[governance] Question 6: Comments on Shiva's proposed paras
Jeanette Hofmann
jeanette at wzb.eu
Mon Jul 13 16:53:58 EDT 2009
Hi Ginger, what is wrong with Wolfgang's suggestion:
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.
jeanette
Ginger Paque wrote:
> Shiva has had to run to catch a train, and has asked me to continue this
> discussion. I have tried to find a middle ground, which is the
> following. Do please comment and suggest revisions.
>
> The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the IGF Secretariat to apply
> to the UN General Assembly for substantial funding for IGF programs and
> participation to further enhance the quality of programs to foster
> 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.
> And b) The present attendees of the IGF do not represent all participant
> segments and geographic regions. We mention in for example: Indigenous
> peoples worldwide, people with disabilities, rural people and
> particularly those who are the poorest of
> the poor, 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. Funding possibilities need
> to be improved and it requires various efforts, but availability of
> various categories of travel grants for participants may help improve
> attendance by those not yet seen at the IGF for want of funds. The 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 being spent each year. With an increment in funding for travel
> support to panel speaker and participants, which would amount to a small
> proportion of the true total cost of the IGF, the quality of panels and
> the diversity of participation could be significantly 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 could 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).
>
> Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>> 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