<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Dear friends,<br>
<br>
The report says that<br>
<br>
1. ʻInternet for Allʼ was chosen as the overall theme for the Hyderabad
meting in analogy with UNESCOʼs ʻEducation for Allʼ. (aka EFA)<br>
<br>
and then immediately mentions as the agenda for IGF, "Reaching the
next billion"<br>
<br>
I wonder if in the context of EFA, UNESCO (or any actor involved in
EFA) would have suggested that we could go about
educating our children by 'reaching the next billion (or million)'. It
would have been seen as a serious problem. The
notion of EFA essentially has been understood to emphasize the need for
special attention to ensure that all, specially the 'last million' are
in school. (See
postscript - which emphasizes the equity dimension and repeatedly seeks
education of ALL). The historic 1990 Jomtien conference where the call
for
EFA was accepted is an important milestone for humanity and a trigger
for significant (though inadequate) worldwide efforts for universal
education. <br>
<br>
While the next million could perhaps be taken care of by the market,
the market
is not likely to pay attention to the last million (notwithstanding
economic theorisation regarding the 'Bottom of pyramid'). But if
education is a right (which is really the justification for EFA), then
should the last million have to wait for their turn after every body
else have had their needs met, is the question for us? As the Gandhian
concept of Antyodaya suggests, our energies and efforts need to focus
on the last human being, the rest would benefit as a corollary of this
process, whereas
the reverse is not true (trickle down is accepted as a failed concept).
That is why within EFA, we have the E-9 group (Bangladesh, Brazil,
China, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Mexico, Nigeria, and Pakistan) which
represent half the world’s population and where most of the illiterate
population of the world comes from and large parts of EFA focus is on
the E-9 countries. If global energies focus on E-9, the EFA battle can
be won. not otherwise.<br>
<br>
If the last million of internet users (likely to be largely in these
same E-9 countries) have the same right as the next million, then our
approaches will need to be
different. <br>
<br>
It is entirely understandable but unforgivable from a development point
of view, that the group
gave up having any vision for the last million. (This is our problem
with the current packing of MAG with a certain perspective than with
those having a developmental orientation) <br>
<br>
Vision is the critical issue to be considered, rather than
mere 'practicality' - see the UNDHR call for univeral rights - we know
that many of these are not a reality now, or possibly ever, but
nevertheless it is
vital to have this vision and policy and program proceed from such
liberating vision. In the same vein, the vision of 'universalization'
has to mean ALL and not merely the next billion. (Even if the actual
'getting connected to the internet' will only happen by the 'next
billion', the real issue is - do we have a vision for the last billion
and how do we aim to focus energies of society on getting the last
million in). <br>
<br>
If literacy was seen as a critical necessity for citizenship 18 years
back, digital literacy can be seen as a similar necessity now (see for
instance postings of Mike Gurstein on this list, arguing for the need
to bring all as members of the information society). Hence next billion
is perhaps more a business proposition than a vision for humanity<br>
<br>
Guru<br>
PS -It is useful to read the relevant part of the EFA process from the
UNESCO site<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://portal.unesco.org/education/en/ev.php-URL_ID=47097&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html">http://portal.unesco.org/education/en/ev.php-URL_ID=47097&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html</a><br>
<br>
World Conference on EFA, Jomtien, 1990<br>
<br>
In 1990, delegates from 155 countries, as well as representatives from
some 150 governmental and non-governmental organizations, agreed at the
World Conference on Education for All in Jomtien, Thailand (5-9 March
1990) to make primary education accessible to all children and to
massively reduce illiteracy before the end of the decade.<br>
<br>
The delegates adopted a World Declaration on Education for All, which
reaffirmed the notion of education as a fundamental human right and
urged countries to intensify efforts to address the basic learning
needs of all.<br>
<br>
The Framework for Action to Meet the Basic Learning Needs defined
targets and strategies to meet the basic learning needs of all by the
year 2000. The goals included:<br>
<br>
- universal access to learning;<br>
- a focus on equity;<br>
- emphasis on learning outcomes;<br>
- broadening the means and the scope of basic education;<br>
- enhancing the environment for learning; and<br>
- strengthening partnerships by 2000.<br>
<br>
However, the Jomtien EFA targets were not achieved by the year 2000.<br>
<br>
<br>
Ian Peter wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:006001c8cad8$1f426210$ccc2ca0a@IAN" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Reaching the next billion sounds very evangelical rather than principled and unlike the UN - but does give indication of the voices heard loudest.
