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

Thu Dec 5 06:11:54 EST 2013

On 5 December 2013 16:35, Jean-Louis FULLSACK <jlfullsack at orange.fr> wrote:

> Anja
>
>
>
> I fully agree with your opinion about AL content, at least in their
> current wording. In fact, they include both the crucial issues, development
> and Internet governance, and for a more comprehensive and efficient
> approach these issues should be filtered out. Second step to undertake
> would be to group some of them (Bertrand suggested this re-grouping some
> years ago). If done consistently that would reduce the number of WGs,
> facilitate their activity and give them an actual impetus.
>
>
>
> Once again, a strong CS presence and commitment in the process is a
> precondtion for the WSIS to survive its "+10"term, this is my utterly
> convicgion. But as you may agree, it isn't the unique one ! IMO IG
> would/could survive a WSIS failure, because it is a global issue ... and
> all "stakeholders" are interested in worldwide. Development is a more
> complex and holistic problems with many variables and parameters, and CS
> has lost its strong influence in the WSIS process during the last years as
> has been highlighted by the absence of an active and animated :-)
> discussion list (e.g. plenary at wsis-cs.org) <plenary at wsis-cs.org)s> as  a
> counterpart of as governance at ists.
>
Fully agree with you here, Jean-Louis.

I know it's early days, and so much still isn't known about the WSIS+10
Review Summit, but do you perhaps see any potential to galvanise CS again
around the development aspects in the context of that meeting, and then
hopefully get off to a new and more productive start?

Best regards,
Anja

>
>
>
>
>
>
> Best regards
>
>
>
> Jean-Louis Fullsack
>
>
>
>
> > Message du 05/12/13 09:31
> > De : "Anja Kovacs"
> > A : "michael gurstein"
> > Copie à : jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr, "Nick Ashton-Hart" , "IGC" ,
> "bestbits"
> > Objet : RE: [governance] RE: [bestbits] FW: Broadband Manifesto
>
> >
> >
>
> > 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.
>>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>

-- 
Dr. Anja Kovacs
The Internet Democracy Project

+91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
www.internetdemocracy.in
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131205/ef7f4339/attachment.htm>