[governance] IGF Review Question 6 start

Ginger Paque gpaque at gmail.com
Sun Jul 12 14:27:36 EDT 2009


Thanks Shiva, this is considerably improved. I have edited the text 
slightly for readability, but otherwise left it the same. I like your 
concept, however, I personally question whether government 
representatives are missing at the IGF due to funding. I also question 
whether funds should be give "unconditionally" for use. Should mention 
be made of the funding already made available? What do others think? 
Best, Ginger


The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the IGF Secretariat to fund 
the IGF programs and participation in a substantial way, to improve the 
quality and diversity of participation. There are two aspects to be 
considered in this regard: a) The absence 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 are 
not seen at the IGF, and governments are not represented on a high 
enough level and b) The present participants of the IGF do 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 the IGF, the quality of panels and the diversity of 
participation are compromised.

With this rationale, the Internet Governance Caucus recommends that the 
 IGF should consider liberal budgetary allocations supported by 
unconditional grants from business, governments, well funded 
non-governmental and international organizations 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 opinions 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 create a fund large 
enough to have significant impact in the quality and diversity of 
participation.

Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote:
> 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 
> <mailto: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
>     <mailto:vanda at uol.com.br>]
>     *Sent:* Saturday, July 11, 2009 12:31 PM
>     *To:* 'Ginger Paque'
>     *Cc:* 'governance at lists.cpsr.org <mailto: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
>     <mailto:gpaque at gmail.com>]
>     Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2009 1:56 PM
>     To: Vanda Scartezini
>     Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org <mailto: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
>     <mailto:gpaque at gmail.com>]
>
>     > Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2009 11:43 AM
>
>     > To: Jeanette Hofmann; William Drake; 'governance at lists.cpsr.org
>     <mailto: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 <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 <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