[governance] Question 6: Comments on Shiva's proposed paras

Ginger Paque gpaque at gmail.com
Mon Jul 13 07:44:21 EDT 2009


Hi Shiva,

I was referring to Q6, as several of us - including myself, and Ian, as 
well as Michael and others, are not yet satisfied with the wording on 
the funding concept. You are welcome to continue the discussion and see 
if you can reach a consensus on it, but I suspect that by the time 
everyone is happy, the statement won't say much of anything. Could you 
review the thread on Q6, including Ian's answer to the complete 
questionnaire draft, and tell us what you think?

Let's look at Q 3 separately, ok?

Thanks. I appreciate your willingness to discuss.

Best,
Ginger

Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote:
> Hello Ginger
>
> You would like this submitted as my own comment, rather than as an IGC 
> statement? Is this only on Q6 or does it also apply to Q3?
>
> There were further exchanges between Gurstein and me, and the 
> misunderstanding are being clarified. Would you really feel that the 
> entire statement has to be dropped as comment from IGC?
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 4:40 PM, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com 
> <mailto:gpaque at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     Shiva, As there seems to be quite a bit of controversy about this
>     concept and wording, and we are very short on time, I wonder if we
>     could continue this discussion after the questionnaire is
>     submitted, perhaps for comments to be submitted by the August
>     deadline?
>
>     In the meantime, you could submit your own comment, which would
>     give you more freedom to make your point. Is that acceptable to you?
>
>     Regards,
>     Ginger
>
>     Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote:
>
>         Hello Michael Gurstein
>
>         A quick reply and a little more later.
>
>         On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 6:12 AM, Michael Gurstein
>         <gurstein at gmail.com <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>
>         <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>>> wrote:
>
>            Hi,
>
>                -----Original Message-----
>                *From:* Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
>         [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com <mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com>
>                <mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com <mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com>>]
>                *Sent:* Sunday, July 12, 2009 6:18 PM
>                *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org
>         <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>                <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org
>         <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>>; Michael Gurstein
>                *Subject:* Re: [governance] Question 6: Comments on Siva's
>                proposed paras
>
>                Hello Michael Gurstein,
>
>                On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 2:50 AM, Michael Gurstein
>                <gurstein at gmail.com <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>
>         <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>>> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>                    "The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the IGF
>                    Secretariat to fund the IGF programs and participation
>                    substantially and significantly to further enhance the
>                    quality of programs with greater diversity of
>                    participation" sounds better?  
>                     YES...
>         Thanks.
>
>
>
>                    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
>
>                    HMMM. WHO/WHAT EXACTLY IS MEANT BY "RENOWNED CIVIL
>         SOCIETY
>                    OPINION LEADERS"
>                    (IN SOME CIRCLES THERE ARE AT LEAST TWO AND
>         PROBABLY MORE
>                    INTERNAL
>                    CONTRADITIONS IN THAT SIMPLE STATEMENT AND CERTAINLY
>                    NEITHER WE NOR THE
>                    SECRETARIAT SHOULD BE EXPECTED TO IDENTIFY WHO THESE
>                    "RENOWNED" FOLKS MIGHT
>                    BE.
>
>                    AS WELL, ARE WE LOOKING FOR CIVIL SOCIETY "LEADERS" OR
>                    FOLKS FROM CIVIL
>                    SOCIETY ORGANIZATIONS IN LEADERSHIP POSITIONS, OR
>         ARE WE
>                    LOOKING FOR CIVIL
>                    SOCIETY SPOKESPEOPLE WHO UNDERSTAND IG ISSUES, OR
>         ARE WE
>                    LOOKING FOR LEADERS
>                    OF RESPONSIBLE REPRESENTATIVE CS ORGANIZATIONS WHO
>         HAVE A
>                    POSITION//OPINION/KNOWLEDGE ON IG ISSUES (EACH OF THESE
>                    CATEGORIES IS
>                    PROBABLY DISCREET AND COULD BE INCLUDED AMBIGUOUSLY
>         UNDER
>                    YOUR STATEMENT.
>
>                    IF BIZ LEADERS THINK IT IS OF SUFFICIENT IMPORTANCE
>                    THEY'LL LIKELY COME, IF
>                    NOT, NOT AND NOT MUCH WE OR THE SECRETARIAT CAN DO
>         ABOUT
>                    THAT AND SIMILARLY
>                    WITH GOVERNMENTS.
>
>                    I THINK THIS PARA SHOULD BE DROPPED...
>
>
>                I am sorry, I don't agree with your negative
>         interpretation of
>                such a positive suggestion. Are we to assert that the
>         present
>                participants constitute a complete, representative, and
>                ultimate group ?                  NO, BUT I'M HAVING
>         TROUBLE SEEING WHAT NAOMI KLEIN OR VENDANA
>                SHIVA WOULD HAVE TO CONTRIBUTE EITHER...
>
>         I will have to browse a little to learn about Naomi Klein;
>         Vendana Shiva is an Indian name that sounds familiar, but I
>         wasn't thinking of these names, nor was my point intended to
>         bring in anyone whom I know or associated with.  Looks like
>         you are reading between the lines of what I write.
>
>                        HAVING THE HEAD OF SEWA OR K-NET WOULD SEEM TO
>         ME TO BE RATHER
>                MORE USEFUL, "RENOWNED" OR NOT, AS THEY AT LEAST COULD TALK
>                WITH SOME DIRECT KNOWLEDGE ABOUT HOW IG ISSUES IMPACT
>         THEM AND
>                THE KINDS OF THINGS THEY ARE TRYING TO DO ON THE GROUND.
>
>         Again an Indian reference - you have used the word "Sewa" in
>         your comment. Perhaps you are reading me as someone pushing
>         the Indian point of view? I am not. I am born in India, a
>         participant from India, I have faith in and respect for my
>         country but I believe that in an International context I am at
>         least a little wider than a national.  I have been inspired by
>         teachers who taught me in my school days that "patriotism is a
>         prejudice" which is profound thinking which in depths implies
>         that one must be beyond being patriotic and be rather global.
>
>         (Will come back this point and write more in response to what
>         you have written a little later)
>
>         Thank you.
>         Sivasubramanian Muthusamy.
>
>          
>                        MBG
>                
>                Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
>                
>
>                                  M
>
>                  
>          ____________________________________________________________
>                    You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>                        governance at lists.cpsr.org
>         <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>                    <mailto: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>
>                    <mailto: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