[governance] Program for IGC at IGF
George Sadowsky
george.sadowsky at attglobal.net
Sat Oct 21 15:11:29 EDT 2006
Parminder,
You are absolutely right that there are
significant and major issues that are
international in scope and require international
leadership to address. To name just two that
will be discussed at the IGF, I note cybercrime
and spam, and there are clearly others.
What I am reacting to is what I observe is the
conventional wisdom that I find faulty: that
Internet governance and related Internet issues
are essentially international in character, and
that national issues are secondary. In almost
all developing countries that I have worked in
(and I've worked in over 50, although many before
the Internet), national government policies have
been the determining factor regarding the health
of the ICT industry, the ability of people to
gain access to computers and, of importance to us
here, the ability of the Internet to spread in an
accessible and affordable manner.
So my post is essentially a reaction against the
idea that the IGF, and the UN, and the ITU, and
... (choose your favorite cast of international
characters) will be able to solve the issue of
Internet governance and associated Internet
issues. And if we go back to WSIS-2, I challenge
you to make a list of the countries that wanted
to emasculate ICANN that, in their own country,
actively limit access to the Internet through
monopoly control and/or high prices, disregard
and violate confidentiality of communication,
censor information, and punish people severely
for attempting to create a free flow of
information. I think the list would be long.
Yet all of those countries implicitly or
explicitly agreed with both the vision statement
and the plan of action, both international
documents created during WSIS-1. Talk is cheap;
action is definitive.
Now, if you wonder why the world has been
spending so much time holding global conferences
over such issues, I'm inclined to share that
concern with you. The global arena is an
important policy arena, but for those issues that
can be influenced by global action. We may
differ on exactly what issues are contained
within that set.
I do differ with your conclusion. Such views do
not have anti-public policy biases. Rather, they
reflect the desirability of taking action with
respect to issues in appropriate venues. We
probably generally share working toward the goals
of making this world "a better place," but we may
not share the same concept of the means to get
there.
I hope that these remarks have been helpful.
George
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
At 10:00 PM +0530 10/21/06, Parminder wrote:
>
> > 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/20061021/4b4d1a00/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20061021/4b4d1a00/attachment.txt>
More information about the Governance
mailing list