[governance] IGC statement-questionnaire Final edits

[Natasha Primo]

Hello All,

I'm just catching up with all the emails and specific debates ...

Just on the issue of the  use of "unconditional":

On 15 Jul 2009, at 9:42 AM, Parminder wrote:

>
>
> Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>> On 15/07/2009, at 9:32 AM, Roxana Goldstein wrote:
>>
>>> I would like to suggest to add at point 7:
>>> - the need of translation of the material, documents, etc., to as  
>>> many languages as possible
>>> - the need to continue working in the improvement of the  
>>> participatory methodology, having as objective to assure equal  
>>> opportunities for the participation, incidence and appropriation  
>>> of the IGF for all -specially those of developing and under- 
>>> developed countries and minoritarian groups-.
>>>
>>> And of course, I would like to add me and the organization I work  
>>> at to the list of those who agree with and support this document - 
>>> if possible-.
>>
>> Whilst these are important points, I think broadening participation  
>> has been covered well already.
>>
>> As to the retention of "unconditional" in Shiva's text I don't  
>> think it has passed the test of consensus.
> I do however greatly agree with the spirit of why Shiva wants this  
> word in. Agenda driven funds, specially for policy related bodies,  
> can be worse than no funds at all. Can we agree to the term 'funds  
> with no conditionalities' or 'funds with no strings' attached. It is  
> common usage in international development aid discourse and also in  
> case of institutional funding support for policy related bodies. I  
> cannot understand why should we have problems with these nearly  
> universally accepted terms, and the normative implications that they  
> carry.
>
> parminder

Since the IGF is a multi-stakeholder forum it would make sense that  
funds that would broaden and diversify participation - from (L)DCs,  
under-represented geographic communities, CS, social groupings etc -  
do not privilege specific advocacy positions but are available to  
participants irrespective of what advocacy position they hold. By this  
I understand that a private sector representative from a (L)DC etc can  
have access to the funds as much as CS representative from the under- 
resourced CSO in the North. So, I also agree with the sentiment, but  
would support the idea for a formulation alternative to  
"unconditional" as its too closely associated - negatively with  
notions of not being "unaccountable".

I'm not sure that Parminder's suggestions work either ... but i would  
agree to retaining the idea behind the disputed text.



>
>>
>> Apart from that I do agree with Parminder that we should not at  
>> this stage water the statement down by including new qualifying  
>> words like "may need", "significant", etc, or by going soft on non- 
>> binding outputs. Our opponents don't mince their words ("We don't  
>> think the IGF should continue"), so why should we?
>>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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

//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\ 
\//\\//\/
Natasha Primo
National ICT Policy Advocacy Initiative
Association for Progressive Communications
Johannesburg, South Africa
Tel/Fax: +27118372122
Skype/Yahoo: natashaprimo








____________________________________________________________
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