Mailing List Archive

UNESCO
Since some of you participated to that project, I forward the answer to
you all.

Unfortunately, we are not in the list of funded projects. Well, we'll
try again next year :-)

Anthere


---- Message renvoyé par ifapprojects@unesco.org ----

Date:
De : ifapprojects@unesco.org
À: board@wikimedia.org
Copie :
Répondre à:
Sujet: [Ticket#: 118464-FW] UNESCO's Information for All P [...]

> Version française ci-dessous
>
> Dear project proponents,
>
> The UNESCO Secretariat has pleasure in informing you that the Bureau of
> the Intergovernmental Council for the Information for All Programme,
> which met for its eight meeting in Paris, from 4 to 6 April 2005, has
> granted financial assistance to twenty-four projects related to
> information literacy, preservation of information, and ethical
> implications of information and communication technology (ICT).
>
> The list of projects, for which funding was approved is at:
>
> http://www.unesco.org/webworld/ifapprojects/2005
>
> We shall shortly contact the proponents of projects which have been
> approved, for more details on the project implementation.
>
> The Bureau, chaired by Daniel Malbert (France), approved US$758,000 in
> funding for eight projects concerning Africa; five concerning Asia and
> Latin America/Caribbean, respectively; and two concerning Eastern Europe
> and the Arab region, respectively. The Bureau also approved funding two
> international projects.
>
> A total of 502 projects were submitted to the Bureau by organizations
> all over the world with a total of requested funds exceeding US$20
> million.
>
> We thank you for your interest in the UNESCO?s Information for All
> Programme.
>
> Axel Plathe
> UNESCO
> Information Society Division
> a.plathe@unesco.org
>
______________________________________________________________________________
>
> Bonjour
>
> Le Secrétariat de l?UNESCO a le plaisir de vous informer que le Bureau
> du Conseil intergouvernemental pour le programme «Information pour
> tous», qui a tenu sa huitième session à Paris du 4 au 6 avril 2005, a
> accordé une assistance financière à vingt-quatre projets liés à
> l?alphabétisation de l'information, la préservation de l?information, et
> les implications éthiques des technologies de l'information et de la
> communication.
>
> La liste de projets, pour lesquels des fonds ont été approuvés est à
> l?adresse suivante:
>
> http://www.unesco.org/webworld/ifapprojects/2005.
>
> Nous contacterons sous peu toux ceux dont les projets ont été
> approuvés, pour plus de détails quant à leur exécution.
>
> Le Bureau, présidé par Daniel Malbert (France), a approuvé EU $ 758,000
> pour le financement de huit projets concernant l?Afrique ; cinq projets
> concernant respectivement l?Asie et l?Amérique Latine et les Caraïbes,
> deux projets concernant respectivement l?Europe de l?Est et la Région
> Arabe. Le Bureau a également approuvé deux projets internationaux.
>
> Au total 502 projets ont été soumis au Bureau par des organismes partout
> dans le monde avec un total de fonds demandés excédant EU $ 20 millions.
>
> Nous vous remercions pour l?intérêt manifesté à l?égard du programme de
> l?UNESCO « Information pour tous ».
>
> Cordialement
>
> Axel Plathe
> UNESCO
> Division de la Société de l?information
> a.plathe@unesco.org
>
>
---- Fin du message retransmi ----
Re: UNESCO [ In reply to ]
Question:

I am part of an organisation that's "recognized" by the UNESCO,
although not "funded" by it, which helps us a lot fundraising money as
it gives a moral caution. It happens under those directives:
http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=10631&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html
I believe that is something the Wikimedia Foundation should try and
achieve.

Thoughts?

Delphine
~notafish
Re: UNESCO [ In reply to ]
hI,

Le Friday 22 April 2005 09:10, Delphine Ménard a écrit :
> Question:
>
> I am part of an organisation that's "recognized" by the UNESCO,
> although not "funded" by it, which helps us a lot fundraising money as
> it gives a moral caution. It happens under those directives:
> http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=10631&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION
>=201.html I believe that is something the Wikimedia Foundation should try
> and achieve.

Yes, I advocated this since a long time.
Of course, I am willing to help for whatever I can.

BTW, we are now listed here (I talked on the phone with Jean-Claude Dauphin
who manages this):
http://www.unesco.org/cgi-bin/webworld/portal_freesoftware/cgi/page.cgi?g=Information/Websites/index.shtml&d=1

> Thoughts?
>
> Delphine
> ~notafish

Regards,

Yann

--
http://www.non-violence.org/ | Site collaboratif sur la non-violence
http://www.forget-me.net/ | Alternatives sur le Net
http://fr.wikipedia.org/ | Encyclopédie libre
http://www.forget-me.net/pro/ | Formations et services Linux
Re: UNESCO [ In reply to ]
Delphine Ménard wrote:

>Question:
>
>I am part of an organisation that's "recognized" by the UNESCO,
>although not "funded" by it, which helps us a lot fundraising money as
>it gives a moral caution. It happens under those directives:
>http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=10631&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html
>I believe that is something the Wikimedia Foundation should try and
>achieve.
>
>Thoughts?
>
>Delphine
>~notafish
>
Hoi,
One subject that is covered on many wikipedia's in the World Heritage
Fund (also UNESCO). I have been trying for some time to get us a
"partner" status with them. I am at the stage that they have
acknowledged that I requested this and that they are considering it. I
have made a spiel on how well covered the world heritage sites already
are..

