[governance] Question 6: Comments on Shiva's proposed paras
Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
isolatedn at gmail.com
Mon Jul 13 10:55:58 EDT 2009
Hello Ginger, Michael Guerstein and All,
Have revised the statement and the changes made are highlighted. This mail
is best viewed with html / mime settings. ( for the convenience of those
whose mail settings are plain text, I am attaching the text as a PDF file
which would show the highlighted changes )
Thank you
Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
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. * *There
are two aspects to be considered in this regard: a) WSIS/ present IGF
participants representing various stakeholder groups are highly qualified
individuals with diverse accomplishments but it is also true that IGF
participation needs to be further expanded to invite and include more Civil
Society participants known for their commitment and accomplishments outside
the IGF arena on various Civil Society causes ; business leaders who are
otherwise committed to social and other governance issues are not seen at
the IGF, and not all governments are represented at the IGF ( and though not
for financial reasons, the present participants from Government are not
represented on a high enough level ) - [ this sentence in parenthesis may be
deleted if unnecessary as it is not directly relevant to the point ] 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. 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 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; 'unconditional' does not
imply that funds may have to be disbursed without even the basic conditions
that the recipient should attend the IGF and attend the sessions etc. In
this context "unconditional" means something larger. It is to hint at a
system of Travel Grants whereby IGF will pool funds from Business
Corporations, Governments, International Organizations, well funded NGOs and
UN with no implied conditions on the positions to be taken by participants*)
* 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 further enhancing quality and diversity of participation.
Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
Blog: http://isocmadras.blogspot.com
facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh
LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6
Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz
On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 5:55 PM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy <
isolatedn at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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/fa0a242e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: igf inputs to Q6 of the Review process.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 49571 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090713/fa0a242e/attachment.pdf>
-------------- 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