<html>
<body>
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>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Jean-Louis FULLSACK wrote: <br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite 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reasons has mostly withdrawn from this area.)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>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""><br>
> many among us are focusing on just one thing - the <br>
> danger that ITU may take over the IGF<br><br>
Right. That is just another point of concern for me. not only because I
was working in the (far) past with this Un Agency. I do think that IG
needs a strong framework as to be able to apply in any country. <i>Per
se</i> ITU isn't qualified for "governance" matters, but it
happens to be an intergovernmental body that has a world-wide competence
and standardization authority in the ICT/telecom domain, whose circuitry
the Internet relies on. That's why I wonder if CS shouldn't rather put
its efforts to gain both its place and respect inside this agency. The
IGC should also remember that a large part of the CS orgs committed in
the WSIS follow-up -especially those working in or with DCs- are
struggling for CS being given a plain "ITU member"
status. <br><br>
> there could also be new <br>
> options. Thematic working groups, inter-sessional programs, some
<br>
> possibilities of clear advisory outcomes etc may be some things we
have <br>
> earlier alluded to.<br><br>
Among these thematic working groups one should deal with some issues
related to technical matters such as critical Internet resources, network
architecture, network neutrality, etc <br><br>
With my best wishes for a happy and fruitful New Year<br>
Jean-Louis Fullsack <br><br>
<br><br>
<dl>
<dd>> Message du 31/12/09 10:20<br>
<dd>> De : "Parminder" <br>
<dd>> A :
<a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>
<br>
<dd>> Copie à : <br>
<dd>> Objet : Re: [governance] Online survey on reform of the IGF<br>
<dd>> <br>
<dd>> <br>
<dd>> <br>
<dd>> Hi All<br>
<dd>> <br>
<dd>> While the survey may or may not provide useful inputs for IGC's
position <br>
<dd>> on IGF reform, we should in any case discuss the issue here on
the list <br>
<dd>> so that the coordinators can attempt a consensus position.<br>
<dd>> <br>
<dd>> I do think that, in the formal consultation process at Sharm,
IGC failed <br>
<dd>> to provide a comprehensive set of suggestions, even the ones
which we <br>
<dd>> have often discussed in past and adopted by consensus. We may
still have <br>
<dd>> a chance of putting our views forward, now through the channel
of <br>
<dd>> government reps that may be on the lookout for possible good
concrete <br>
<dd>> suggestion for IGF reform, which may be taken up when the
resolution/ <br>
<dd>> discussion on IGF continuation finally comes up at the UN
general <br>
<dd>> assembly or at the CSTD (there is a confusion at this stage how
the <br>
<dd>> process will go forward).<br>
<dd>> <br>
<dd>> While seeking to trigger a discussion on this subject after
Sharm I had <br>
<dd>> pointed to fact that many among us are focusing on just one
thing - the <br>
<dd>> danger that ITU may take over the IGF, (or even that the IGF may
be <br>
<dd>> closed down), and consequently not engaging as much as we should
to <br>
<dd>> propose real improvements in the IGF. Apparently, the view is
that if we <br>
<dd>> breathe but one word on possible improvements, it may be taken
as <br>
<dd>> statement of failure of the IGF and be used by those keen on
shutting <br>
<dd>> down the IGF, or seeking an ITU take over of it.<br>
<dd>> <br>
<dd>> One proof that these fears are hugely exaggerated, and even
<br>
<dd>> diversionary, can be found in the fact that recently a UN
general <br>
<dd>> assembly resolution for more stable public/ UN funding for the
IGF <br>
<dd>> (which some groups tend to equate with possible ITU takeover)
was shot <br>
<dd>> down, and another one calling for more voluntary contributions
to the <br>
<dd>> trust fund (status quoist) was adopted. One can clearly see here
who <br>
<dd>> calls the shots and which way the wind is blowing.<br>
<dd>> <br>
<dd>> So lets relax our exaggerated caution, and boldly seek IGF
reform of the <br>
<dd>> kind we have asked for over the years, while there could also be
new <br>
<dd>> options. Thematic working groups, inter-sessional programs, some
<br>
<dd>> possibilities of clear advisory outcomes etc may be some things
we have <br>
<dd>> earlier alluded to. I personally think that we should also seek
a <br>
<dd>> clearer role for the MAG, and more agenda setting power for it,
<br>
<dd>> including of developing recommendations and advices as per the
IGF <br>
<dd>> mandate based on the proceedings of the IGF and other WGs etc.
There <br>
<dd>> could be other possibilities, but we need to discuss them, and
maybe <br>
<dd>> speak out at Feb meeting (even if thats not the agenda) to catch
the ear <br>
<dd>> of some gov reps, and also pass our views on directly to
interested gov <br>
<dd>> reps.<br>
<dd>> <br>
<dd>> Have a great last day of 2009, and wake up to a hopeful and
fruitful 2010!<br>
<dd>> <br>
<dd>> Parminder<br>
<dd>> <br>
<dd>> <br>
<dd>> <br>
<dd>> <br>
<dd>>
____________________________________________________________<br>
<dd>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<dd>>
<a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>
<br>
<dd>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:<br>
<dd>>
<a href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">
governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
<dd>> <br>
<dd>> For all list information and functions, see:<br>
<dd>>
<a href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance">
http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a><br>
<dd>> <br>
<dd>> <br>
</blockquote>
</dl>____________________________________________________________<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>
<a href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance" eudora="autourl">
http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a></blockquote></body>
</html>