[governance] RE: [bestbits] FW: Broadband Manifesto

Thu Dec 5 03:31:16 EST 2013

As long as the Internet governance issues and the development issues aren't
separated more clearly within the Action Lines, I don't think much progress
can be made, not even if there are AL working groups. This is first,
because the Internet governance issues and the development issues in the AL
require two slightly different (though overlapping to some extent)
communities to get excited and involved, and second, because the issues
that they will be addressing need addressing at different levels. Many of
the IG issues in the Action Lines are actually among the international
public policy issues that require a global solution, while the development
issues frequently rely more heavily on intervention at the national level.
We'd want grassroots input into both, but for grassroots activists to
easily find their way into these processes, it is important that the
intended outcome, or at least promise, of such processes is obvious, and as
long as a variety of issues are thrown together as they are now, that will
not be the case. As a consequence, nobody has taken, or felt, any ownership
over the action lines so far, nor has anyone done anything much ""because
the Action Lines exist" - except perhaps the UN bodies that were
responsible for facilitating them.

If we are to reenergise the Action Line part of the WSIS (and there is no
indication that governments want to do away with it, so it  makes sense to
try and make it work), separating these very different issues out therefore
seems a crucial first step. It is only once this has been done that the
proposed working groups will really be able to make a difference (and I
agree that they can make a substantial difference at that stage).

Best,

Anja
On Dec 5, 2013 5:32 AM, "michael gurstein" <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

