[governance] Milton and the $ 175,000

Tue May 15 11:50:37 EDT 2007

>And I just pointed out to the facts, which you don't like. They are not bad
facts, they are just facts.

Veni, I like you spirit of inquiry. But please also see our desire to
discuss ICANN at the IGF in the same light.I am simply unable to understand
why some people here are bent on seeing our right to seek a discussion on an
important global governance body at IGF as a declaration of hostility
against that organization. When one is in public life one has to submit to
the public's probing. All governments, even the best ones, do.. And there is
always a healthy tension between those who hold representative power (ICANN
does as a global governance body) and its constituencies. It is not unique
to ICANN. 

We are as keen to discuss WTO, WIPO, ITU, UNDP etc (my group discusses all
of them a lot).. and, to make what I do a part of it, I will be very keen to
participate in a process that seeks greater accountability and transparency
of NGOs and sets standards for it (I think such a process is badly needed if
we are to establish greater credibility) ... So, can you explain to me why
ICANN, or people speaking for it, are making so much of a simple request to
have  a main session discuss ICANN.. I understand, the response here will
be, ICANN isnt important enough for a main session, there are other issues..
Frankly, I find this argument so specious that is isnt worth refuting it. I
know people who have earlier held that development etc are not really IG
issues now wanting that issue discussed as more important than ICANN.
Doesn't such a big constituency which often discuses ICANN (including this
group, whose such proclivity was rightly identified by Kieren) even have a
right to put it on the main agenda.. And were all groups and constituents at
WSIS with its strong ICANN undercurrents in IG discussions plainly stupid
people (even, as some may say, if it was mainly about ITU / UN trying to
take over ICANN, it still attests to the importance of the ICANN issue)

And even if someone really thinks ICANN isn't important enough, why would
some invest so much energy into refutation. That's beyond me. I think there
is  a stronger politics working behind this, which may (even) be legitimate,
but which, in case it is legitimate, should identify itself and its logic
and motivations clearly. That would be worth discussing..

So, lets leave this confrontation behind, and agree to work together to
improve our governance systems. Let ICANN have a lot of time (of a main
session) to present its point of view, and others have the time they are
asking for to discuss ICANN as well. 

Parminder 

________________________________________________

Parminder Jeet Singh

IT for Change, Bangalore

Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities 

Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890

Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055

 <http://www.itforchange.net/> www.ITforChange.net 

  _____  

From: venimarkovski at gmail.com [mailto:venimarkovski at gmail.com] On Behalf Of
Veni Markovski
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 2:00 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton Mueller
Subject: Re: [governance] Milton and the $ 175,000

Eh, Milton, Milton... 
There's so much grief in today's world...

On 5/14/07, Milton Mueller < <mailto:mueller at syr.edu>  mueller at syr.edu>
wrote: 

Veni, $87,500 per year for two years = what? Can you do the arithmetic?

The "two" grants you refer to are one and the same. You made it sound as 
if we were getting 87.5k + another 170k. You are off by 50% not 3%. And
you were flat wrong to say we didn't identify the source, because it's
the same Ford grant that was publicly announced. So I'm still waiting 
for a retraction.

Let me try to type it again (copy & paste, and btw, if I have said, as you
wrongully quote me, 87.5 + 170K, I would have been off not with 50% but with
approx. 200 % as 100% of 87.5 = another 87.5). And quite frankly, seeing how
you continue to not admit you made a mistake, I don't expect you to beg my
pardon....

>where it says that Milton has received $ 87,500 from the Ford Foundation
for that
>project, but nothing about the rest of the $ 170,000 rumoured to have been
awarded
>to the project only by the Ford, and nothing about other donors? 

So, I am not a native-English speaker, and I could be excused, when I make a
mistake, but here's how I read it, and you, as an English-native speaker,
probably would have read it the same, if you were not somewhat... I don't
know (afraid to publish a politically incorrect word here)...: 

" [syr.edu] says Milton has received $ 87.500...", but there's no
information about the rest of the $ 170.000 [rest = $ 82.500]... awarded to
the MIGP by the ford... [and are there other donors?]" Obviously for someone
like you, who knows everything around the IGP, you could have said, "Oh,
Veni, it's not $ 170K, it's $ 175K, and $ 87.5 is half of this; the
[syr.edu] reports in the excel spreadsheet you linked only the part of the
funding for the 2006-2007, but the actual grant is $ 175K. Instead, you
wrote it as if the amount $ 170 K is made by me. And I considered this as
you saying I am a liar. 

It's ok, everyone makes mistakes. Might be wise to be more careful when
you pounce in public, though. 

You're right, everyone makes mistakes, including you (unlesss, of course,
you consider yourself a God, huh?) ...

What was the point of this whole conversation, anyway? 

The point was that you said I am a liar. And I just pointed out to the
facts, which you don't like. They are not bad facts, they are just facts. 

veni

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20070515/2758f4ba/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20070515/2758f4ba/attachment.txt>