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

[Nick Ashton-Hart]

It seems to me that, frankly, the Action Lines are a bit of a mess - duplicative, vague, in other cases difficult at best to be able to tell what success is.

I would suggest that the national level discussions should look more at the actual WSIS text, using the action lines as input. 

Your point about the mixture of governance and development is a good one - however, at the national level having separated discussions about these should be possible.

If the WSIS review doesn't operate in parallel at the national and international level, and only starts at the international level and then afterwards starts at the national level, we have the same top-down dynamic we have now, which has been a failure.

Anja Kovacs <anja at internetdemocracy.in> wrote:
>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.
>>

-- 
Sent from Kaiten Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131205/3a174568/attachment.htm>