[governance] Question 6: Comments on Shiva's proposed paras
Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
isolatedn at gmail.com
Mon Jul 13 12:06:44 EDT 2009
Hello Ginger
On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 8:48 PM, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com> wrote:
> Thank you Shiva, I can see that you made a serious effort at compromise.
> However, there are still areas I cannot agree with. Please consider the
> following counter-proposal, and of course, we hope for comments from others
> as well:
Thanks. This looks quite agreeable.
Shiva.
>
>
> [The following text was re-submitted by Shiva, and then edited by Ginger]
>
> The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the IGF Secretariat to
> substantially fund IGF programs and participation to further enhance the
> quality of programs with greater diversity of participation.
>
> There are two aspects to be considered in this regard: a) 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 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 b) The present attendees
> 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 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. With an increment in
> funding 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 could be improved.
>
> With this rationale, the Internet Governance Caucus recommends that the IGF
> should consider budgetary allocations supported by grants from business,
> governments, well funded non-governmental and international organizations
> and the United Nations. The fund may extend travel grants to 200 lead
> participants (panel speakers, program organizers), full and partial
> fellowships to a greater 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 more diverse opinions to the
> IGF from experts who would add further value to the IGF. It is especially
> recommended that such a fund carry no link as to the positions or content
> proposed by the presenter (as opposed to a grant from a business trust with
> stated or implied conditions about the positions to be taken). 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 wrote:
>
>> 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 <mailto: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
>> <mailto: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>
>> <mailto: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>>
>> <mailto: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>>
>> <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>>
>> <mailto: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>>
>> <mailto: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>>
>> <mailto: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>>
>> <mailto:
>> 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/20090713/5845e356/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