I am in favour of being a "regognised" party but I think we should try
to aim for more than that. :)

As to us not getting the IFAP money, is their a motivation? I would like
to learn from it.

Thanks,
Gerard
Re: UNESCO [ In reply to ]
Gerard Meijssen a écrit:
> Delphine Ménard wrote:
>
>> Question:
>>
>> I am part of an organisation that's "recognized" by the UNESCO,
>> although not "funded" by it, which helps us a lot fundraising money as
>> it gives a moral caution. It happens under those directives:
>> http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=10631&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html
>> I believe that is something the Wikimedia Foundation should try and
>> achieve.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> Delphine
>> ~notafish


I think Aurevilly also said he had some possible connexions there.


> Hoi,
> One subject that is covered on many wikipedia's in the World Heritage
> Fund (also UNESCO). I have been trying for some time to get us a
> "partner" status with them. I am at the stage that they have
> acknowledged that I requested this and that they are considering it. I
> have made a spiel on how well covered the world heritage sites already are..
>
> I am in favour of being a "regognised" party but I think we should try
> to aim for more than that. :)
>
> As to us not getting the IFAP money, is their a motivation? I would like
> to learn from it.

Probably the number of requests... :-)

> Thanks,
> Gerar
> d
Re: Re: UNESCO [ In reply to ]
On 4/22/05, Anthere <anthere9@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Gerard Meijssen a écrit:
> > Delphine Ménard wrote:
> >> Thoughts?
>
> I think Aurevilly also said he had some possible connexions there.

Official recognition would be lovely, and fitting. Making and
maintaining contact with national UNESCO commissions would also be a
useful step.

> > Hoi,
> > One subject that is covered on many wikipedia's in the World Heritage
> > Fund (also UNESCO). I have been trying for some time to get us a
> > "partner" status with them. I am at the stage that they have
> > acknowledged that I requested this and that they are considering it. I
> > have made a spiel on how well covered the world heritage sites already are..
> >
> > I am in favour of being a "regognised" party but I think we should try
> > to aim for more than that. :)
> >
> > As to us not getting the IFAP money, is their a motivation? I would like
> > to learn from it.
>
> Probably the number of requests... :-)

Or the fact that the submitted proposal did not claim to address any
of the three "main priorities" of this rfp. The reviewers may not
have bothered to read the rest.

--
+sj+
Re: Re: UNESCO [ In reply to ]
Sj wrote:

>On 4/22/05, Anthere <anthere9@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Gerard Meijssen a écrit:
>>
>>
>>>Delphine Ménard wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Thoughts?
>>>>
>>>>
>>I think Aurevilly also said he had some possible connexions there.
>>
>>
>
>Official recognition would be lovely, and fitting. Making and
>maintaining contact with national UNESCO commissions would also be a
>useful step.
>
>
>
>>>Hoi,
>>>One subject that is covered on many wikipedia's in the World Heritage
>>>Fund (also UNESCO). I have been trying for some time to get us a
>>>"partner" status with them. I am at the stage that they have
>>>acknowledged that I requested this and that they are considering it. I
>>>have made a spiel on how well covered the world heritage sites already are..
>>>
>>>I am in favour of being a "regognised" party but I think we should try
>>>to aim for more than that. :)
>>>
>>>As to us not getting the IFAP money, is their a motivation? I would like
>>>to learn from it.
>>>
>>>
>>Probably the number of requests... :-)
>>
>>
>
>Or the fact that the submitted proposal did not claim to address any
>of the three "main priorities" of this rfp. The reviewers may not
>have bothered to read the rest.
>
Hoi,
I disagree that the "main priorities" were not addressed. I do not want
to speculate so I am interested in KNOWING the motivation. We cannot
answer this question ourselves.
Thanks,
GerardM
Re: Re: UNESCO [ In reply to ]
On 4/22/05, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sj wrote:
> >>>I am in favour of being a "regognised" party but I think we should try
> >>>to aim for more than that. :)
> >>>
> >>>As to us not getting the IFAP money, is their a motivation? I would like
> >>>to learn from it.
> >>>
> >>Probably the number of requests... :-)
> >>
> >Or the fact that the submitted proposal did not claim to address any
> >of the three "main priorities" of this rfp. The reviewers may not
> >have bothered to read the rest.
> >
> Hoi,
> I disagree that the "main priorities" were not addressed. I do not want
> to speculate so I am interested in KNOWING the motivation. We cannot
> answer this question ourselves.

Ah, forgive me if I was unclear. I am using their terminology, not
speculating. Section 3.1? of the application was entitled "Main
priorities"; in that section were three different 'priorities' with a
checkbox next to each one. The application asked which if any of
these priorities the proposal addressed. The submitted proposal did
not check any of them. (It did check a number of the secondary, more
general, priorities further down the application form.)

--
+sj+