[SPAM]Re: [governance] Question 6: Comments on Shiva's proposed
Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
isolatedn at gmail.com
Mon Jul 13 12:14:13 EDT 2009
The moderator could perhaps add the paragraph in full or in parts. As for
the text as already emerged, it may be a bit long, but the idea needs to be
clearly conveyed, so it may please be retained without condensing it
further.
Shiva.
On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 9:29 PM, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>wrote:
> I don't think the following:
> "The present attendees of the IGF do not represent all participant segments
> and geographic regions." ...
>
> is an appropriate replacement for:
> "we include for example, Indigenous peoples worldwide, people with
> disabilities, rural people and particularly those who are the poorest of
> the poor and often landless or migrants, those concerned with promoting
> peer to peer and open access governance structures built on an
> electronic platform, those looking to alternative modes of Internet
> governance as ways of responding to specific localized opportunities and
> limitations, and those working as practitioners and activists in
> implementing the Internet as a primary resource in support of broad
> based economic and social development."
>
> The latter is admittedly a mouthful but the problem is that these folks for
> the most part weren't included in WSIS, the IGF to date and the first
> statement presented isn't likely to provide much support for their specific
> participation in any future activities of the IGF either.
>
> As for the rest I'm not sure that beyond stating the principle that we need
> to go into so much detail on explanations, rationales and modalities... I
> would have thought that a couple of sentences or one paragraph would
> suffice.
>
> MBG
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 11:18 AM
> To: Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
> Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein; 'Ginger Paque'
> Subject: [SPAM]Re: [governance] Question 6: Comments on Shiva's proposed
> paras
>
>
> 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.
>
> 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/20090713/65069884/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