[governance] Question 6: Comments on Shiva's proposed paras
Jeanette Hofmann
jeanette at wzb.eu
Mon Jul 13 13:24:47 EDT 2009
As I said before, I support funding the participation of people from
least developed countries. I do think that the IGF secretariat should
have a reliable funding that ensure independence from private sector
donations.
I don't support the funding of business leaders, business class flights
and expensive hotels. Since I don't think we agree on this latter part,
I suggested to omit such details.
jeanette
Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote:
> Hello Jeanette Hoffmann
>
> The IGC which makes this statement is fully aware of the PRESENT
> realities and the statement stems from a positive outlook unconstrained
> by the present situation. Another million or two or ten or twenty for
> that matter, isn't way beyond the reach of the IGF body.
>
> 1. When IGC calls for funds it is implied that the IGF will find a way
> to find funds to answer thiso call.
>
> 2. We need to make this statement if we do not wish to keep the IGF in
> eternal poverty,
>
> I am looking at your later response and notice that I would like it not
> mentioned what is funded. The statement is complete only with such a
> suggestion and in its present form, is there anything seriously
> objectionable with what it says about enhancing the quality of programs
> with greater diversity of participation?
>
> Thank you.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 10:08 PM, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:
>
> Hi, the issue is not that I would like to create another California
> as Michael G. suggests.
> Of course, it would be good if the IGF had more means to support
> people's participation. The issue is whether it makes sense to call
> upon somebody for funding who has no funding and spends a
> significant amount of time on soliciting donations for its own
> functioning.
> If we ask for money, we should specificy where this money should
> come from or how it could be generated.
> jeanette
>
>
> 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>
> <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
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> 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>
>
> 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 <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>
>
> 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