[governance] Effective participation ....

[McTim]

Howzit Anriette,

On 10/6/06, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org> wrote:

>
> Why are there so few participants from national IG communities in this
> space, and it appears, going to the IGF?

perhaps because they participate in their own little ponds and not so
much on a global scale?

I think that is the case here in UG, where we have a large-ish group
of folk interested in these issues.  Seminars and meetings have been
sponsored by ISOC in the distant past, recent past by IICD and most
recently APC/CIPESA have joined in. Despite this, there is years of
capacity building to do to bring most of these folk to the level of
discussions on this list or "in this space".

>
> APC has been talking with ISOC ZA (South African chapter) and the local
> ISPA as we would really like someone to talk about content regulation from
> a southern internet service provider's perspective at one of our workshops in
> Athens.
>
> As far as I found out no one from the South African ISP association or ISOC
> chapter was planning to go. With a bit of luck and lots of good will I think we
> will be able to bring someone from here (SA) to Athens who has a long track
> record in working on IG issues as well as on content regulation as it impacts
> on ISPs.
>
> But the question remains.  Why is ISOC not making it possible for more
> participants from their national chapters to make it to these global events?

0) Why single out ISOC? Neither Ken nor Nana mentioned them.

1) You should ask ISOC this via the public policy discussion list or
via Chapter delegates list:

Chapter-delegates mailing list
Chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org
http://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates

_______________________________________________
Memberpubpol mailing list
Memberpubpol at elists.isoc.org
http://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/memberpubpol

2) They certainly did make it possible for more ISOC folks to go to to WSIS.

3) AFAIK, it is more the chapters job to send their folk to the IGF,
not the Geneva/Reston HQ task.  I count 8 ISOC chapter delegations, so
the chapters are somewhat active in this area, tho it may be out of
scope for some chapters.

4) ISOC already devotes a great deal of time and money on bottom up IG
fora, IETF in particuar, so perhaps that remains the focus.

>
> And what is it the that IGF is doing, or not doing, that renders it not all that
> interesting to national registries or operators?

I see a number of ccTLD folk and a few large providers, tho not many
of either, on the participant list.

I would suggest that it is because these fok already participate in
the current IG system via bottom up processes, and this non-binding
forum may be a bridge too far for many.  I know it is not even on the
radar for the ISPs I work with. They are far too busy with
AfriNIC/AfrISPA/AfNOG etc to spend any cycles, let alone resources on
the IGF.

>
> The value of global ICT policy forums peaks when they interact with national
> and regional processes (and actors) to support change that increases rights
> and access, and lowers costs and barriers to users and operators at local
> level.

That may be, but apparently the vast majority of perators/registries
don't see the value of the IGF in re: to the above issues. I can't say
I blame them.

> Or am I wrong and will local actors (e.g. local/national consumer groups,
> regulators, internet lawyers, operators, registries etc.) be there and I just
> don't know about it?

http://www.intgovforum.org/PLP.html shows some of all of the above,
except consumer groups.

http://info.intgovforum.org/PL.php seems to be a later version.

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
$ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance