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

Tue Jul 14 10:23:08 EDT 2009

Hello Ginger

A quick reply, "unconditional" used in the text makes a huge difference.

Shiva.

On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 5:10 PM, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Shiva... I simply have problems with "unconditional". I do understand
> your point, but I think it can be misinterpreted. I also think that it is
> understood that grants made through the UN or the IGF Secretariat cannot
> have any strings attached as to position. However, is there a different
> phrase or other word you can suggest to convey your meaning? Are there any
> other opinions on this? If I am the only one who objects to "unconditional",
> we can leave it in. Thanks. Best, Ginger Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: >
> Hello Ginger, Hello All, > > Thanks for modifying this text, but what is
> wrong with the idea of > unconditionality? That part is excluded from the
> text ? > > IGC statements are sometimes? rushed out at the last moment, and
> in > the last minute rush as the deadline approaches, the time-constraint >
> justifies a more-than-necessary compromise, or the point is dropped >
> completely. > > I feel that it is signinficant to propose the clause of >
> unconditionality, perhaps for further debate at the MAG, and later in > the
> process of acting upon this point. > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > > > On
> Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 11:20 PM, 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 > 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 > > > > >>> 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 > > > > >>> 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 > > > > >> > > > > >>>> 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 > > > > >> > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > >>>>> wrote: > > Hi, > > -----Original > Message----- > *From:* >
> Sivasubramanian > Muthusamy > > [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com > > > > >> > >
> > > >>> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>] > *Sent:* > Sunday, July 12, > 2009
> 6:18 PM > *To:* > 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 > > > > > > >> > > > > >>> > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>>> 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 > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > >>>> > 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 > > > >
> ____________________________________________________________ > 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/20090714/7f69a129/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