<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML xmlns:o =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<TITLE>Message</TITLE>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.18943"></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial><SPAN class=181215816-28092010>I'm
engaged in a rather heated discussion with one of the prime authors of the
BBCDD. I won't presume to forward his comments but here below are my most
recent ones... I think there may be a broader interest within this
group.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial><SPAN
class=181215816-28092010></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial><SPAN
class=181215816-28092010>M</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial><SPAN
class=181215816-28092010></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr lang=en-us class=OutlookMessageHeader align=left><FONT size=2
face=Tahoma>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> Michael Gurstein
[mailto:gurstein@gmail.com] <BR><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, September 28, 2010 9:24
AM<BR><B>Subject:</B> RE: New Blogpost: Investment 58-Poverty 14:
TheUN'sBroadband Commission for Digital Development vs. the
MDGs<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=122021415-28092010><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial>One of
the (many) advantages of living on the "best" coast is that you can initiate a
"discussion" before you go to sleep and wake up to find that most of the heavy
lifting has already been done for you ;-)</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=122021415-28092010><FONT color=#0000ff size=2
face=Arial></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=122021415-28092010><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial>In
fact contra <SPAN class=181215816-28092010> xxx </SPAN>, this
isn't just ITU and UNESCO blather... I see it rather in the context of WSIS and
an attempt to refight the development of the Plan of Action (including
myself as a minor contributor) and the outcome of the Task Force
on Financing Mechanisms where civil society fought very long and
very hard to ensure the opportunity for a plurality of approaches to
financing/ownership and a focus on uses rather than infrastructure. The
result was a somewhat uneasy compromise but a compromise nevertheless in which
the corporates (and their implicit ITU collaborators) had to take a rather more
inclusive and "use" oriented approach than they would have
wished.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=122021415-28092010><FONT color=#0000ff size=2
face=Arial></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=122021415-28092010><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial>Having
seen at least one major country of the South focus its ICT (and thus Broadband)
planning within the context of the WSIS Declaration I have difficulty in seeing
this Commission Report as quite as benign as you are suggesting especially given
its obvious repudiation of the operating principles of WSIS which were
inclusiveness, transparency and multistakeholderism.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=122021415-28092010><FONT color=#0000ff size=2
face=Arial></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=122021415-28092010><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial>I
don't think one needs to be a conspiracy buff to see this current
document a clear attempt to do an end run around WSIS in the service of a
specific approach to BB financing and deployment while wrapping itself
in the convenient cloak of the MDGs.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=122021415-28092010><FONT color=#0000ff size=2
face=Arial></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=122021415-28092010><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial>The
Report of the Task Force on Financing Mechanisms includes the following rather
more tempered and inclusive approach (i.e. the role of CSO's and community based
organizations) in its summary of recommendations:</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=122021415-28092010><FONT color=#0000ff size=2
face=Arial></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=122021415-28092010>
<P
style="TEXT-INDENT: -0.5in; MARGIN: 0in 0in 6pt 0.5in; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; mso-hyphenate: none; tab-stops: list 0in left 13.5pt .5in 1.0in 1.5in 2.0in right 6.0in"
class=MsoBodyText><B style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal">4. <SPAN
style="mso-tab-count: 2">
</SPAN></B><B style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">There is evidence to suggest that
the broad-based deployment of ICT also depends on a supportive development
policy environment for ICTD particularly the establishment of national
e-strategies and the integration of ICT into poverty reduction</SPAN></B><B
style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'MS Mincho'; mso-fareast-language: JA">
and/or other national development strategies and the </SPAN></B><B
style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">PRSP</SPAN></B><B
style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'MS Mincho'; mso-fareast-language: JA">
process</SPAN></B><B style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">.</SPAN></B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"> <BR>Over 90 developing countries
have developed or are in the process of completing national ICTD strategies.
