[governance] Effective participation ....

[Gurstein, Michael]

Since the issue of participation has again arisen it probably is not
inappropriate for me to reintroduce into the discussion what I take to
be the fundamental issue that I believe underlies our overall
discussions (and those of the IGF) and particularly that of
"participation";  that is, what is it that we mean by "Internet
Governance" or more particularly, what are we referring to when we speak
of "Internet Governance".
 
I think it is fairly well accepted that the Internet in some form or at
least ICTs in their various modes of application and networking will
provide the central infrastructure (nervous system cf. Bill Gates among
others) of the future politico-socio-economy.
 
That being said the issue of Internet Governance could arguably be
interpreted to be concerned with the "governance of the fundamental
infrastructure of the future" and at least in a context of what is to be
excluded from that future (rather than what is ensured) could be said to
be determinative of what the shape of that future economy, society and
polity will likely be.
 
I think that this is (at least half) recognized but never articulated by
many of those most actively concerned with "Internet Governance".  My
own feeling is that what should be of most direct concern at the IGF is
to identify what does not fall under the purview of "Internet
Governance" as currently being presented (and to identify where
elsewhere those other issues will be discussed).  
 
Once it is determined what is not on the table (everything other than
the hopefully fairly narrow and largely technical issues that are on the
table) then the matter of who should participate in what forums and in
what manner should flow quite easily and sensibly.
 
If everything is on the table, as seems to be implied by several of the
contributors to this discussion and elsewhere, then indeed we have a
very very serious problem of participation (and representation,
legitimacy, transparency etc.etc.
 
Best to all,
 
Mike Gurstein

-----Original Message-----
From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] 
Sent: October 12, 2006 1:52 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'McTim'; 'Anriette Esterhuysen'
Subject: RE: [governance] Effective participation ....



 

Hi everyone,

 

We always seem to take the 'effective participation' issues from a
'dominant standpoint' - "we know it - others need to learn to engage".
And so observations like  

 

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".

 

Capacity building issues cannot be denied. But I think that an equally
if not more important issue concerning increased participation is that
we continue to speak of Internet Governance in somewhat exclusionary
terms that we are most comfortable with. 

 

Internet is itself on a strong evolutionary curve - from basically a
technical protocols based technical infrastructure, to a global
information infrastructure, to a social relationship infrastructure -
with different evolving logics and socio-political underpinnings and
significance. Google's search logarithms may have become more important
protocols that IDNs, but we still like to stick to speaking about IG in
highly technical terms, to know which is really not that important to
understand the public policy implications in IG. And "this space" as
also IGF is primarily about pulbic policy implication of IG...

 

So while others whose participation we seek may have much to learn about
- we ourselves of "this space" may have to learn a lot. IG issues need
to be interpreted in terms of the needs, context and idiom of the
majority of the people (at first, at least of the organized interest
groups). And we know that it impacts all - so why aren't we able to show
them how it impacts them. They will certainly be interested, and will
participate as well......

 

There is a lot of technical expertise needed to set up ISPs, internet
exchanges, and other infrastructural elements, but the Internet is lot
more. And we, as the front-end CS on IG issues need to interpret old and
emerging IG issues to other CS constituencies, and make them interested.
From all developing (and developed) countries enough high quality
discourses emerge on issues like globalization, IPR etc - IG and
Internet policy issues aren't much more 'difficult' than these. Yes, it
is a fast changing terrain which makes its comprehension somewhat
difficult - and to address this problem we in IGC need to be more
pro-active in orienting IG issues more towards people's real needs and
context, rather than making them more 'technical'.

 

Parminder 

 

 

 

 

 

________________________________________________

Parminder Jeet Singh

IT for Change, Bangalore

Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities 

Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890

Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055

www.ITforChange.net 

> -----Original Message-----

> From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com]

> Sent: Saturday, October 07, 2006 3:49 AM

> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Anriette Esterhuysen

> Subject: Re: [governance] Effective participation ....

> 

> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20061016/17fa5a00/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20061016/17fa5a00/attachment.txt>