[governance] IGF Review Question 6 start
Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
isolatedn at gmail.com
Sun Jul 12 15:28:26 EDT 2009
Hello All,
There were two paragraphs in Ginger's original text in the section
pertaining to funding. The text I proposed was proposed to replace the first
of those two paragraphs, not both the paragraphs. In Ginger's earlier edit
Para 2 in that section talked about something different.
My response to this mail is inline.
On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 11:57 PM, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
[ Those Governments that already participate at the IGF may have to be urged
to participate with greater involvement with a higher level delegation, and
for these governments that have not had difficulty in funding their
delegations so far, this point is irrelevant. But there are other
Governments in the world for whom funding participation in IGF may not be a
considerable priority, and in some cases even unaffordable. So there was a
reference to Governmental representation in that preambulatory point. We may
have to add that not all Governments are so far represented at the IGF ]
> 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.
[ here we may say, "IGF already has made some funds available for
representation from Less Developed Countries, but such funding achieves a
limited objective ]
> 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
[ unconditional does not imply that funds may have to be disbursed without
even the basic condidtions that the recipient should attend the IGF and
attend the sessions etc. In this context "unconditional" means something
larger. If a Network Computer Corporation offers me a Travel Grant and I
happen to be a panelist in a session on Cloud Computing, I may be normally
expected to present a line of argument that propagates that the Cloud
Computing is very positive. I am talking about a system of Travel Grants
whereby IGF will pool funds from Business Corporations, Governments,
International Organizations, NGOs and UN, of which even if a sizable portion
happens to be from that Network Computer Corporation (fictional), I will
receive a travel grant and still be free to challenge the very concept of
cloud computing, if that is what I believe in. This is the unconditionality
that I have implied. More often than not Civil Society is funded by Donors
who sometimes make the recipient feel obliged in some way. The idea is to
appeal for funds from Donors who are beyond narrow considerations. I would
like to be funded by facebook for participation and still be free to
challenge facebook's privacy policy, if I feel that there is something to be
challenged. And would expect an entity as large as facebook to be beyond
such narrow considerations as to expect me to applaud its policies as a
recipient of funds ]
Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
> 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
>>
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090713/efb01444/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