
>
> 1. When IGC calls for funds it is implied that the IGF
> will find a way to find funds to answer thiso call.
>
> 2. We need to make this statement if we do not wish to
> keep the IGF in eternal poverty,
>
> I am looking at your later response and notice that I
> would like it not mentioned what is funded. The statement
> is complete only with such a suggestion and in its present
> form, is there anything seriously objectionable with what
> it says about enhancing the quality of programs with
> greater diversity of participation?
>
> Thank you.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 10:08 PM, Jeanette Hofmann
> wrote:
>
> Hi, the issue is not that I would like to create
> another California
> as Michael G. suggests.
> Of course, it would be good if the IGF had more means
> to support
> people's participation. The issue is whether it makes
> sense to call
> upon somebody for funding who has no funding and spends a
> significant amount of time on soliciting donations for
> its own
> functioning.
> If we ask for money, we should specificy where this
> money should
> come from or how it could be generated.
> jeanette
>
>
> Ginger Paque wrote:
>
> Shiva... you need to address this concern. It is
> not only
> Jeanette who holds this view.
>
> Thanks, gp
>
> Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>
>
>
> Ginger Paque wrote:
>
> Thank you Shiva, I can see that you made a
> serious
> effort at compromise. However, there are
> still areas I
> cannot agree with. Please consider the
> following
> counter-proposal, and of course, we hope
> for comments
> from others as well:
>
> [The following text was re-submitted by
> Shiva, and then
> edited by Ginger]
>
> The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon
> the IGF
> Secretariat to substantially fund IGF
> programs and
> participation to further enhance the
> quality of programs
> with greater diversity of participation.
>
>
> The IGF secretariat has no budget to fund the
> expenses
> listed below. I don't understand why we would
> want to "call
> upon the IGF Secretariat to
> > substantially fund IGF programs and
> participation" in
> light of the lack of such funds.
>
> jeanette
>
>
> There are two aspects to be considered in
> this regard:
> a) Present IGF participants representing
> various
> stakeholder groups are highly qualified
> individuals with
> diverse accomplishments but it is also true
> that IGF
> participation needs to be further expanded
> to include
> more Civil Society participants known for their
> commitment and accomplishments outside the
> IGF arena on
> various Civil Society causes. Business
> leaders who are
> otherwise committed to social and other
> governance
> issues are not seen at the IGF, and not all
> governments
> are represented at the IGF. And b) The
> present attendees
> of the IGF do not represent all participant
> segments and
> geographic regions. This needs to be
> improved and it
> requires various efforts, but availability
> of various
> categories of travel grants for
> participants may help
> improve participation by those not
> attending the IGF for
> want of funds. IGF already has made some
> funds available
> for representation from Less Developed
> Countries, but
> such funding achieves a limited objective.
>
> The true cost of the IGF (including all
> visible and
> invisible costs to the IGF Secretariat,
> participating
> Governments, organizations and individual
> participants)
> would be several times that of the actual
> outflow from
> the IGF Secretariat in organizing the IGF,
> as reflected
> in the IGF book of accounts. If an
> economist estimates
> the total visible and invisible costs of
> the IGF, it
> would be an enormous sum, which is already
> spent. With
> an increment in funding for travel support
> to panel
> speaker and participants, which would
> amount to a small
> proportion of the true cost of the IGF, the
> quality of
> panels and the diversity of participation
> could be improved.
>
> With this rationale, the Internet
> Governance Caucus
> recommends that the IGF should consider
> budgetary
> allocations supported by grants from business,
> governments, well funded non-governmental and
> international organizations and the United
> Nations. The
> fund may extend travel grants to 200 lead
> participants
> (panel speakers, program organizers), full
> and partial
> fellowships to a greater number of
> participants with
> special attention to participants from
> unrepresented
> categories (unrepresented geographic
> regions and/or
> unrepresented participant segments and even
> to those
> from affluent, represented regions if there
> is an
> individual need ).
>
> Such a fund would enable the IGF to bring
> in more
> diverse opinions to the IGF from experts
> who would add
> further value to the IGF. It is especially
> recommended
> that such a fund carry no link as to the
> positions or
> content proposed by the presenter (as
> opposed to a grant
> from a business trust with stated or
> implied conditions
> about the positions to be taken). It is
> recommended that
> the IGF create a fund large enough to have
> significant
> impact in further enhancing quality and
> diversity of
> participation.
