[governance] Program for IGC at IGF

[Parminder]

> I welcome McTim's response; it goes right to the heart of the

> matter.

> In my view, it highlights one of the unspoken and politically

> incorrect truths of the entire WSIS process, i.e. that many

> (the

> great majority in my opinion) of the issues under discussion

> with

> respect to the Internet are national and sub-national issues,

> not

> international issues.  

 

I really cant understand the implication Of Tim's And George's comments....

 

So they think there ARE'NT any, significant, public policy issues of global
nature pertaining to the Internet... 

 

Now, if this is truly their belief I will like to know what is the nature of
their interest in IGF. (And I see that George is also a SAG member). IGF was
set up with good belief in importance of such issues.

 

Are we getting national level stakeholders together just to tell them there
isnt anything to be discussed and done at the global level, so go home and
put your house in order (if you may)...

 

Human rights, socio-economic rights, crime and terrorism, environment
issues, development.... everything that way would be national issues -
wonder why the world had been spending so much time holding global
conference/ summits/ CS meetings etc over such issues..... Everyone knows
the importance of dealing with these issues and national and sub-national
levels, but the global is an increasingly important policy arena..

 

Such views have this intrinsic anti-public policy biases which I consider
dangerous, especially in an increasingly globalized world. It does nothing
other then provide space for rule of the 'invisible' dominant forces.
Political power doesn't go away by not engaging with it.

 

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: George Sadowsky [mailto:george.sadowsky at attglobal.net]

> Sent: Friday, October 20, 2006 9:22 PM

> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; McTim; Jeremy Malcolm

> Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org

> Subject: Re: [governance] Program for IGC at IGF

> 

> All,

> 

> I welcome McTim's response; it goes right to the heart of the

> matter.

> In my view, it highlights one of the unspoken and politically

> incorrect truths of the entire WSIS process, i.e. that many

> (the

> great majority in my opinion) of the issues under discussion

> with

> respect to the Internet are national and sub-national issues,

> not

> international issues.  Raising them in an international

> context may

> allow governments to superficially abdicate their

> responsibility for

> dealing effectively with these issues at home.  It could,

> however,

> have the beneficial effect of putting a spotlight on the

> issues, but

> this will only help if the responsibility for solving them is

> placed

> directly and explicitly on national governments, not on any

> international community.

> 

> The ISOC and GIPI Access workshop, starting first thing

> Tuesday

> morning, will try to separate these issues with respect to

> access.

> My own organization, GIPI (www.internetpolicy.net) has been

> active in

> about 20 countries trying to influence national legislation

> and

> regulation in favor of the increased availability, access,

> and

> affordability of the Internet, and yes, with an emphasis upon

> consumer protection and confidentiality of information.  Let

> me tell

> you that it is difficult work, requiring full time resources

> on a

> continued basis.   Governments, especially those in non-

> democratic

> countries, to give up control.  that is where the battles

> must occur.

> 

> If you want to do something about non-transparency, let's

> start by

> working on the most blatant examples of it: governments such

> as North

> Korea, Myanmar and Kazakhstan, and quite a few more, not on

> institutions that are trying, even if only tangentially, to

> do

> something positive with respect to them.

> 

> There clearly are issues that are international in scope that

> that

> are good candidates for intelligent discussion in

> international fora.

> It remains to be seen how much of that will occur at the IGF.

> 

> Let's also stop accepting revisionist history as anything but

> an

> admission of ignorance or unwillingness to accept the truth.

> Good

> examples of this are contained in the recent Linguistic

> Diversity

> workshop outline.  As Stephane Bortzmeyer points out, and as

> those of

> us who have worked in ICT for quite a few years know,

> linguistic

> diversity has been an issue of active concern since at least

> the

> 1970's.  If workshops and other discussions are not based

> upon an

> accurate understanding of history and an accurate assessment

> of the

> nature of the problem and ongoing efforts to solve it, then

> their

> proceedings and conclusions will be ignored, and correctly

> so, as a

> silly waste of time by people who don't know any better.

> 

> George Sadowsky

> 

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~

> 

> 

> At 5:55 PM +0300 10/20/06, McTim wrote:

> >On 10/20/06, Jeremy Malcolm <Jeremy at malcolm.id.au> wrote:

> >

> >>

> >>Not having a go, Tim - I appreciate the feedback - but I

> know that you

> >>speak for a lot of others, and so I have to ask, do those

> other bodies

> >>you refer to make decisions about:

> >

> >I speak for myself, tho others may share my views.

> >

> >>

> >>* Freedom of expression on the Internet

> >>* Responding uniformly to cybercrime

> >>* Data protection and privacy rights online

> >>* Equity in interconnection costs

> >>* Consumer protection such as anti-phishing

> >>* etc, etc, etc

> >

> >not directly, but neither will the IGF.

> >

> >>

> >>Do you not care about these issues (fair enough), or do you

> think other

> >>bodies are dealing with them adequately, or do you think

> they are

> >>ungovernable?

> >

> >Those issues will be dealt with in national laws and

> regulations.  Not

> >that that is a *good thing*, but that is the way it is.

> >

> >>

> >>Because speaking for myself, I do care about them, I don't

> think any

> >>other body is dealing with them in a transnational and

> inclusive way,

> >>and I think that the IGF is our first, best chance to do

> so.

> >>

> >>But I am worried that the opportunity will be squandered

> and the IGF

> >>become just another intergovernmental body in which the

> non-state

> >>stakeholders serve no purpose but to feed input into

> independent

> >>governmental policy-making processes.

> >

> >I'm not sure it will even do that!

> >

> >--

> >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

> 

> ____________________________________________________________

> 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/20061021/1aac6396/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20061021/1aac6396/attachment.txt>