AW: [governance] Question 6: Comments on Shiva's proposed paras
"Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de
Mon Jul 13 13:26:53 EDT 2009
With regard to IGF funding: This should be addressed to UN Member States who have created the IGF. The IGF is not a legal person in such a sense that it could collect money on a regular basis. But UN member states can do this. I agree that this issue has to be raised but we should be very carefully not to feed any illusions and to organoze unrealistic pressure into wrong directions. Look what happend with the Digital Solidarity Fund. The question of financing the IGF should be on the agenda of the UN GA in 2010 when the GA has to draft a resolution for the continuation of the IGF if member states plan to continue with the IGF.
wolfgang
________________________________
Von: Sivasubramanian Muthusamy [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com]
Gesendet: Mo 13.07.2009 19:17
An: Jeanette Hofmann
Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ginger Paque; Michael Gurstein
Betreff: Re: [governance] Question 6: Comments on Shiva's proposed paras
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 <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
<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