FW: [governance] Effective participation ....

[Gurstein, Michael]

Interesting and useful discussion overall but I guess I'm a bit troubled
by the dog that isn't barking...

Nana made an effective case that those from LDC's and particularly
Africa won't be able to participate in the IGF for financial reasons and
Anriette and McTim moved that discussion along discussing some of the
perhaps deeper reasons for a lack of participation from Africa (and
elsewhere I would say).

What troubles me though is a lack of discussion of what exactly those
who are planning to go expect to get out of the trip (and I understand
that roughly 1000 people, not including myself) are going to be there?

My guess is a fairly large number of those attending are expecting that
some of the activities and outputs of the Forum will have some sort of
influence over the medium and longer (maybe even short term but no one
seems to be expecting that) on Internet Governance issues globally, and
possibly even (directly or indirectly) telecom regulatory issues and so
on and so on.

That having been said then the question now becomes is this an
appropriate venue/are these the appropriate actors to be involved in
these processes (as for example "creating consensus around xyz").  Also,
is this not part of an on-going but truly unseemly process of
privatizing public policy making (in this case at the global level).
Notably as in this instance with self-selected actors--with no visible
accountability to anyone apart from themselves and whoever is paying
their travel bills--taking (or sharing) responsibility for creating
policy/policy consensus/policy frameworks for everyone else
(recognizing that most of the "everyone else" will never have an
opportunity either directly, indirectly or even peripherally to
influence these discussions as for example, through elected
representatives or spokespeople with some degree of accountability to a
real constituency).

I'm thinking quite specifically here for example, of what appears to be
the almost complete absence of those who might benefit most from let's
call it ICT 4 all and some of whom at least are currently engaged in
attempting to create that reality for themselves. 

Given already noted resource constraints, lack of awareness or knowledge
of how the issues might impact, an overall lack of human resources, and
so on, the participation from those beyond the relatively small circle
of usual suspects will be minimal. I guess the lack of concern around
these issues and of the absence of any effort to ensure that there is
broader inclusion outside of the immediate circle of those previously
involved is a symptom of something that should be (but evidently is not)
of deep concern to those with an interest in or commitment to "civil
society". 

So I have to ask the question again... What do people expect to be
achieved in Athens? Insofar as anything is achieved  then I'm very
curious as to how this can be legitimated within any overall concept of
democratic participation and decision making. If nothing is achieved
then enjoy the skiing/whoops snorkelling.

On to Davos,

MG
____________________________________________________________
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