>
>
>
>
>
> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote:
>
> Hello Ginger, Michael Guerstein and All,
>
> Have revised the statement and the
> changes made are
> highlighted. This mail is best viewed
> with html /
> mime settings. ( for the convenience of
> those whose
> mail settings are plain text, I am
> attaching the
> text as a PDF file which would show the
> highlighted
> changes )
>
> Thank you
>
> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
>
> The Internet Governance Caucus calls
> upon the IGF
> Secretariat to
> fund the IGF programs and participation
> substantially and
> significantly to further enhance the
> quality of
> programs with
> greater diversity of participation.
> * *There are
> two aspects to be
> considered in this regard: a) WSIS/
> present IGF
> participants
> representing various stakeholder
> groups are
> highly qualified
> individuals with diverse
> accomplishments but it
> is also true that
> IGF participation needs to be
> further expanded to
> invite and
> include more Civil Society
> participants known for
> their commitment
> and accomplishments outside the IGF
> arena on
> various Civil Society
> causes ; business leaders who are
> otherwise
> committed to social
> and other governance issues are not
> seen at the
> IGF, and not all
> governments are represented at the
> IGF ( and
> though not for
> financial reasons, the present
> participants from
> Government are
> not represented on a high enough
> level ) - [ this
> sentence in
> parenthesis may be deleted if
> unnecessary as it
> is not directly
> relevant to the point ] and b) The
> present
> participants of the IGF
> do not represent all participant
> segments and
> geographic regions.
> This needs to be improved and it
> requires various
> efforts, but
> availability of various categories
> of Travel
> Grants for different
> classes of participants may help improve
> participation by those
> not attending the IGF for want of
> funds. IGF
> already has made some
> funds available for representation
> from Less
> Developed Countries,
> but such funding achieves a limited
> objective.
>
> The true cost of the IGF (including
> all visible
> and invisible
> costs to the IGF Secretariat,
> participating
> Governments,
> organizations and individual
> participants) would
> be several times
> that of the actual outflow from the IGF
> Secretariat in organizing
> the IGF, as reflected in the IGF book of
> accounts. If an economist
> estimates the total visible and
> invisible costs
> of the IGF, it
> would be an enormous sum, which is
> already spent.
> For want of a
> marginal allocation for travel
> support to panel
> speaker and
> participants, which would amount to
> a small
> proportion of the true
> cost of the IGF, the quality of
> panels and the
> diversity of
> participation are compromised.
>
> With this rationale, the Internet
> Governance
> Caucus recommends
> that the IGF should consider liberal
> budgetary
> allocations
> supported by unconditional grants
> from business,
> governments, well
> funded non-governmental and
> international
> organizations and the
> United Nations. The fund may extend
> uncompromising, comfortable
> travel grants/ honorarium to 200 lead
> participants (panel
> speakers, program organizers, who
> are largely
> invitees who are
> required to be well-received for
> participation),
> full and partial
> fellowships to a large number of
> participants
> with special
> attention to participants from
> unrepresented
> categories
> (unrepresented geographic regions and/or
> unrepresented participant
> segments and even to those from
> affluent,
> represented regions if
> there is an individual need ).
>
> Such a fund would enable the IGF to
> bring in
> really diverse
> opinions to the IGF from experts who
> would add
> further value to
> the IGF. It is especially
> recommended that such a
> fund may be
> built up from contributions that are
> unconditional (as opposed to
> a grant from a business trust with
> stated or
> implied conditions
> about the positions to be taken;
> 'unconditional'
> does not imply
> that funds may have to be disbursed
> without even
> the basic
> conditions that the recipient should
> attend the
> IGF and attend the
> sessions etc. In this context
> "unconditional"
> means something
> larger. It is to hint at a system of
> Travel
> Grants whereby IGF
> will pool funds from Business
> Corporations,
> Governments,
> International Organizations, well
> funded NGOs and
> UN with no
> implied conditions on the positions
> to be taken
> by participants*)*
> and may be awarded to panelists and
> participants
> unconditionally.
> It is recommended that the IGF
> create a fund
> large enough to have
> significant impact in further
> enhancing quality
> and diversity of
> participation.
>
>
> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
> Blog: <a href="http://isocmadras.blogspot.com">http://isocmadras.blogspot.com</a>
>
> facebook: <a href="http://is.gd/x8Sh">http://is.gd/x8Sh</a>
> LinkedIn: <a href="http://is.gd/x8U6">http://is.gd/x8U6</a>
> Twitter: <a href="http://is.gd/x8Vz">http://is.gd/x8Vz</a>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 5:55 PM,
> Sivasubramanian
> Muthusamy
> >
>
> >>> wrote:
>
> Hello Ginger
>
> Will have just a little time to
> spend on this,
> will review the
> complete questionnaire comments, and
> reword the
> Q6 comment, but
> don't really have a lot of time
> today. Leaving
> for the city in a
> few hours for a short trip, will
> find some time
> to work tomorrow
> as well, but not tonight.