That universalisation is at all contentious is a statement in itself - is universal rights contentious? Universal education?
Can anyone give background as to why it is contentious?
Ian Peter
Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd
PO Box 10670 Adelaide St Brisbane 4000
Australia
Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.ianpeter.com">www.ianpeter.com</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.internetmark2.org">www.internetmark2.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.nethistory.info">www.nethistory.info</a>
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">-----Original Message-----
From: Meryem Marzouki [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="mailto:marzouki@ras.eu.org">mailto:marzouki@ras.eu.org</a>]
Sent: 10 June 2008 18:28
To: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>
Subject: Re: [governance] new paper on the Hyderaband [sic] programme
Hi all,
I second Vittorio's comment. These choices are very surprising (or
are they not surprising at all?!). A good summary of this process
seems to be found in the document itself. To simply quote one
example: "The heading previously under consideration –
ʻUniversalization of the Internetʼ – was not retained, as it was
deemed controversial. “Reaching the next billion” was felt to be
more neutral and acceptable by all." 'Universalization' felt
controversial for a UN meeting: go figure!
It's quite interesting that a discursive space such as the IGF, where
absolutely no decision is made (and even a simple "message" cannot be
elaborated) is so worried about any discussion taking place.
Yes, the objective of this so-called "substantive" program seems to
ensure broader and safer market opportunities for business. Very
innovative indeed.
So we had a first list of themes, and we were encouraged to propose
workshops according to this list:
- Universalization of the Internet - How to reach the next billion
(Expanding the Internet),
- Low cost sustainable access,
- Multilingualization,
- Implications for development policy,
- Managing the Internet (Using the Internet),
- Critical Internet resources,
- Arrangements for Internet governance,
- Global cooperation for Internet security and stability,
- Taking stock and the way forward,
- Emerging issues
(<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.intgovforum.org/workshop_info.htm">http://www.intgovforum.org/workshop_info.htm</a>)
Then the list has been modified at the time the workshop were
submitted, to the extent that proposers were confused about how they
were supposed to make their proposals, and workshops are currently
classified according to this list:
- access,
- diversity,
- openness,
- security,
- critical internet resources,
- development,
- capacity building,
- others
(<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.intgovforum.org/workshops_08/wrkshplist.php">http://www.intgovforum.org/workshops_08/wrkshplist.php</a>)
And the list has been modified again, with the current resulting themes:
- Reaching the Next Billion,
- Promoting Cyber-Security and Trust,
- Managing Critical Internet Resources,
- Taking Stock and the Way Forward,
- Emerging Issues
(<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.intgovforum.org/hyderabad_prog/ProgrammePaper">http://www.intgovforum.org/hyderabad_prog/ProgrammePaper</a>.
05.06.2008.pdf)
The question is then: what will happen with the proposed workshops,
including IGC workshops?
Best,
Meryem
Le 10 juin 08 à 08:10, Vittorio Bertola a écrit :
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Adam Peake ha scritto:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Hi,
Anyone want to give a bit of thought the Hyderabad programme?
Perfect, no problems...
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">Yes I have a comment: I am quite surprised by the choice of main
themes, since apparently any reference to rights, duties and
freedoms has disappeared... there is an agenda item on access, one
on security and one on critical Internet resources, but nothing on
"openness" and nothing on "diversity". That's not good news at all
- correct me if I'm wrong, but most themes civil society is
interested in, as well as many (perhaps most) coalitions, are
working in the "openness" family of issues, and now these themes
are off the agenda. Or did I misunderstand the meaning of the paper?
If the only themes that the IGF will be promoting in the future are
how to export technology into developing countries and how to
implement effective law enforcement over the Internet, the interest
in attending for civil society could be quite low.
--
vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <--------
--------> finally with a new website at <a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://bertola.eu/">http://bertola.eu/</a> <--------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a>
For all list information and functions, see:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a>
For all list information and functions, see:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a>
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 270.2.0/1493 - Release Date: 6/9/2008
5:25 PM
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a>
For all list information and functions, see:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>