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

Ginger Paque gpaque at gmail.com
Mon Jul 13 12:28:18 EDT 2009


Shiva... you need to address this concern. It is not only Jeanette who 
holds this view.

Thanks, gp

Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>
>
> 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



More information about the Governance mailing list