These strategies, typically designed on a multi-stakeholder basis, have been
important in establishing national ownership and in outlining a set of key
priority areas for intervention. Many of these have also linked to priorities
outlined in the national poverty reduction or other development strategies, the
success of which critically depends upon effective information management tools
and applications, communication, and coordination across all public agencies and
programs. The </SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'MS Mincho'; mso-fareast-language: JA">process
and </SPAN><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">content of the
poverty reduction and other development strategies are </SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'MS Mincho'; mso-fareast-language: JA">also
</SPAN><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">key for </SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'MS Mincho'; mso-fareast-language: JA">donors
who</SPAN><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"> align their aid
and partnership strategies to the </SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'MS Mincho'; mso-fareast-language: JA">priorities
outlined therein. [<A href="#_2.2__Leveraging_ICT for Development"><FONT
color=#0000ff>3</FONT></A>,<A href="#_4.1_Defining_Policy_Frameworks and"><FONT
color=#0000ff>4</FONT></A> ]</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P
style="TEXT-INDENT: -0.5in; MARGIN: 0in 0in 6pt 0.5in; mso-hyphenate: none; tab-stops: 13.5pt .5in 1.0in 1.5in 2.0in right 6.0in"
class=MsoBodyText><B style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">5.<SPAN
style="mso-tab-count: 2">
</SPAN>Policy and regulatory incentives and more open access policies are also
needed if private investment, CSO and community networks are also found to be
effective in expanding ICT access to high cost (predominantly rural) and low
income populations to address the “bottom of the pyramid”
populations.</SPAN></B><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">
<SPAN
style="mso-tab-count: 1">
</SPAN><BR>Addressing policy barriers, removing restrictions on competitive
entry by ICT companies and local community network operators, and permitting the
use of cost effective technologies (e.g. VOIP, and on unlicensed spectrum), and
other innovative practices have been found to be helpful in moving the network
frontier to address the needs of currently under-served populations. Continued
cooperation between various development partners and stakeholders can also help
in addressing the problems of providing rural access using new technological
applications including wireless broadband devices, offering incentives to
Internet cafes, phone shops and community communications networks. [<A
href="#community"><FONT color=#0000ff>5</FONT></A>, <A
href="#_4.3_Ensuring_Effective_Access"><FONT
color=#0000ff>5a</FONT></A>)</SPAN></P>
<P
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 6pt; mso-hyphenate: none; tab-stops: 0in 13.5pt 1.0in 1.5in 2.0in right 6.0in"
class=MsoBodyText><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: blue; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">FWIW my own position is
not against private (or public) sector financing or deregulation/de-taxing in
support of BB deployment. I think different approaches will make sense in
different contexts. But what needs to be recognized is that the ultimate
determinant of the approach undertaken should be whether it contributes or not
to the achievement of broad based access <STRONG><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial">and use </SPAN></STRONG>of the infrastructure.
From my experience and following <SPAN
class=181215816-28092010> yyy </SPAN> here<SPAN
class=122021415-28092010>,</SPAN> any approach that doesn’t include<SPAN
class=122021415-28092010>/allow for/enable/facilitate</SPAN> a significant
component of end-user community involvement and “ownership” is almost certain to
fail from a developmental perspective. And my major problem with the
Commission’s report is that there doesn’t seem to be a very strong reality
component as to what is required whether in terms of policy or supporting and
enabling resources to translate BB access into BB “effective
use”.</SPAN><o:p></o:p></P></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=122021415-28092010><FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT
size=2>Further and again following <SPAN
class=181215816-28092010> yyy </SPAN>, the Commission's report seems
to take the position that it is entering into a greenfield environment. In fact
of course, a large number of folks both on the ground and working in support of
those developments have been active for years in creating conditions where ICTs
could be effectively used. Even a casual review of the literature via Skype
would have revealed a startling amount of experience and knowledge without even
having to find the time or energy to contact the folks involved directly. As a
colleague who has worked on the ground in Mozambique for the last 20 years wrote
on my blog <FONT face="Times New Roman">"This is indeed very sad, sounds as
if the Commission didn’t even do a proper literature review to get a line on
current debates! Even our little Digital Inclusion study might have
helped!"</FONT></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=122021415-28092010><FONT color=#0000ff size=2
face=Arial></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=122021415-28092010><FONT color=#0000ff size=2
face=Arial>Sincerely,</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=122021415-28092010><FONT color=#0000ff size=2
face=Arial></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=122021415-28092010><FONT color=#0000ff size=2
face=Arial>Mike</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV></BODY></HTML>