[governance] A couple of thoughts for the MAG discussion

Sivasubramanian M isolatedn at gmail.com
Thu Feb 16 04:10:02 EST 2012


Dear Mike,

What IGC needs to work on, with support from civil society
organization and Internet organizations, is a Civil Society Fund. The
fund could be set up with a purpose of improving Civil Society
participation in MAG, IGF and other important events, and could be
large enough to cover requirements other than travel and
participation. A group of IGC leaders, together with some well
connected volunteers could begin work on this and set us such a fund.
The contribution could come from individuals and civil society
organizations. We could also reach out to , and from those Business
Corporations and Governments which are willing to contribute to the
fund unconditionally. If this can't be done, achieving a balance in
the multi-stakeholder environment would be difficult.

Sivasubramanian M

On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 2:04 AM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Re funding for CS participation in the MAG/IGF: there is the practice and
> there is the principle... from a practical perspective the issue of funding
> may certainly be catch as catch can but the effect of that is to give
> precedence to those who are best in a position to obtain such funding and
> what is being accepted as the principle here is that the worth of something
> (such as civil society participation in governance) is measured by its
> success in the marketplace (i.e. its capacity to attract funding). Is this
> the principle that we want to accept?
>
> We should also be a bit careful I think in looking at remote participation
> as a panacea -- unless the overall structure of participation/decision
> making/influence rendering is designed/redesigned so as to reflect the
> legitimacy and equality of remote participation, then with the simple
> layering on of remote participation we are accepting that some are allowed
> "first class" participation (access to more effective influence on
> outcomes/decision making) -- f2f -- while others will only have a "second
> class" position -- since we know how much of outcome determination/decision
> making in events such as this takes place during the private f2f
> interactions coffee breaks, lunches corridor discussions etc. Is this the
> practice we want to accept?
>
> Mike
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


More information about the Governance mailing list