[governance] IGF Review Question 6 start

Sun Jul 12 13:17:43 EDT 2009

Hello All,

Here is the part I am asked to work on, which may be appended to the IGC
response to Q6:

 The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the IGF Secretariat to fund the
IGF programs and participation substantially and significantly better to
improve the quality and diversity of participation. There are two aspects to
be considered in this regard: a) The absence or non-participation of some of
the world's most renowned Civil Society opinion leaders is noticeable;
Business Leaders who are otherwise committed to social and other governance
issues off IGF are not seen at the IGF; Governments are not represented on a
level high enough and b) The present participants of the IGF does not
represent all participant segments and geographic regions. This needs to be
improved and it requires various efforts, but availability of various
categories of Travel Grants for different classes of participants may help
improve participation by those not attending the IGF for want of funds.

The true cost of the IGF (including all visible and invisible costs to the
IGF Secretariat, participating Governments, Organizations and individual
participants) would be several times that of the actual outflow from the IGF
Secretariat in organizing the IGF, as reflected in the IGF book of accounts.
If an economist estimates the total visible and invisible costs of the IGF,
it would be an enormous sum, which is already spent. For want of a marginal
allocation for travel support to panel speaker and participants, which would
amount to a small proportion of the True cost of IGF, the quality of panels
and the diversity of participation are compromised. With this rationale, the
Internet Governance Caucus recommends that IGF should consider liberal
budgetary allocations supported by unconditional grants from Business,
Governments, well funded Non Governmental and International Organization and
the United Nations. The fund may extend uncompromising, comfortable Travel
grants/ honorarium to 200 lead participants (panel speakers, program
organizers, who are largely invitees who are required to be well received
for participation), full and partial fellowships to a large number of
participants with special attention to participants from unrepresented
categories (unrepresented geographic regions and/or unrepresented
participant segments and even to those from affluent, represented regions if
there is an individual need ). Such a fund would enable the IGF to bring in
really diverse opinion to the IGF from Experts who would add further value
to the IGF. It is especially recommended that such a fund may be built up
from contributions that are unconditional (as opposed to a grant from a
Business Trust with stated or implied conditions about the positions to be
taken) and may be awarded to panelists and participants unconditionally. It
is recommended that the IGF creates a fund large enough to have significant
impact in the quality and diversity of participation.

Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
Blog: http://isocmadras.blogspot.com
http://www.onewebday.org/stories

On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 5:36 PM, Vanda Scartezini <vanda at uol.com.br> wrote:

>   Hi Ginger, trying again. See below.
>
>  Best,
>
>
>
> *Vanda Scartezini*
>
> *POLO Consultores Associados*
>
> *&  IT Trend*
>
> *Alameda Santos 1470 cjs 1407/8*
>
> *01418-903 Sao Paulo,SP.*
>
> *Fone + 55 11 3266.6253*
>
> *Mob + 5511 8181.1464***
>
>
>
> *From:* Vanda Scartezini [mailto:vanda at uol.com.br]
> *Sent:* Saturday, July 11, 2009 12:31 PM
> *To:* 'Ginger Paque'
> *Cc:* 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'
> *Subject:* RE: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 start
> *Importance:* High
>
>
>
> Hi Ginger
>
>  Here my feedback
>
>
>
> "6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements
> would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and
> processes?"
>
>
>
>
>
> Considering the relevance of IGF and its achievements during its term and
> the need to spread and improve the resulting information and policies, IGF
> shall support regional forums around the world, using its mission and brand
> to strength movements already existents in some regions and to help others
> to start.
>
> The regional forums - holding the stakeholder model,signature and the
> support of IGF – shall be a powerful tool to help the implementation, in a
> regional/ local level, of several suggestion raised during these years.
>
>
>
>
>
> Best to all
>
>
>
>
>
> *Vanda Scartezini*
>
> *POLO Consultores Associados*
>
> *&  IT Trend*
>
> *Alameda Santos 1470 cjs 1407/8*
>
> *01418-903 Sao Paulo,SP.*
>
> *Fone + 55 11 3266.6253*
>
> *Mob + 5511 8181.1464***
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2009 1:56 PM
> To: Vanda Scartezini
> Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 start
>
>
>
> Vanda, could you please draft a final text to add to the response to
>
> Question 6, stating your point?
>
>
>
> Vanda Scartezini wrote:
>
> > Dear all
>
> > As I had the opportunity to state in public forums, my proposal is to
> define
>
> > (where there is not) and enhance (where already exist as in Latin
> America)
>
> > regional forums, given them the IGF name and support, in order to get
>
> > specific issues of regional interest raised and with several suggestion,
>
> > have more chance to see those issues implemented by local governments/
>
> > communities.
>
> >  I believe IGF has achieved one huge goal which is put over the table the
>
> > importance of internet for all stakeholders, but  it needs to help the
>
> > implementation of several suggestion raised during these years, and since
>
> > implementation occurs at local level is more than relevant to encourage
> IGF
>
> > regional meetings with the signature and the strength of the IGF
>
> > Best to all,
>
> > Vanda Scartezini
>
> > POLO Consultores Associados
>
> > &  IT Trend
>
> > Alameda Santos 1470 cjs 1407/8
>
> > 01418-903 Sao Paulo,SP.
>
> > Fone + 55 11 3266.6253
>
> > Mob + 5511 8181.1464
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > -----Original Message-----
>
> > From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com]
>
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2009 11:43 AM
>
> > To: Jeanette Hofmann; William Drake; 'governance at lists.cpsr.org';
> 'Ginger
>
> > Paque'
>
> > Subject: [governance] IGF Review Question 6 start
>
> >
>
> > Working on Jeanette and Bill's suggestions, and noting that we can
>
> > submit answers to some questions without necessarily including all of
>
> > them, I ask that anyone who is interested open a thread and start
>
> > discussion on that question.
>
> >
>
> > "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.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > ____________________________________________________________
>
> > 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
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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/20090712/5737463e/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