<div>Does anyone know what are the actual plans for the future of GAID?</div>
<div><br>It is good to see there is some discussion of it on these lists, but I am wondering what is the actual plan for it, if there is one being planned or in the process of being implemented?<br> <br>I have proposed that those interested in integrating Internet development in the development process have much to learn from studying and discussing the actual development process that built the Internet.</div>
<p>When I returned home from the WSIS meeting in Tunis in 2005, I had some discussion with someone who described the struggle in his country in Africa, over how to spread the Internet.</p>
<p>The experience he described was about how commercial entities wanted to limit how the Internet was used. Meanwhile there some in government who recognized that there was a need to spread the Internet at a low cost, especially in the education sector. He described the government idea of wiring a government building and then using that to offer low cost or free Internet education to the school systems nearby. Instead those interested in commercial development claimed the wiring of the government building should only serve the government site. The struggle between these two visions of Internet development was not unique to that country, as I had experienced a similar struggle in the US.</p>
<p>It seemed reviewing both the vision guiding early networking development and the history of how the Internet was developed and spread in its early phases, would be of value in general, and in particular to the developing world.</p>
<div>Unfortunately, those drafting the millennium development goals didn't find a way to build in this kind of focus into the goals themselves.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Happy New Year to all.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>with best wishes</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Ronda<br><br></div>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 3:49 PM, Hakikur Rahman <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:email@hakik.org">email@hakik.org</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">
<div>
<div class="im">Dear Parminder,<br><br>I agree with you cent percent, but wish I could have knew those strange reasons that you have mentioned. Not only UNDP, but seems majority of development partners are no more interested in ICTD. For many years, it has become stalled somewhere, when the field was really going to launch in many lagging nations. Hope GAID, as it has been expected could come up with something in this aspect.<br>
<br>Best regards,<br>Hakikur<br><br>At 06:48 02-01-2010, Parminder wrote:<br><br><br></div>
<div>
<div></div>
<div class="h5">
<blockquote type="cite">Jean-Louis FULLSACK wrote: <br>
<blockquote type="cite">Dear Parminder<br><br>As usually your message clearifies the debate ; therefore all my thanks.<br><br>> concrete suggestion for IGF reform, which may be taken up when the resolution/ <br>> discussion on IGF continuation finally comes up at the UN general <br>
> assembly or at the CSTD (there is a confusion at this stage how the <br>> process will go forward).<br><br>Isn't there another confusing situation with GAID as far as IG is dealing with Developing Countriers issues are concerned ? <br>
If this is the opinion of a majority among us, our relation with -and/or position on- GAID should be laid down accordingly. </blockquote>Dear Jean-Louis,<br><br>Development has never been a serious political issue at WSIS, and has been even less so post-WSIS. It is for this reason that the levels of interest of major actors and therefore the trajectories of the IGF and GAID have been very different. (It is a different manner that the subject of development is treated as a red herring with such regularity, and often deviousness, in the IGF that it would make a very interesting study/ story.)<br>
<br>IG is very political because it concerns the governance, and thus the possibilities of shaping, of the Internet. Development in post-WSIS structures has been seen in largely in the normal 'charity view' of development, plus as new possibilities of political alliances for transnational businesses to expand their markets in developing countries. The fact is that, at present, no major actor of any significant power has really much interest in ICTD at the global level. (UNDP for some strange reasons has mostly withdrawn from this area.)<br>
<br>So while IGF seems to be headed towards even keener political contests, GAID, post-Sarbuland, may be headed towards getting folded up into a regular UN department, doing mundane work (thats what I fear). The way GAID was run as a new age network had many huge problems - and we kept pointed them out at all GAID meetings - but it will be a mistake to forgo its open new-age network structure for a bureaucratic UN department. What we need instead is a set of more focussed and clearer objectives and work plans, and a better network structure focussed on public interest actors, chiefly those involved with development issues. <br>
<br>Parminder <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></div></div></blockquote>
</div><snip><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet<br><br><a href="http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook">http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook</a><br>