<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<TITLE>Message</TITLE>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.18865"></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial><SPAN class=859343222-23122009>The
issue is only partially one of lack of funding for ICT4D projects... In fact, in
many cases/places there are funds available for ICT4D (particularly now
with ioncreasingly widespread mobile and broadband infrastructures) either
through donor resources or from Universal Services funds but there is an
overall lack of knowledge/experience/capacity to spend this money in an
appropriate and useful/effective way.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial><SPAN
class=859343222-23122009></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial><SPAN class=859343222-23122009>Doing
the assessments, building the knowledge bases, bringing together those with the
experience as developers and end users, developing the multistakeholder issue
oriented dialogues and networks is the role that is currently lacking and has
been lacking since WSIS and before. The GAID said they would do some of this but
they didn't, the IGF dilettantes at the edges but only muddies the waters, the
ITU is too clearly top-down (in current speak non-multistakeholder...)
</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial><SPAN
class=859343222-23122009></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial><SPAN class=859343222-23122009>So
where to go from here...</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial><SPAN
class=859343222-23122009></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial><SPAN class=859343222-23122009>Best
to all for the season!</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial><SPAN
class=859343222-23122009></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial><SPAN
class=859343222-23122009>M</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir=ltr>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr lang=en-us class=OutlookMessageHeader align=left><FONT size=2
face=Tahoma>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> Jean-Louis FULLSACK
[mailto:jlfullsack@orange.fr] <BR><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, December 23, 2009
7:44 AM<BR><B>To:</B> governance@lists.cpsr.org; William
Drake<BR><B>Subject:</B> re: [governance] Re: AW: [tt-group] FW:
GAID<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>Hello Bill, Wolfgang and all<BR><BR>I think there is
also another issue to be dealt with very urgently : financing the ICT4D
projects and -first of all- the WSIS Action Plan objectives. Remember : the
two "hot potatoes" of WSIS were Internet governance and financing for
"bridging the digital divide".<BR><BR>The fisrt one was (partly) resolved by
setting-up the IGF. Therefore I was asking for a "Financing Mechanisms Forum
(FMF)" since the beginning of the WSIS follow-up process. Without any success.
<BR><BR>During the the last (or better : the "first") WSIS Forum held in May
my proposal didn't recieve any support from the CS side (except from some
African grassroot orgs). Therefore I submitted a personal request to the ITU
SG for this demand to be taken in consideration, in June after recovering from
my heart attack. I was told by a person of ITU to present this proposal as a
contribution to the September meeting, convened bu the UNGIS and the ITU,
whose topic was precisely the financing mechanisms for ICT4D. But
unfortunately I couldn't go to Geneva, my surgeon having advised me against,
for medical reasons. That's why my "FMF" proposal is still pending.<BR><BR>As
Wolfgang mentions, in 2010 we are at the halfway between Tunis and the
deadline of the WSIS Action Plan. We should take profit of this opportunity to
push this proposal in the foreground of our demand. <BR><BR>With my best
wishes for a merry Christmas and a happy and peaceful New Year to all of
you<BR><BR>Jean-Louis Fullsack <BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #ff0000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px">>
Message du 23/12/09 15:31<BR>> De : "William Drake" <BR>> A :
"Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" <BR>> Copie à : "Tim Unwin" , "George Sadowsky"
, "Michael Gurstein" , "tt-group@vancouvercommunity.net" ,
"governance@lists.cpsr.org" <BR>> Objet : [governance] Re: AW: [tt-group]
FW: GAID<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Hello<BR>> <BR>> I understand
George's perspective, it's hard not to be frustrated and <BR>> a bit
cynical about the way things played out with GAID, although to <BR>> me
it's more a matter of missed opprtunities to have a useful and <BR>>
inclusive space in the UN for ICT4D than of wasted resources (costs <BR>>
were a drop in the bucket, really). The fact that per Michael we <BR>>
can't really know what's going on within the UN with the next (if any)
<BR>> steps is symptomatic of the long standing problems. Re: Wolfgang's
<BR>> suggestion, I would be rather surprised if the ITU were to accept
<BR>> making it's "forum" an open multistakeholder process rather than a
<BR>> showpiece for itself, they could have done this already and have
<BR>> showed no inclination. And It might be risky given the stuff with
IGF <BR>> etc. But perhaps it'd be a good way to call their bluff and
feed into <BR>> the Plenipot discussion...?<BR>> <BR>> Bill<BR>>
<BR>> Sent from my iPhone<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> On Dec 23, 2009, at
3:54, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" <BR>> e> wrote:<BR>> <BR>> >
Dear list<BR>> ><BR>> > one opportunity to have a more strategic
brainstorming around a <BR>> > reasonable Follow up of GAID could be
the IGF consultations in <BR>> > February in Geneva. I propose to have
on Wednesday, February, 10, <BR>> > 2010, over lunch (1315 - 1500) a
meeting of people present in <BR>> > Geneva. We had a similar meeting
last year (in the ITU Montbrillant <BR>> > Building) where we
identified an "identity crisis of GAID" with no <BR>> > consequences
after the meeting. The meeting was chaired by Bill and <BR>> >
Sarbulan was online from NY.<BR>> ><BR>> > Any proposal?<BR>>
><BR>> > BTW I could imagine to move the "WSIS Forum", which is
emerging from <BR>> > the annual meetings of the Actions Lines, into
something which could <BR>> > absorb previous UNICTTF/GAID activities.
My impression is that so <BR>> > far the "WSIS Forum" is mainly in the
hand of the ITU and other <BR>> > IGOs, having the lead position in
the Action Lines. The WSIS Forum <BR>> > could be further
"multistakeholderised" and the responsibility to <BR>> > organoze the
meeting - convened by the UN/ITU/UNESCO/FAO/ILO - could <BR>> > go to
a MAG like group. Do not forget that 2010 makrs half way <BR>> >
towards 2015m the dateline for the Geneva and Tunis Commitments.<BR>>
><BR>> > Wolfgang<BR>> ><BR>>
____________________________________________________________<BR>> You
received this message as a subscriber on the list:<BR>>
governance@lists.cpsr.org<BR>> To be removed from the list, send any
message to:<BR>> governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org<BR>> <BR>>
For all list information and functions, see:<BR>>
http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance<BR>> <BR>>
<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>