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

Sivasubramanian Muthusamy isolatedn at gmail.com
Mon Jul 13 08:25:04 EDT 2009


Hello Ginger

Will have just a little time to spend on this, will review the complete
questionnaire comments, and reword the Q6 comment, but don't really have a
lot of time today. Leaving for the city in a few hours for a short trip,
will find some time to work tomorrow as well, but not tonight.

Would prefer this as an IGC statement, rather than as an independent
proposal, which I could have sent it on my own but preferred not to.

Shiva.

On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 5:14 PM, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090713/b6aff3f1/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