<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#333333" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">John,<br>
<br>
Thanks for your engagement. However, as you suspected, your assertions
are indeed controversial/ problematic.<br>
<br>
Your advice is not to go into formal aspects of a governance/ policy
mechanism but only focus on the output side. I would come to the output
side but lets first deal with the importance of formal aspects. To
those who protested against Mubarak's regime, would you have advised
that instead of fighting for democracy against authoritarianism, they
should look at and argue by the work and outputs of regime, and not its
formal qualities. It is, for instance, possible to argue that Mubarak
may have kept a tighter leash on fundamentalist groups than the
emerging democracy seems to be able to keep......<br>
<br>
Closer home, since apparently you believe in multistakeholderism, would
you agree to a governance system that is not open, participative,
transparent etc although it seem not to have any particularly
disagreeable output? In fact, the IG civil society - including the IGC
- seems to spend so much time on just the issue of multistakeholderism
that some of us would want it to get more directly into substantive
issues.<br>
<br>
So, the question is, why does impatience with formal aspects of
governance/ policy regimes show only when democratic forms, values and
norms are being spoken of - like conflict of interest, keeping powerful
private interests out of policy making etc.<br>
<br>
Do you really think that it is a good/ acceptable idea to have
telecoms dominate a policy body on telecom? Would you accept it in your
own country? Would your compatriots accept it in your country? On the
same logic, would you accept a health policy body dominated by pharma
companies - at your country level, and at the WHO? Simple direct
questions going very much to the heart of the issue which I hope you
will answer. <br>
<br>
parminder <br>
</font><br>
On Tuesday 03 April 2012 05:18 PM, John Curran wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:1E649A9D-7EC6-4DD1-B610-4E8CB0197AC1@istaff.org"
type="cite">
<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>
<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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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>