<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<TITLE>Message</TITLE>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 9.00.8112.16441"></HEAD>
<BODY
style="WORD-WRAP: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space">
<DIV><SPAN class=024450110-04042012><FONT face=Garamond>Hi
John,</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=024450110-04042012><FONT
face=Garamond></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=024450110-04042012><FONT face=Garamond>I wrote this below in
response to the first reports coming out of the BBC/ITU and a quick glance based
on your reference below doesn't indicate that there has been much progress or
advance since my initial comments.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=024450110-04042012><FONT
face=Garamond></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=024450110-04042012><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial><A
href="http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2010/09/27/investment-58%E2%80%94poverty-14-the-un%E2%80%99s-broadband-commission-for-digital-development-vs-the-mdgs/">http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2010/09/27/investment-58%E2%80%94poverty-14-the-un%E2%80%99s-broadband-commission-for-digital-development-vs-the-mdgs/</A> <FONT
color=#000000>(the comments are also worth a look...</FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=024450110-04042012><FONT
face=Garamond></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=024450110-04042012><FONT face=Garamond>The problem with what
you say below and as is suggested I think, in my blogpost is not that "we" are
focusing on the titles but rather that whoever is organizing the initiative is
focusing on the titles. And the problem with that is not either with the
titles or the individuals behind the titles but that the outcome is more or less
completely predictable based on those titles (presumably as executed by the
various courtiers and functionaries who actually did the work as opposed to
having simply graced the meetings with their presence...</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=024450110-04042012><FONT
face=Garamond></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=024450110-04042012><FONT face=Garamond>And, since you asked, I
sent my blogpost to one of the Commissions' "researchers", who replied with some
irritation but who failed to directly address any of the points that I, or the
commentators on the post were raising.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=024450110-04042012><FONT
face=Garamond></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=024450110-04042012><FONT face=Garamond>M</FONT></SPAN></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>
governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org
[mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org] <B>On Behalf Of </B>John
Curran<BR><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, April 03, 2012 8:49 AM<BR><B>To:</B>
parminder; Jean-Louis FULLSACK<BR><B>Cc:</B>
governance@lists.igcaucus.org<SPAN class=024450110-04042012><FONT
color=#0000ff face=Arial> ( </FONT></SPAN><BR><B>Subject:</B> Re:
[governance] ITU Broadband Commission<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
<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 style="WHITE-SPACE: pre"
class=Apple-tab-span></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 style="WHITE-SPACE: pre"
class=Apple-tab-span></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 style="WHITE-SPACE: pre"
class=Apple-tab-span></SPAN>• Target 3: Connecting
homes to broadband. By 2015, 40% of households in developing
countries should have Internet access.<BR><BR></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN style="WHITE-SPACE: pre"
class=Apple-tab-span></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></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>