> Yes, I also think that these are very useful and thanks for pointing to
> them J-L…
>
>
>
> I’m wondering how to help move them forward?
>
>
>
> M
>
>
>
> *From:* nashton at consensus.pro [mailto:nashton at consensus.pro]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 04, 2013 3:29 PM
> *To:* jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr; jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr;
> governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michaelgurstein; 'AnjaKovacs'
> *Cc:* 'IGC'; 'bestbits'
> *Subject:* re: [governance] RE: [bestbits] FW: Broadband Manifesto
>
>
>
> For what it is worth I think these are useful proposals, but there is also
> the further need to do this at the national level, not just
> internationally, so each country can evaluate where it is in the
> implementation process, what lessons it can learn, etc.
>
>
>
> jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr wrote:
>
>
>
> Anja, Michael
>
> and all
>
>
>
> The regular WSIS process had mainly two "hot potatoes" in its programme :
>
> - development issues and financing mechanisms for solving them
>
> - Internet governance issues (the WGIG was supposed to pave the way for
> responding to them)
>
> If we agree on these two main objectives to ge given a appropriate
> solution we should perhaps listen on the Adama Samassekou's proposals
> during the last Forum intended to giving the WSIS follow-up process a new
> impulse.
>
> First, he suggested to *replace PPPs*, Public-Private Partnetships, the
> "holy grail of the WSIS leaders, firts of all the ITU, *by MSPs*, i.e.
> the Multi-stakeholder Partnership. Thus the WSIS spirit is
> restaured because CS is effectively present and part of it, contrarily to
> the PPP.
>
> Second, he asked for setting up a *Working Group per Action Line* or
> grouping of several AL that analyses thoroughly and objectively (that
> implies that a critical approach replaces the recurrent "success stories")
> the objectives aimed for by thess AL or AL groups.These WGs would collect
> the informations upon the evolution of the key issues, the work done and
> the point achieved during the past annual period.  In other words : action
> and results instead of story-telling !
>
>
>
> I suggest that we consider seriously Adama Samassekou's proposals as a
> major input for the coming preparatory programme meetings (16-17 december
> and February), having in mind the two main themes, namely development and
> related financing mechanisms and Internet Governance. Of course, this list
> with its member organizations (IG Caucus, Bestbits, IT4Change, APC,
> Eurolinc, etc) will focus on the latter and submit contributions to the
> WSIS coordinators accordingly.
>
>
>
> For these proposals to succeed, I personnaly opt for CS being "ITU
> embedded" (see my previous e-mail), that will ensure that the WSIS leading
> UN agency respects the requests proposed by the CS orgs or at least
> considers them as valuable inputs.
>
>
>
> Best regards
>
>
>
> Jean-Louis Fullsack
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Message du 02/12/13 23:17
> > De : "michael gurstein"
> > A : "'Anja Kovacs'"
> > Copie à : "'Nick Ashton-Hart'" , "'IGC'" , "'bestbits'"
> > Objet : [governance] RE: [bestbits] FW: Broadband Manifesto
> >
> >
>
> Anja,
>
>
>
> I really haven’t followed or kept up with the Action Lines process… The
> few times that I did take a look it seemed to be mostly around fairly empty
> self-congratulations about the success of one pilot project or paper
> exercise or another with little real connection with what might be
> happening on the ground.
>
>
>
> Rather I’ve tried to spend my time at my “day job” which is helping in
> various ways to support/enable bottom up development processes. As I tried
> to point out in my reply to George’s comments on my earlier post the
> connection that I see between bottom up development (the kind that actually
> works) and say a WSIS process is that global policy influences national
> policy and national, multilateral and foundation funding. Bottom up
> development will only go so far until it runs into a policy or a funding
> blockage.  If the supporting mechanisms/policies aren’t there initiatives
> fail and ladders quickly turn into snakes.  Then, the people with the
> fewest resources are required to start all over again while the those with
> the most get to jet off to another international conference talking about
> which square “Action Line” peg can be snaffled to fit into the required
> round hole so as to appear to be supportive of “Poverty Reduction” or
> whatever the flavor of the day happens to be.
>
>
>
> Action Lines aren’t “development” they are a way of describing (or in most
> cases mis-describing) development activities taking place (or not) rather
> far distant from wherever those Action Lines are being discussed. The
> non-IG part of WSIS should be about the reality of development and a WSIS
> +10 either takes a close look at what worked (or more likely, didn’t) on
> the ground and starts from there or it isn’t about anything at all.
>
>
>
> M
>
>
>
> *From:* Anja Kovacs [mailto:anja at internetdemocracy.in<anja at internetdemocracy.in>]
>
> > *Sent:* Monday, December 02, 2013 11:39 AM
> > *To:* michael gurstein
> > *Cc:* Nick Ashton-Hart; IGC; bestbits
> > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] FW: Broadband Manifesto
>
>
>
>
> > I wouldn't actually agree that an approach that starts from the national
> level is the only way forward. In the analysis of the Internet Democracy
> Project, among important reasons why more progress has not been made on
> various goals set out in the WSIS Action Lines is not only because Action
> Lines have been implemented in too top-down a fashion, but also, and
> relatedly, because the Action Lines mix together two types of issues: those
> that fundamentally rely on the input of the larger development community,
> and those that are Internet governance issues in the more narrow sense. The
> latter frequently cut across Action Lines, and as long as they are not
> addressed adequately, it is unlikely that the development agenda that is at
> the heart of the Action Lines will take off either. The former is in many
> cases the foundation for the success of the latter.
>
> For this reason, the Internet Democracy Project proposed in September,
> when the first inputs into the preparatory process for the ITU's High Level
> Review meeting were due, to actually rearrange the Action Lines to make
> sure both aspects of the Action Lines get their due. This would entail
> highlighting, and addressing, the Internet governance agenda that is
> embedded in the Action Lines separately, without at any point losing sight
> of its connectedness with the development agenda. We resubmitted this
> proposal as an input into the zero draft of the zero draft of the WSIS+10
> vision in November, please see:
> http://www.itu.int/wsis/review/inc/docs/phase2/rc/V1-D-2.docx
>
> While many development issues in the Action Lines require action first and
> foremost at local and national levels, many of the Internet governance
> issues are really global public policy issues (and by splitting the two
> strands, where to engage can become much more clear for a range of actors).
> We therefore also made this proposal an integral part of our proposals for
> the evolution of global Internet governance. If much of the groundwork to
> enhance cooperation has already been done in the context of the Action
> Lines, why not build on this rather than constituting a new,
> government-dominated body? This would also ensure that the enhanced
> cooperation agenda, too, is tethered quite closely to development - that
> seems to be the case only rarely now.
>
> Different issues require action at different levels and through different
> processes. The challenge is not which one to chose, but how to hold on to,
> organise and maximise the multitude.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Anja
>
>
>
>
>
> On 2 December 2013 06:06, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> +1
>
>
>
> M
>
>
>
> *From:* nashton at consensus.pro [mailto:nashton at consensus.pro]
> > *Sent:* Sunday, December 01, 2013 4:05 PM
> > *To:* michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits
> > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] FW: Broadband Manifesto
>
>
>
> > The merits of the report aside, your point, Michael, is one I believe
> strongly to be true: the whole WSIS follow-up system is top-down, because
> the ITU took control of it. What's needed is national-level action plans,
> drawn up by all stakeholders, which can then be compared like-for-like as
> to results internationally so countries can learn from what works in other
> countries. The irony is that this model is how "Agenda 21" the climate
> change process from the first Rio conference works; sadly WSIS didn't pick
> this up despite it postdating Rio by more than a decade.
>
> > In the WSIS review, we should fix this. The digital divide is not going
> to be met in Geneva at one-annual "WSIS review" meetings where INGOs
> (however well-meaning) compare notes and report cards  - it will be met at
> the grassroots level, with buyin from that level.
>
>
>
> michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Anyone wondering why a grassroots/community informatics perspective is
> necessary in the WSIS and related ICT4D venues should take a close look at
> this corporate driven top-down techno-fantasy of what could/should be done
> with no attention being given to how it might actually be accomplished on
> the ground even after almost twenty years of similar pronouncements and
> failed (and hugely wasteful) similarly top down initiatives.
>
> >
>
> M
>
> >
>
> http://www.itu.int/net/pressoffice/press_releases/2013/67.asp
>
> >
>
> Broadband infrastructure, applications and services have become critical
> to driving growth, delivering social services, improving environmental
> management, and transforming people’s lives, according to a new Manifesto
> released by the Broadband Commission for Digital Development and signed by
> 48 members of the Commission, along with other prominent figures from
> industry, civil society and the United Nations. “Overcoming the digital
> divide makes sense not only on the basis of principles of fairness and
> justice; connecting the world makes soun d commercial sense,” the Manifesto
> reads. “The vital role of broadband needs to be acknowledged at the core of
> any post-2015 sustainable development framework, to ensure that all
> countries – developed and developing alike – are empowered to participate
> in the global digital economy.”
>
> >
>
> Supporting Document
>
> >
>
>
> http://www.broadbandcommission.org/Documents/working-groups/bb-wg-taskforce-report.pdf
>
> >
>
>
> > --
> > Sent from Kaiten Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
>
>
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
> >      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>
> >
>
> > --
> > Dr. Anja Kovacs
> > The Internet Democracy Project
> >
> > +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
> > www.internetdemocracy.in
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
> --
> Sent from Kaiten Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131205/c56a8eb2/attachment.htm>