[governance] IGC statement-questionnaire Final edits

[Sivasubramanian Muthusamy]

Hello Natasha Primo,


On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 2:11 PM, Natasha Primo <natasha at apc.org> wrote:

> 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".


"Unconditional" is to imply a larger accountability to the issue or cause.
Used in this context, especially in the context of how the statement was
framed, the word "unconditional" is unambiguous.


>
>
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090715/049021af/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