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

[Jean-Louis FULLSACK]

Dear all


I try as far as possible to stay in touch with the list and the discussions about the content of the document CS representatives officially hand over to the IGF Secretariat, as the expression of our visions and goals in the framework of the Sharm el Cheikh IGF meeting.

May be I missed some wordings, but -if it isn't expressly stated in another part of our document- I strongly ask for adding a sentence to the paragraph mentioned by Jeannette. This sentence should refer i.a. to the CS WSIS Declaration(s) for an open, shared and inclusive Internet, that means especially peoples in DCs that are largely lagging behind. Having in mind the necessity for their urgent issues to be addressed in the IGF process and decisions, we the CS representatives ask strongly for funding (in both terms of priority and share) in order to foster the active participation of DCs reprentatives and delegates in the IGF meetings and process.

It' our very duty and commitment as well as the expression of our true solidarity, to listen to and help our colleagues (including those of grass-root orgs), especially those from Africa and Latin America, for presenting their views, issues and needs in the IGF process. 

best regards 

Jean-Louis Fullsack
CSDPTT




> Message du 13/07/09 23:55
> De : "Ginger Paque" 
> A : "Jeanette Hofmann" 
> Copie à : governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Katitza Rodriguez" , "Sivasubramanian Muthusamy" , "Michael Gurstein" , "Wolfgang Kleinwächter" , "Parminder" , "Ian Peter" 
> Objet : Re: [governance] Question 6: Comments on Shiva's proposed paras
> 
> 
> So this would read (comments invited):
> 
> The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the UN Member States to 
> provide substantial funding for IGF programs and participation to be 
> used to further enhance the quality of programs and to foster greater 
> diversity of participation.
> 
> gp
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
> >
> >
> > Ginger Paque wrote:
> >> How would the caucus do this? Just by stating it in the questionnaire? 
> >
> > Our responses to the questionnaire will be published on the website 
> > and they will be reflected in the "synthesis paper that will be 
> > translated into all six UN languages as an official input into the 
> > 'consultation with Forum participants' at the Sharm El Sheikh 
> > meeting." As Parminder said, we can expect that this synthesis paper 
> > will get some attention.
> >
> > jeanette
> >
> >> That is not likely to go anywhere is it? How would be go about 
> >> carrying this forward? It would be great, but is it possible? I see 
> >> it as more likely to be a real proposal if the Secretariat applies 
> >> for/requests the funding. Can someone please help me on this? Thanks. gp
> >>
> >> Katitza Rodriguez wrote:
> >>> 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 
> >>>>>>>>> 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
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>> ____________________________________________________________
> >>>> 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/20090715/21119704/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