[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