[governance] IGF Review Question 6 - additions Shiva and Jeremy
Ginger Paque
gpaque at gmail.com
Thu Jul 9 06:56:04 EDT 2009
Thanks Shiva and Jeremy.
Jeremy's text and Shiva's idea are added to the new version below for
your consideration. I think we should remember that the Secretariat is
asking for new ideas that can change the IGF for the better, so this
should not be interpreted as criticism, but as a suggestion towards the
way forward.
Shiva, thanks for your work on this. A gentle request: these discussions
are directed to the whole IGC, so it would be more appropriate to greet
everyone at the beginning of your email. After you finish your exam,
could you please go ahead and prepare a proposed draft on this point (6)
as well? Since we need to submit by Wednesday, that allows us to get
ahead on the final wording while discussion is still going on.
On Shiva's point: I like the idea of a fund for participation. Two
things that might considered: a) Should funding be focused on need and
inclusion rather than speakers who might be able to pay their own way?
b) the terms are quite clear and demanding. Adding some flexibility, or
being less specific about business class flights and top hotels might
make this proposal more acceptable.
We should all be commenting on concept and ideas, while wording is going
on in parallel. Please opine, everyone: this is a solid opportunity for
participation. This is where our collective voice can be heard/read. If
your primary organization has already submitted a statement, are there
points from it you would like the IGC to consider including as well, to
reinforce its strength?
"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.
[Text to be re-written by Shiva]
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 standard class airfare for
distances up to 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 unconditional support from Business, Government, well-funded
NGOs and International Organizations 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 usual IGF participants. It would also help those
participants who have a keen interest in contributing to panels but have
difficulty in traveling to the IGF.
Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote:
> 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
> <mailto: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 <http://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
> <http://www.consumersinternational.org>.
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> governance at lists.cpsr.org <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> <mailto:governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org>
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>
____________________________________________________________
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
More information about the Governance
mailing list