Hello Natasha Primo,<br>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 2:11 PM, Natasha Primo <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:natasha@apc.org">natasha@apc.org</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;">
Hello All,<br>
<br>
I'm just catching up with all the emails and specific debates ...<br>
<br>
Just on the issue of the use of "unconditional":<div class="im"><br>
<br>
On 15 Jul 2009, at 9:42 AM, Parminder wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>
<br>
Jeremy Malcolm wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
On 15/07/2009, at 9:32 AM, Roxana Goldstein wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
I would like to suggest to add at point 7:<br>
- the need of translation of the material, documents, etc., to as many languages as possible<br>
- the need to continue working in the improvement of the participatory methodology, having as objective to assure equal opportunities for the participation, incidence and appropriation of the IGF for all -specially those of developing and under-developed countries and minoritarian groups-.<br>
<br>
And of course, I would like to add me and the organization I work at to the list of those who agree with and support this document -if possible-.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Whilst these are important points, I think broadening participation has been covered well already.<br>
<br>
As to the retention of "unconditional" in Shiva's text I don't think it has passed the test of consensus.<br>
</blockquote>
I do however greatly agree with the spirit of why Shiva wants this word in. Agenda driven funds, specially for policy related bodies, can be worse than no funds at all. Can we agree to the term 'funds with no conditionalities' or 'funds with no strings' attached. It is common usage in international development aid discourse and also in case of institutional funding support for policy related bodies. I cannot understand why should we have problems with these nearly universally accepted terms, and the normative implications that they carry.<br>
<br>
parminder<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
Since the IGF is a multi-stakeholder forum it would make sense that funds that would broaden and diversify participation - from (L)DCs, under-represented geographic communities, CS, social groupings etc - do not privilege specific advocacy positions but are available to participants irrespective of what advocacy position they hold. By this I understand that a private sector representative from a (L)DC etc can have access to the funds as much as CS representative from the under-resourced CSO in the North. So, I also agree with the sentiment, but would support the idea for a formulation alternative to "unconditional" as its too closely associated - negatively with notions of not being "unaccountable".</blockquote>
<div><br>"Unconditional" is to imply a larger accountability to the issue or cause. Used in this context, especially in the context of how the statement was framed, the word "unconditional" is unambiguous. <br>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><br>
<br>
I'm not sure that Parminder's suggestions work either ... but i would agree to retaining the idea behind the disputed text.<div class="im"><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>
Apart from that I do agree with Parminder that we should not at this stage water the statement down by including new qualifying words like "may need", "significant", etc, or by going soft on non-binding outputs. Our opponents don't mince their words ("We don't think the IGF should continue"), so why should we?<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org" target="_blank">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><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>
<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>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\/<br><font color="#888888">
Natasha Primo<br>
National ICT Policy Advocacy Initiative<br>
Association for Progressive Communications<br>
Johannesburg, South Africa<br>
Tel/Fax: +27118372122<br>
Skype/Yahoo: natashaprimo</font><div><div></div><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org" target="_blank">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><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>
<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>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>