Hello Michael Gurstein,<br><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 12:44 AM, Michael Gurstein <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:gurstein@gmail.com">gurstein@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div>
<div><span><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial" size="2">I
think the real reason that the IGF is still vulnerable to attacks such as those
from the ITU rests with civil society and the overall way in which civil society
has consented and collaborated wiith the IGF in the current framing
and presenting of the issues.</font></span></div></div></blockquote><div><br>From my observation of the process of preparing workshop proposals and the process of arriving at a final version of the proposal, I notice that the Civil Society at the IGF follows a sort of quasi-diplomatic style. Diplomatic process on a global level in the modern context is an art of compromise. The IGF process has so far followed this style of conducting its business and frankly, we as participants haven't been as good as the traditional players of this game.<br>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div><div><span><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial" size="2"> </font></span></div>
<div><span><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial" size="2"></font></span> </div>
<div><span><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial" size="2">Rather
than attempt to engage the larger universe of the grassroots with a stake in the
opportunities that ICTs present (as well as the risks), the IGF following WSIS
has overall failed to either define the issues with which it is concerned in
terms amenable to grassroots involvement or otherwise has effectively ignored
the issues which would engage grassroots users and particularly organizations
working with and for the grassroot ICTs.</font></span><div><span><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial" size="2"><br></font></span><span><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial" size="2"></font></span></div> </div></div></blockquote>
<div><br>Rather than feel hurt, I would rather look at this as "self-criticism" from within. We need to take a serious look at how the users are to be involved. Even on the business quadrant, business seems to be more represented by the Service Providers rather than the "business-user" groups - for example we don't see large BPOs or Airlines who are Business Corporations as consumers of bandwidth. They ought to be part of the business stakeholder groups ?<br>
<br>Sivasubramanian Muthusamy<br><br><div><span></span><span><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial" size="2"></font></span></div>
<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div><blockquote style="margin-right: 0px;"><div dir="ltr" align="left" lang="en-us">
<div><span><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial" size="2">The
absence of a linkage between WSIS and now the IGF and a
grassroots "movement" for effective ICT use and self-empowerment is
the direct cause of the absence of dynamism which we now observe in
</font></span><span><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial" size="2">the post-WSIS initiatives and which many are seeing as now
befalling the IGF.</font></span> <br></div></div></blockquote></div></blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div><blockquote style="margin-right: 0px;">
<div dir="ltr" align="left" lang="en-us"><div><span><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial" size="2">MG</font></span></div>
<font face="Tahoma" size="2">-----Original Message-----<br><b>From:</b>
<a href="mailto:gov-bounces@wsis-gov.org" target="_blank">gov-bounces@wsis-gov.org</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:gov-bounces@wsis-gov.org" target="_blank">gov-bounces@wsis-gov.org</a>] <b>On Behalf Of
</b>JFC Morfin<br><b>Sent:</b> November-09-08 5:36 PM<br><b>To:</b> 'WSIS CS
WG on Information Networks Governance'; <a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org" target="_blank">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>; 'Dr.
Francis MUGUET'<br><b>Subject:</b> [Gov 589] Re: ITU and ICANN - a loveless
forced marriage Re: [governance] ITU & ICANN in
Cairo<br><br></font></div><div class="Ih2E3d">At 19:01 09/11/2008, JFC Morfin wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"><font color="#000080" size="2">It is
a fact that the IGF may be in real trouble, and in the danger of being
sidelined as an annual conference that no one of any real importance takes
any note of. We must review what would it mean in terms of civil society and
progressive interests. In light of such a review we may need to have clearer
common positions of how we want to engage with the IGF, and how we want to
see it evolve. Such a review is an even more urgent imperative in view of
the forthcoming process of IGF review which will start in earnest
immediately after the IGF, Hyderabad. What gets said and discussed at
Hyderabad may have some important implications for this
review.</font></blockquote><br></div>I agree with this. The reason why is that the
secretariat did not understand the role of the IGF in two key areas
:<br><br>1. IGF _is_ a decision making meeting. But in the new fashion. Not
for a single document to be voted by Govs. But for attendees to concert and
make their own minds, as the owners of their own part of the Internet and of
their own global connections and usage.<br><br>2. Secretariat has not
attempted to catalyse the necessary work concerning enhanced cooperations. I
do not know if we still have some hope for Hyderabad, but we can start working
for Cairo and establish our own enhanced cooperations, and make them
effective. One framework for such an effort is simple enough to start with: to
practically concert about actions for a People Internet by the people for the
people, in order to support a people centered information society. <br><br>The
basic idea is that dynamic coalitions are to influence the Internet governance
and enhanced cooperations are to enact it through cooperations among
interested parties. A typical enhanced cooperation could be geo-cultural TLDs,
to help protect and revive languages in the Internet age. Open cooperations at
the CS initiative could include concerned political authorities, cultural
entiies, businesses, and registrants. An "enhanced cooperation" of such
"enhanced cooperations" could play an equivalent role to ICANN, GSMA, China,
TLDA, etc. in running a part of the Internet virtual root and keep such TLD
out of the ICANN greed.<br><br>jfc<br></blockquote></div>
<br>____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
To be removed from the list, send any message to:<br>
<a href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
<br>
For all list information and functions, see:<br>
<a href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><a href="http://www.linkedin.com/in/sivasubramanianmuthusamy">http://www.linkedin.com/in/sivasubramanianmuthusamy</a><br>