[governance] Question 6: Comments on Shiva's proposed
Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
isolatedn at gmail.com
Mon Jul 13 13:20:57 EDT 2009
Came to me marked Re: [SPAM] on the subject line. Michael might have missed
this.
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 9:57 PM, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com> wrote:
> Shiva and Michael,
> I would prefer that Michael re-phrase and propose the paragraph. Would you
> please do that, Michael? Thanks. gp
>
> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote:
>
>> 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<mailto:
>> 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 <mailto:gpaque at gmail.com>]
>> Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 11:18 AM
>> To: Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
>> Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org <mailto: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>
>> <mailto: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>
>> > <mailto: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>>
>> > <mailto: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>>>
>> > <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
>> <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>>>
>> > <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>>>
>> > <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
>> <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>>>
>> > <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
>> <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>>>
>> > <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
>> <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>>>
>> >
>> > <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
>> <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/20090713/559f5f92/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