[governance] Question 6: Comments on Shiva's proposed paras
Jeanette Hofmann
jeanette at wzb.eu
Mon Jul 13 13:14:32 EDT 2009
Parminder wrote:
> I think the call for stable and substantial funding is not made to the
> IGF as it exists but its parent system - the UN. The review is also
> being done by the UN system and not by the IGF.
>
> While we are it, we should insist that there is stable and substantial
> public funding for the IGF... I remember that IGC has called for it in
> an earleri statement. Public funding is important for unbiased working
> of the IGF.
I support that. The suggested language says something else:
"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."
Perhaps it would be easier to agree on the text if we didn't go into
details as to what we would like to see funded?
jeanette
>
> parminder
>
> Ginger Paque wrote:
>> 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
>>
____________________________________________________________
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