[governance] right to development, the structure of IGCand IG issues for march deadline

[McTim]

Hi Mawaki,

On 3/12/06, Mawaki Chango <ki_chango at yahoo.com> wrote:
<snip>
> duty" must be the developing country Governments. As simple as that.
> They are the first to be held accountable as to whether their people
> have potable water, food, shelter, or are protected against injustice
> or any arbitrary and illegitimate violence, have a reasonable access
> to the symbolic resources useful to the development of the individual
> citizens, etc.

frequently not held accountable though, but in theory, yes.

<snip>

> rights, etc. Ok, I'm aware we are heading for "multistakeholderism"
> but you also know we are not near the time the CS (even globally
> represented by just one seat around the table) will have one vote
> equaling that of a state. All we can do is to discuss and try to
> convince the decision and policy makers that we are right or our
> opinion/analysis is legitimate to be taken into account.

>From my perspective, this is looking at it backwards.

CS already has a clear, strong role in IG issues.  Why go "cap in
hand", begging governments for that which we already have in existing
fora??  We have many seats at the table(s) already reserved for us,
it's our fault if we don't take those seats, but they are their for
us!

>
> Though I understand the temptation to consider a "community as a any
> undeveloped grouping of individuals", at any level, but avoiding "any
> particular region […] or […] sovereign entity", I think we still
> live in a world where the nation states are still strong and have the
> leverage to frame and determine our collective life. So we cannot
> just skip that level of analysis and… responsibility.

We have given them this role in the IGF, by agreeing to be "junior
partners".  Thank God it can only produce non-binding recommendations!

>
> Am I making any sense out of this? Well, if you have understood by
> now that my problem with RTD is not on "right", but on "development",
> then I guess I do. We must be kidding when we think of
> philanthropy-led, charity-based agency as driving force for
> development!!! I take that as a response to crises – and that was
> much needed to face the devastating effects of the hurricane
> Katarina, the Tsunami, etc. It is just unfortunate that Africa has
> got crises as its usual trick, and you may notice that those are
> often consequences of political situations. But charity is by no
> means a solution for long-term development.

but it can be a catalyst for development.

<snip>

> It is not the CS to decide of a RTD, since it cannot be held as a
> target of the duty of development; it can only advocate for it, if it
> wants. This sould be done in a very cautious and articulated way so
> that not only it makes sense, but it helps achieve something.

And why it is a topic for this caucus is beyond me.  It's OT AFAIAC. 
Please move the discussion to another forum.

Robert is right, let's focus on what we need to produce for the end of
the month. Here are my suggestions:

1. SPAM
reason: There is no single forum that works on SPAM, instead lots of
fora do this. If the IGF can produce FUSSP, good on 'em!.

2. Right to communicate (I prefer this to right to information)
reason: quite obvious

3. Encouraging Open Access/liberalising telecoms sector regulations in
order to stimulate the spread of the edge of the network
reason: also quite obviouos

I the "3" limit is a red-herring, The IGF wants a list of prioritised
issues, We can submit 4 or 20.  I am sure they will be collated with
others input and a prioritised list will coume out of the process.

--
Cheers,

McTim
$ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance