[governance] IGF Review Question 6 start

Sat Jul 11 01:37:23 EDT 2009

Hello Jeanette Hofmann and All,

The phrasing is rather conversational, more in the nature of discussing this
with the Caucus at this stage. The phrasing definitely needs work when this
idea forms part of the statement from the Caucus to the IGF Secretariat.

Here is the logic. The scale of funding suggested for Panelists ( and for
participants ) appears to be sizable in terms of the actual physical, direct
outlay by the IGF Secretariat as expenses for organizing the IGF.  But $
700,000 or even a million or a little more is minuscule if we pause for a
while to assess and understand the true cost of the IGF. Calcuate the time
spent by 1,000 of the most active particiapnts in deliberations in
preparation of the IGF, in lists, in observing MAG meetings, in email
communications with fellow participants and the time that actually is spent
traveling to attending the IGF.  A hundered hours spent by everyone of the
1000 participants is a fair estimate ? Plus 150 hours travelling to and
attending the IGF.   For these 1000 participants alone, it is (100+150) X
1000 = 250,000 hours of time that be valued at at least $ 50 per hour,
considering the profiles and positions of most participants,  which amounts
to $ 12.5 million for 1000 participants spent invisibly. Calcuate the cost
of time of more active participants, for instance, those assigned to IGF
work by Governments, Business Corporations, the MAG members and the host
team, and their support personnel. That would be an equal or a larger sum.
Add to that the actual IGF outlays by the host, sponsors and the IGF
Secretariat. Add to the that the cost of sending and receiving email
messages like this, and the invisible cost of online space for discussing
IGF issues.

For most participants, especially for me, the "economic cost" ?  of an event
such as this would be a concept a bit too technical, but my guess is that if
we assign an economist to estimate the true cost of a year's IGF meeting, he
would place his estimates somewhere (way) above $ 100 million every year.

A hundred million is spent visibly or invisibly, but for want of a visible
and direct million, the quality of panels are compromised, the diversity of
participation is compromised. My suggestion for a $700,000 (unconditional)
fund was kept low at that level, for a start. I would consider even more
liberal budgets for panelists and participants as mariginal expenses that
would double or triple the quality of the IGF.

Thank you
Sivasubramanian Muthusamy

On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 4:34 PM, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> the suggestions below seem unrealistic and a bit over the top. I find it
> important that the secretariat has steady funding to do its job (independent
> of stakeholders' interests) and that funding is available for active
> participants (i.e. workshop organizers) from least developed countries.
>
> The secretariat can encourage IGF supporters to donate money but it is not
> responsible for providing such funding. We should be careful about how we
> phrase such matters.
>
> jeanette
>
> 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/20090711/9cd9a86f/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