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

Sivasubramanian Muthusamy isolatedn at gmail.com
Mon Jul 13 12:08:47 EDT 2009


Hello Michael Gurstein

I agree with your remarks.  A better funded IGF would be stronger and more
purposeful, so I feel that IGC should make this statement.

Thanks
Sivasubramanian Muthusamy


On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 9:13 PM, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>wrote:

> Hmmm... The California riposte...
>
> Jurisdictions are deluded/bamboozled/blackmailed into denying themselves
> sources of revenue (particularly by those who don't like the way that that
> revenue may currently or in the future be spent).
>
> Then when the challenge comes to spend some money, the jurisdiction (or
> their supporters -- usually the supporters of the status quo), can argue
> but
> there is no money to do what should be done...
>
> The result is that the things that should be done, but which require money
> to do them never get done and the status quo drifts merrily along... (at
> least until the banks stop cashing the IOU's or whatever...
>
> M
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu]
> Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 11:27 AM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ginger Paque
> Cc: Sivasubramanian Muthusamy; Michael Gurstein
> Subject: [SPAM]Re: [governance] Question 6: Comments on Shiva's proposed
> paras
>
>
>
>
> Ginger Paque 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:
> >
> > [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.
>
> The IGF secretariat has no budget to fund the expenses listed below. I
> don't understand why we would want to "call upon the IGF Secretariat to  >
> substantially fund IGF programs and participation" in light of the
> lack of such funds.
>
> jeanette
> >
> > 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
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > 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
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090713/d46fcfed/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