<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><div><div><div>On Apr 3, 2012, at 5:20 AM, parminder wrote:</div><blockquote type="cite"><div text="#333333" bgcolor="#ffffff"><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">Many people take IG's multistakeholderism, as it is practised, to be but a trojan horse for mega corporates to enter and dominate policy spaces, and their perception may not be entirely misplaced. Civil society needs to do more to dispel this impression, but sadly it doesnt...</font></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Parminder, Jean-Louis -</div><div><br></div>I know this may be controversial, but rather than focusing the titles of those leading this</div><div>effort, wouldn't it be more practical to comment on the actual work, and how it does or </div><div>doesn't meet the needs of civil society?</div><div><br></div><div>They have laid out four goals:</div><div><br></div><div><div></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre; "> </span>• Target 1: Making broadband policy universal. By 2015, all countries should have a national broadband plan or strategy or include broadband in their Universal Access / Service Definitions.<br><br></div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre; "> </span>• Target 2: Making broadband affordable. By 2015, entry-level broadband services should be made affordable in developing countries through adequate regulation and market forces (amounting to less than 5% of average monthly income).<br><br></div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre; "> </span>• Target 3: Connecting homes to broadband. By 2015, 40% of households in developing countries should have Internet access.<br><br></div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre; "> </span>• Target 4: Getting people online. By 2015, Internet user penetration should reach 60% worldwide, 50% in developing countries and 15% in LDCs.</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Are these the right goals? If not, why not, and what should the goals be instead? Has</div><div>CS indicated otherwise the ITU Broadband Commission, and if so, what happened?</div><div><br></div><div>They have a "Sharehouse" open to any and all for submission of materials to be considered</div><div>including "case studies, best practice, analytical reports and policy recommendations." - (<<a href="http://www.broadbandcommission.org/Sharehouse/Search.aspx">http://www.broadbandcommission.org/Sharehouse/Search.aspx</a>>). They also have working</div><div>groups which appear to include additional participants from outside the Commission and</div><div>from academia, industry and public institutions. The IT Broadband Commission web site</div><div>provides most of this information in an very straightfoward manner, with outcomes and major</div><div>reports available in six major languages. </div><div><br></div><div>Having participating in several more 'classic' ITU initiatives, I will say that I find this relatively</div><div>straightforward in comparison and while perhaps imperfect in some aspects, it is much closer</div><div>to what many folks have been asking for in multi-stakeholder policy development than past </div><div>practices by these organizations.</div><div><br></div><div>I have no involvement in the ITU Broadband Commission (and am the probably one of the last </div><div>folks on the planet expected to speak in defense of the ITU's attempts at multi-stakeholder </div><div>engagement), but is there an actual issue here to respond to? Has IGC or other CS </div><div>organizations attempted to engage with the ITU Broadband Commission and been told that</div><div>they are not welcome? Has input been provided for consideration or to the working groups</div><div>been set aside in the preparation of the major reports and outcomes? If so, then this matter </div><div>should indeed be a major concern and should be raised loudly at WSIS and elsewhere. </div><div>However, if the issue is the Broadband Commission failing to listen due to lack of actual</div><div>participation and input, then expressing concern over its structure is not only specious, but </div><div>it dilutes the voice of civil society when addressing matters of actual substance elsewhere.</div><div><br></div><div>/John</div><div><br></div><div>Disclaimers: My views alone. Concepts in the email may appear larger in real life. Your results </div><div>may vary. No user-serviceable parts inside. Do not use this email as an exit in case of fire. </div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div></div></div></body></html>