[governance] Question 6: Comments on Shiva's proposed paras

[Sivasubramanian Muthusamy]

(with apologies for having rushed this message without checking for semantic
errors)

Corrected message:
If the funding for the IGF is provided for by the UN member states, then the
statement as 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 Secretariat from acting as a Catalyst for a Fund that
is open for contributions from Business, International Organizations, NGOs,
Charitable Trusts and individuals?

If it is a question of increasing the contribution from Member States, the
scale of increase sought from Member States on this area is not significant,
and it may not be a burden 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 temporarily be unfulfilled. So the Caucus may find a way to word this
point in such a way that the idea of mluti-stakeholder contribution to this
multi-stakeholder fund is mooted.

It does not sound right that IGF as a multi-stakeholder forum is confined to
depend on contribution from one of the stakeholders only.


2009/7/14 Sivasubramanian Muthusamy <isolatedn at gmail.com>

>
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090714/4ef337b2/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