[governance] Question 6: Comments on Shiva's proposed paras
Jeanette Hofmann
jeanette at wzb.eu
Mon Jul 13 17:09:03 EDT 2009
In my view, the caucus, not the IGF secretariat, should call upon the UN
Member States. Lets see what others say.
je
Ginger Paque wrote:
> Sorry, my mistake, so we would change the first line to read:
>
> The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the IGF Secretariat to apply
> to **the UN Member States** for substantial funding for IGF programs and
> participation to further enhance the quality of programs to foster
> greater diversity of participation.
>
> Is that correct?
> Ginger
>
> Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>> 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.
>>
> The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the IGF Secretariat to apply
> to the UN Member States for substantial funding for IGF programs and
> participation to further enhance the quality of programs to foster
> greater diversity of participation.
>> 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