[governance] IGF Review Question 6 start

[Sivasubramanian Muthusamy]

Hello Coordinators,

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.

Sivasubramanian Muthusamy

Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
Blog: http://isocmadras.blogspot.com

facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh
LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6
Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz




On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:

> On 08/07/2009, at 10:42 PM, Ginger Paque wrote:
>
>  "6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements
>> would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and
>> processes?"
>>
>> Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with
>> near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that the review
>>  should focus on addressing the issue of more inclusive participation.
>> More importantly, the energy not needed in a review of the current process
>> could be spent in the search for ways to foster more active inclusion of
>> rarely heard and developing country voices through, but not limited to,
>> remote participation.
>>
>> And here we include for example, Indigenous peoples worldwide, people with
>> disabilities, rural people and particularly those who are the poorest of the
>> poor and often 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.
>>
>
>
> This requires a willingness to consider the inherent limitations of
> structures and processes that may have seemed natural or inevitable in 2005,
> in the wake of a somewhat traditional intergovernmental summit.  For
> example, it may not be most inclusive and appropriate for the "forum" of the
> Internet Governance Forum to be conceived as an isolated face-to-face
> meeting held in a far-flung city.  Rather, perhaps the IGF should take a
> leaf out of the book of other Internet governance institutions such as the
> IETF and ICANN, in which most work and engagement takes place between
> meetings in online and regional fora, and for which global face-to-face
> meetings are more of a capstone for the work done elsewhere.
>
> Similarly, we must no longer avoid considering the need for new structures
> and processes for the IGF that would allow it to produce more tangible
> outputs through a process of reasoned deliberation.  In the past various
> such innovations have been considered - including speed dialogues, moderated
> debates, and roundtable discussions - but always the MAG has demurred from
> going through with these reforms due to the reticence of some stakeholder
> representatives.  Although it may be palatable to all - change never is -
> the IGC contends that the IGF as a whole will suffer in the long term it it
> does not prove its value to the international community by adopting
> mechanisms for the production of non-binding statements on Internet public
> policy issues.
>
> --
> JEREMY MALCOLM
> Project Coordinator
> CONSUMERS INTERNATIONAL-KL OFFICE
> for Asia Pacific and the Middle East
>
> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM
> 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg
> TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
> Mob: +60 12 282 5895
> Fax: +60 3 7726 8599
> www.consumersinternational.org
>
> Consumers International (CI) is the only independent global campaigning
> voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations in 115 countries, we
> are building a powerful international consumer movement to help protect and
> empower consumers everywhere. For more information, visit
> www.consumersinternational.org.
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090709/a74e0586/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance