[governance] IGF Review Question 6 - additions Shiva and Jeremy
Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
isolatedn at gmail.com
Thu Jul 9 07:23:20 EDT 2009
sorry, (apart from point 3)
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 4:52 PM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy <
isolatedn at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hello Ginger and All,
>
>
> Will rewrite the text building in the flexibility, including suggestion of
> grants for participants, will do that by Monday as also contribute to the
> overall statment under point 6 (apart from working on point 4)
>
> Shiva.
>
> On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 4:26 PM, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090709/3c39545b/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
More information about the Governance
mailing list