[governance] Question 6: Comments on Shiva's proposed paras
Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
isolatedn at gmail.com
Mon Jul 13 23:02:29 EDT 2009
Hello Wolfgang Kleinwahcter,
If the funding for the IGF is provided for UN member states, then as the
statement has already been amended subsequent to your message effectively
CONVEYS the need and idea, which we hope would cause this action item to be
initiated by the UN. However, does the fact that UN has provided the initial
funding limit the IGF Secrearaiat from acting as a Calalyst for a fund that
is open for contributions from Business, International Organizations, NGOs,
Charitable Trusts and individuals
In that case the scale of funds sought from Member States on this area is
not a signifcant sum, and it may not be a buredn for Member States to commit
and grant the required funds, but if for some reason the process of debate
at the UN gets delayed on this action item, or if the decision is not full,
the need may at least be temporarily be unfulfilled. So the Caucus may find
a way to word this point in such a way that the idea of mutli-stakeholder
contribution to this mutlistakholder fund is mooted.
It does not sound right that IGF as a multi-stakholder forum is confined to
depend only on Governmental contributions.
Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
2009/7/13 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" <
wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090714/991713c1/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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