>
> Would prefer this as an IGC
> statement, rather
> than as an
> independent proposal, which I could
> have sent it
> on my own but
> preferred not to.
>
> Shiva.
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 5:14 PM,
> Ginger Paque
> >
>
> >>> wrote:
>
> Hi Shiva,
>
> I was referring to Q6, as
> several of us -
> including myself,
> and Ian, as well as Michael and
> others, are
> not yet satisfied
> with the wording on the funding
> concept. You
> are welcome to
> continue the discussion and see
> if you can
> reach a consensus
> on it, but I suspect that by the
> time
> everyone is happy, the
> statement won't say much of
> anything. Could
> you review the
> thread on Q6, including Ian's
> answer to the
> complete
> questionnaire draft, and tell us
> what you think?
>
> Let's look at Q 3 separately, ok?
>
> Thanks. I appreciate your
> willingness to discuss.
>
> Best,
> Ginger
>
> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote:
>
> Hello Ginger
>
> You would like this
> submitted as my own
> comment, rather
> than as an IGC statement? Is
> this only on
> Q6 or does it
> also apply to Q3?
>
> There were further exchanges
> between
> Gurstein and me, and
> the misunderstanding are
> being clarified.
> Would you really
> feel that the entire
> statement has to be
> dropped as
> comment from IGC?
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 4:40
> PM, Ginger Paque
>
> >
> >>
>
> >
> >>>> wrote:
>
> Shiva, As there seems to
> be quite a
> bit of controversy
> about this
> concept and wording, and
> we are very
> short on time, I
> wonder if we
> could continue this
> discussion after
> the questionnaire is
> submitted, perhaps for
> comments to be
> submitted by the
> August
> deadline?
>
> In the meantime, you
> could submit your
> own comment,
> which would
> give you more freedom to
> make your
> point. Is that
> acceptable to you?
>
> Regards,
> Ginger
>
> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
> wrote:
>
> Hello Michael Gurstein
>
> A quick reply and a
> little more later.
>
> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009
> at 6:12 AM,
> Michael Gurstein
>
> >
> >>
>
> >
> >>>
>
>
> >
>
> >>
> >
>
> >>>>> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> -----Original
> Message-----
> *From:*
> Sivasubramanian
> Muthusamy
>
> [mailto:<a href="mailto:isolatedn@gmail.com">isolatedn@gmail.com</a>
> >
>
> >>
> >
>
> >>>
>
>
> >
>
> >>
> >
>
> >>>>]
> *Sent:*
> Sunday, July 12,
> 2009 6:18 PM
> *To:*
> <a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>
>
> >
>
>
> >>
>
>
> >
>
>
> >>>
>
>
> >
>
>
> >>
>
>
> >
>
>
> >>>>; Michael Gurstein
> *Subject:* Re:
> [governance]
> Question 6:
> Comments on Siva's
> proposed paras
>
> Hello Michael
> Gurstein,
>
> On Mon, Jul
> 13, 2009 at
> 2:50 AM, Michael
> Gurstein
>
>
> >
>
> >>
> >
>
> >>>
>
>
> >
>
> >>
> >
>
> >>>>> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> "The Internet
> Governance Caucus calls
> upon the IGF
>
> Secretariat to fund the
> IGF programs and
> participation
>
> substantially and
> significantly to
> further enhance the
> quality of
> programs
> with greater
> diversity of
>
> participation" sounds
> better?
> YES...
> Thanks.
>
>
>
> There are
> two aspects
> to be considered
> in this
> regard: a)
> The absence or
>
> non-participation of
> some of the world's
> most renowned
> Civil
> Society opinion
> leaders is
> noticeable;
> Business Leaders
> who are
> otherwise
> committed to
> social and
> other
> governance issues off
> IGF are not
> seen at
> the IGF;
>
> Governments are not
> represented on a
> level high enough
>
> HMMM.
