<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML dir=ltr><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<TITLE>Message</TITLE>
<STYLE id=owaParaStyle type=text/css>P {
MARGIN-TOP: 0px; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0px
}
</STYLE>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 9.00.8112.16441"></HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff fpstyle="1" ocsi="0">
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial><SPAN class=550373608-09042012>FWIW,
Lee I should point out that I'm quite critical of the conventional ICT4D
approach(es) for precisely the same reasons as I'm critical of the BBC...
while perhaps having an effect in realizing some degree of
"development" overall they do little if anything to actually achieve a
greater degree of social and economic equality within a society and in many if
not most instances actually have the effect of increasing inequalities in
developing countries i.e. accelerating the advantages of those who already
possess certain social and economic advantages while having some sort of "a
raise all the boats" effect on the rest.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial><SPAN
class=550373608-09042012></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial><SPAN
class=550373608-09042012>M</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial><SPAN
class=550373608-09042012></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial><A
href="http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2010/06/15/some-comments-on-ict4development-and-internet-governance/">http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2010/06/15/some-comments-on-ict4development-and-internet-governance/</A></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>I should add here that at the time of <A
href="http://http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Summit_on_the_Information_Society">the
World Summit on the Iformation society Tunis</A> and immediately afterwards, I
argued quite extensively and publicly for “development” (ICT4D) issues to NOT be
included in the agenda for discussion of the IGF while a number of actors seemed
to be suggesting that this in fact should be case. My reasoning at the time was
that the IGF, being a forum concerned largely (and dare I say narrowly) with the
more “technical” areas where a global discussion on Internet Governance might
prove useful, was the wrong place with the wrong set of participants to discuss
ICT4D issues. It was my opinion at the time that discussion at the IGF would
tend to reduce ICT4D/development down to technical/access matters. This in turn
would divert the discussion away from the broader issues of governance in
support of applications and effective uses which I consider to be the primary
concern when viewed from the perspective of grassroots users particularly in
“development” contexts.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial><A
href="http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2010/12/01/the-idrc-and-%E2%80%9Copen-development%E2%80%9D-ict4d-by-and-for-the-new-middle-class/">http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2010/12/01/the-idrc-and-%E2%80%9Copen-development%E2%80%9D-ict4d-by-and-for-the-new-middle-class/</A></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>
<P>Similarly with “Open Development”<SPAN class=550373608-09042012> ("Open
ICT4D" is the term in fact used here (by the IDRC))</SPAN>; clearly the
opportunity to participate in development planning, information sharing,
operational implementation will be of interest to and benefit for those already
possessing the skills, background and time required to recognize this
opportunity and to participate in these processes. In most Developing Countries
this would include the quite rapidly developing cohort of technologically savvy
recent graduates, newly employed tech workers, many elements in the Diaspora
community and so on—the “New Middle Class”.</P>
<P> </P>
<P>Getting these people involved in development related activities is, one
assumes, overall a good thing. However, putting one’s emphasis and
resources behind these initiatives without putting commensurate resources to
support participation by those most needful of benefiting from such development
activities—the rural and urban poor, the landless, the illiterate, women outside
the paid workforce, the physically disabled and so on is simply to further
empower those already being empowered and to assist them in further distancing
themselves from the most needful.</P>
<P> </P>
<P>That is, “Open <SPAN class=550373608-09042012>(ICT4)</SPAN>Development”
as through for example simply having newly available “access” to information or
the opportunity to “participate” does little or nothing for those without the
means to make effective and organized use of those opportunities i.e. those who
lack the required skills or the means to hire the skills or more profoundly<SPAN
class=550373608-09042012>,</SPAN> without the background and training to
recognize the value that such opportunities and access might provide to
them.</P>
<P><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </P>
<P>The challenge for <SPAN class=550373608-09042012>(ICT4)
</SPAN>development is <SPAN class=550373608-09042012>... </SPAN> is
one of ensuring that those who are the “object” of development are also its
subjects…</P></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>Lee W
McKnight<BR><B>Sent:</B> Monday, April 09, 2012 12:26 AM<BR><B>To:</B>
governance@lists.igcaucus.org; parminder<BR><B>Subject:</B> RE: [governance]
ITU Broadband Commission<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma; DIRECTION: ltr; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Parminder,<BR><BR>You're
pushing on levels-of-analysis and levels of governance issues, that I agree
are important to keep clear but are only tangentially tied to an ITU Broadband
Commission's efforts. So now you've pushed me to defend the ITU
Broadband Commission : (<BR><BR>Commissions, like multistakeholder processes
generally, bring different groups together and hope something good comes out
of the dialogue. Sometimes they work, other times not so much. From one
view, if say 10 more national governments (to pick a low target) develop their
own national broadband plans in next few years, partially influenced/nudged by
the ITU Broadband Commission, then that's a good thing from Michael's ICT4D
perspective or from (presumably) the perspectives of the citizens in nations
where more advanced communication services become available sooner than might
otherwise have been the case. With plans developed by governments hopefully
elected democratically.<BR><BR>So, I'm not agreeing that the commission itself
is unable to do anything worthwhile just because Carlos Slim doesn't practice
what I preach about the social welfare benefits of multiple versus
monopoly providers. (And I'll pretend not to notice Jean-Louis's
allegations of corruption, when as far as I know Carlos got his monopoly the
old fashioned way, he bought it. ; )<BR><BR>So yeah Avri and John, if people
want to submit docs to the Broadband commission by all means go right
ahead. And note there are some high and mighty cs folks at
the table already who may be natural allies, even if they don;t hang on the
IGC list.<BR><BR>Honestly though, I don't see the commission coming up with
much of anything new beyond some new staff or working group reports, which I
expect will be quite good and handy reference material on the state of
broadband circa 2012. <BR><BR>But I don;t imagine them being influenced or
shaped much by grassroots CS, even if one were to try, whether through
(domestic) democratic means or though (transnational) ms means. ITU has
been a pay to play organization for 150 years, for governments and businesses.
