[governance] .xxx. igc and igf

[Parminder]

Veni

> The important topics today, for the civil society, and for the
> businesses, are not the one, which are on the US-centric agenda, is
> not what ICANN does, but (in random order), let's choose 3 of the "hot
> topics":
> 
> - affordability of access
> - accessibility of Internet (both as accessibility for people with
> disabilities, and for people who don't have access at all)
> - content control.


The issue is not just what to discuss, but (more, importantly) why, i.e. to
what effect. 

IGF is not merely a deliberative space but (again, more importantly) a
political one... Or at least somewhere in between the two. 

So the issue is not only 'affordability of access', but what exactly is it
you think different actors (at the global level primarily, but also other
levels, secondarily) can and should do about it - and how can we try to push
them to do it. We need contributions and advocacy in that direction. 

Without that 'access' is an empty concept. I have seen too many people think
very differently about it, and too many people speak about it glibly, even
deceitfully, because they aren't interested in real political issues which
impact access.

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: Veni Markovski [mailto:venimarkovski at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Veni
> Markovski
> Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 12:39 AM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Vittorio Bertola;
> governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton Mueller
> Subject: Re: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf
> 
> Vittorio,
> 
> At 20:02 4/17/2007  +0200, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
> >Milton Mueller ha scritto:
> >>True, of course I am not calling for starting from scratch. The IGF is
> >>a valuable forum for advocacy and a "bully pulpit" to use an American
> >>slang. I am not giving up on it and I hope my comments are not being
> >>interpreted that way. But the severe limits being placed on its agenda
> >>are a source of concern, especially when key actors in ICANN civil
> >>society (i.e., Vittorio) seem to be abandoning the opportunity to
> >>attempt to reform ICANN from an IGF-based platform.
> >
> >I must confess to be somehow lost in your reasoning.
> >First you complain that the IGF is a forum for advocacy and for
> >discussion only.
> >Then you complain that ICANN reforms are not on the agenda of the IGF.
> >And finally you complain about abandoning an "opportunity to attempt
> >to reform ICANN from the IGF" which, if you accept your premise six
> >lines before, does not exist.
> >Earlier today, you complained that those from civil society who
> >accept serving in positions at ICANN are being "soooooo easily
> >co-opted" just to "feel important".
> 
> You've captured the moment quite correctly. It is only about
> complaints, and not that much about becoming part of the solution.
> You've counted only five complaints, just in a couple of e-mails. If
> you go into the mailing list history, you may find more.
> 
> It's time that we just stop paying so much attention to the people
> who complain all the time, and instead focus our attention on the
> people who constructively contribute.
> The WSIS/WGIG/IGF were never meant to be the venue where people would
> complain. One could go back into time quite easily, and see not only
> why they were formed, but also who was the driving force.
> The important topics today, for the civil society, and for the
> businesses, are not the one, which are on the US-centric agenda, is
> not what ICANN does, but (in random order), let's choose 3 of the "hot
> topics":
> 
> - affordability of access
> - accessibility of Internet (both as accessibility for people with
> disabilities, and for people who don't have access at all)
> - content control
> 
> In my part of the world, nobody cares about the dot com, or the dot
> net. Everyone cares about their national ccTLD. May be it's time that
> we focus on the real issues, not on the ones where people make politics.
> 
> veni
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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