[governance] Question 6: Comments on Shiva's proposed paras
Katitza Rodriguez
katitza at datos-personales.org
Mon Jul 13 17:11:48 EDT 2009
I agree with Jeanette,
On Jul 13, 2009, at 5:09 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
> 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
>>>>>> @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
____________________________________________________________
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