> WHO/WHAT EXACTLY
> IS MEANT BY
> "RENOWNED CIVIL
> SOCIETY
> OPINION
> LEADERS"
> (IN SOME
> CIRCLES THERE
> ARE AT LEAST TWO AND
> PROBABLY MORE
> INTERNAL
>
> CONTRADITIONS IN THAT
> SIMPLE STATEMENT
> AND CERTAINLY
> NEITHER WE
> NOR THE
>
> SECRETARIAT SHOULD BE
> EXPECTED TO
> IDENTIFY WHO THESE
> "RENOWNED"
> FOLKS MIGHT
> BE.
>
> AS WELL,
> ARE WE LOOKING
> FOR CIVIL
> SOCIETY "LEADERS" OR
> FOLKS FROM
> CIVIL
> SOCIETY
> ORGANIZATIONS
> IN LEADERSHIP
> POSITIONS, OR
> ARE WE
> LOOKING
> FOR CIVIL
> SOCIETY
> SPOKESPEOPLE
> WHO UNDERSTAND IG
> ISSUES, OR
> ARE WE
> LOOKING
> FOR LEADERS
> OF RESPONSIBLE
> REPRESENTATIVE CS
> ORGANIZATIONS WHO
> HAVE A
>
> POSITION//OPINION/KNOWLEDGE ON IG ISSUES
> (EACH OF THESE
> CATEGORIES IS
> PROBABLY
> DISCREET AND
> COULD BE INCLUDED
> AMBIGUOUSLY
> UNDER
> YOUR
> STATEMENT.
>
> IF BIZ
> LEADERS THINK IT
> IS OF SUFFICIENT
> IMPORTANCE
> THEY'LL
> LIKELY COME, IF
> NOT, NOT
> AND NOT MUCH
> WE OR THE
> SECRETARIAT CAN DO
> ABOUT
> THAT AND
> SIMILARLY
> WITH
> GOVERNMENTS.
>
> I THINK
> THIS PARA
> SHOULD BE DROPPED...
>
>
> I am sorry, I
> don't agree
> with your negative
> interpretation of
> such a
> positive suggestion.
> Are we to assert
> that the
> present
> participants
> constitute a
> complete,
> representative, and
> ultimate group
> ? NO, BUT
> I'M HAVING
> TROUBLE SEEING WHAT
> NAOMI KLEIN OR
> VENDANA
> SHIVA WOULD
> HAVE TO
> CONTRIBUTE EITHER...
>
> I will have to browse
> a little to
> learn about Naomi
> Klein;
> Vendana Shiva is an
> Indian name
> that sounds
> familiar, but I
> wasn't thinking of
> these names,
> nor was my point
> intended to
> bring in anyone whom
> I know or
> associated with.
> Looks like
> you are reading
> between the lines
> of what I write.
>
> HAVING
> THE HEAD OF
> SEWA OR K-NET
> WOULD SEEM TO
> ME TO BE RATHER
> MORE USEFUL,
> "RENOWNED" OR
> NOT, AS THEY AT
> LEAST COULD TALK
> WITH SOME
> DIRECT KNOWLEDGE
> ABOUT HOW IG
> ISSUES IMPACT
> THEM AND
> THE KINDS OF
> THINGS THEY
> ARE TRYING TO DO ON
> THE GROUND.
>
> Again an Indian
> reference - you
> have used the word
> "Sewa" in
> your comment. Perhaps
> you are
> reading me as someone
> pushing
> the Indian point of
> view? I am
> not. I am born in
> India, a
> participant from
> India, I have
> faith in and respect
> for my
> country but I believe
> that in an
> International
> context I am at
> least a little wider
> than a
> national. I have been
> inspired by
> teachers who taught
> me in my
> school days that
> "patriotism is a
> prejudice" which is
> profound
> thinking which in
> depths implies
> that one must be
> beyond being
> patriotic and be
> rather global.
>
> (Will come back this
> point and
> write more in
> response to what
> you have written a
> little later)
>
> Thank you.
> Sivasubramanian
> Muthusamy.
>
>
> MBG
>
> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
>
> M
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You
> received this
> message as a
> subscriber on the list:
>
> <a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>
>
> >
>
>
> >>
>
>
> >
>
>
> >>>
>
>
> >
>
>
> >>
>
>
> >
>
>
> >>>>
> To be
> removed from the
> list, send any
> message to:
>
>
> <a href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
> >>
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
> >>>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
> >>
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
> >>>>
>
> For all list
> information and functions, see:
>
>
> <a href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber
> on the list:
> <a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>
>
> >
> To be removed from the list, send any
> message to:
> <a href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a>
>
>
> >
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
> <a href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> <a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>
>
> >
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> <a href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a>
>
> >
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
> <a href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a>
>
>
>
>
</blockquote></div><br>