The few CS groups able to afford to - play the game there - are tolerated and
even welcomed for their input at times, but certainly not on an equal
footing. Since IGC is not in that club, we are not really in this game,
which has been going on since 2010 already so at best we are very late to a
table we weren't invited to dine at. <BR><BR>I will say now that I look
more closely at what the Commission has done so far and who is playing this
game, that there are some very worthwhile folks engaged, eg Mohammed Yunus of
Bangladesh of Grameen Bank/Grameen Phone/microcredit/Nobel Peace Prize fame,
joined now also by my old pal Vanu Bose of Vanu Inc. <BR><BR>It's
just I don;t see where they are asking for or looking for IGC's help and
input, and don;t see a strategic opening to make the ITU Broadband Commission
or any of its working groups a priority for IGC. <BR><BR>IGF on
other hand, has more than enough problems and needs help...right?<BR><BR>Or
Parminder, do we need to solve the problem of the deficit of democracy for
global/multinational processes first? Since I fear that could be a very long
wait.<BR><BR>Lee<BR><BR><BR><BR>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman; COLOR: rgb(0,0,0); FONT-SIZE: 16px">
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<DIV style="DIRECTION: ltr" id=divRpF444650><FONT color=#000000 size=2
face=Tahoma><B>From:</B> governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org
[governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of parminder
[parminder@itforchange.net]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Sunday, April 08, 2012 10:18
PM<BR><B>To:</B> governance@lists.igcaucus.org<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re:
[governance] ITU Broadband Commission<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"><BR>The original issue in this
discussion was whether conflict of interest is an important principle to
ensure and fight for with regard to public policy and governance systems.
MS-ism (multistakeholderism) seeks to avoid this question - and that is
what I see in John Curran's response, diverting the issue towards a 'we should
participate in any case' discussion. This avoidance is because</FONT><FONT
face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"> MS-ism at its heart is based on an
inversion of the long held sacrosanct democratic principle</FONT><FONT
face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"> that if one has a clear private interest
in an outcome of a policy/ governance system, he/she should not be a part of
the 'high echelons' of the system. A stakeholder after all is basically
one with direct 'narrow' private interest or stake in a policy outcome. There
is no attempt at achieving of a higher, no doubt politically constructed,
public interest. MSism seeks a patch work of accommodating private interests,
with the involved actors at the policy table legitimately pursuing their
narrow private interests. Obviously, the most powerful are most able to be
present</FONT><FONT face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"> and drive their
agenda</FONT><FONT face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"> (there being no
'conflict of interest' related norm) ...... Additionally, MSism, by its
convenient ploy of the 'need for consensus', also by its very nature lead to
status quoist, conservative politics. <BR><BR>Traditional democratic norms and
systems</FONT><FONT face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"> were
built</FONT><FONT face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">, for instance, to
keep powerful businesses from directly shaping political decisions. That of
course is seen as 'the' problem by neolibs. MS-ism as a political system is
their clever answer to the problem. In order to co-opt civil society, and
overall present a more acceptable image, MSism seeks to take up the
vocabulary, and outwardly the concerns, of the long standing demand and
struggles for participatory democracy, deepening democracy etc.... Some civil
society people have considered it a useful tactical move to go along with this
much more powerful global move towards MS-ism (especially when participatory/
deepening democracy etc have not had that much success). <BR><BR>My view is
that at this junction we need to review - is it that we were able to co-opt
the power of the global capital to open up more participatory space, or,
whether, we have got co-opted in the big business and neolib plan to supplant
democracy. <BR><BR>parminder <BR></FONT><BR>On Sunday 08 April 2012 09:09 PM,
Avri Doria wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><PRE>On 7 Apr 2012, at 16:22, Lee W McKnight wrote:
</PRE>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><PRE>My 2 cents is the general principles/objectives being pushed by the ITU's Broadband Commission are not bad, but the fact of the matter is it more a classic high-level talkathon opportunity than anything else. Submitting docs to them is likely not worth the time it would as Michael suggests. And for CS, certainly not worth the bother of trying to shape/steer at this late date when the dye is cast.
</PRE></BLOCKQUOTE><PRE>I am not sure I understand why submitting existing docs, by someone who knew what to submit, was not worth the bother.
On the topic of participating or not. I think that is the wrong question.
If the topic is important and the venue relevant, CS should participate.
The fact of whether we are included at the table or not, would seem to dictate tactics as opposed to participation. There are different ways by which CS makes it views heard, when it has a seat at the table or when it is forced to stand outside the door making itself heard. And if CS is being excluded from this table, and we thinking there is any chance they are going to do something harmful to the public good, then we should be screaming our heads off outside the door and should gear up a campaign to do so.
One of the disadvantages of the multistakeholder model (i bet some of you thought i never saw a disadvantage to the model) is that when we are not included we just sort of whinge and sputter. We have lost some of the anger that made CS a force at WSIS and this is partly because we have changed over all of our methods to Multistakeholder reasonableness. And personally I think one of the reasons we see a pull back in the support of the multistakeholder model by the other stakeholders is that we have become docile, or even invisible, when excluded.
The only time many of the others will allow CS at the table is when they think that excluding CS will be more annoying than having us at the table is. To expect governments or business to it because it is the right thing, is sort of wishful thinking. governments do what make retention of power easiest and business do what maximizes profit. So CS has to be prepared to be disruptive of easy power and profits if it wants to be included in the discussions. And sometimes it just has to flex its disruptive muscles just to remind the powers that be that it is ready to do so.
my thoughts for an easter morning.
avri
</PRE></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>