[governance] Re: [igsd] Summary and Thanks - e-conference on Internet Governance and Sustainable Development

Tue Oct 2 12:45:28 EDT 2007

Dear Kwasi,

I think that your ideas below along with those you raised in our e-conference have a lot of merit.

I think that the biggest challenge with such a proposal is finding an appropriate organization which can represent regional interests that stakeholders from all countries in that region can agree to. Such an organization would be necessary to manage the use of funds dedicated to fulfilling this need and selecting appropriate sites for such centres.

I saw Nnenna's post mentioning similar such activity through ARAPKE but it seems that project has fallen dormant. I am curious about his suggestion for a CS lead and was wondering if there are organization like the Africa Civil Society for the Information Society - ACSIS that could attract the necessary funding and take the lead on such an idea?

Regards,

Tony

________________________________

From: kwasi boakye-akyeampong [mailto:kboakye1 at yahoo.co.uk]
Sent: Tue 02/10/2007 5:07 AM
To: IGSD; Internet governance
Subject: [governance] Re: [igsd] Summary and Thanks - e-conference on Internet Governance and Sustainable Development

Thanks Tony for your prompt summary of the e-conference.

What are your thoughts on the following:

"One solution proposed was that funding be offered to
facilitate travel for participants to an adequate access point within
their sub-region where they could effectively participate."

This proposal was submitted under the thread "OVERCOMING CAPACITY ISSUES THROUGH ONLINE PARTICIPATION".

I am of the opinion that most of the time those selected may submit a very good application but it might well be that they may not effectively participate due to lack of sufficient knowledge regarding the issues being discussed. Lack of knowledge may be mainly due to practical knowledge or exposure but not necessarily a lack of theoretical knowledge.

So what I am proposing is for these regional capacity building centres to be set up for all year training and capacity building training activities that will help select people to represent the regions at International conferences; those the region is confident enough to represent them and to have a message. They will be required to submit a report upon return. And while the International event is taking place, we can have participation from others at the center. This center will serve both ICANN, IGF, and any other Internet Governance related activities in their respective regions. The centres can get funding from their governments and other bodies to train journalists in IG related issues.

The centres will also take into consideration access for disabled participants.

The current way of selecting participants on an ad hoc basis does not benefit their respective regions and countries, and I may even venture to say is money down the drain. Participants are not accountable to anyone and when they return can choose never to talk about the conference to anybody. I am talking from experience here, having twice participated in ICANN conferences on fellowship. I know too many people who have also participated in the past. i think the most important thing is not just to offer people fellowship to attend a conference or a meeting.

Regards,
Kwasi

This is just a rough idea, but I believe, it can be closely looked at and discussed.

Tony Vetter <tvetter at iisd.ca> wrote:

	Dear All, 

	This final post marks the end of this e-conference. I wanted to thank those who were able to spare the time to participate in IISD's e-conference on Internet governance and sustainable development. 

	Your contributions of ideas and considerations will help inform the creation of a booklet on IISD's Internet governance and sustainable development project, which will contain short editorials on each of the pair of papers that were posted for your review at the e-conference website (HYPERLINK http://www.iisd.org/infosoc/gov/igsd/ http://www.iisd.org/infosoc/gov/igsd/ ), along with our conclusions regarding common positions, mutual challenges and differences, and where lessons from one side might inform progress on the other.

	IISD will be releasing this booklet at the upcoming Internet Governance Forum (IGF) meeting in Rio de Janeiro (HYPERLINK http://www.intgovforum.org/ http://www.intgovforum.org/ ), as well as the 3rd Global Knowledge Conference in Kuala Lumpur (HYPERLINK http://www.gkpeventsonthefuture.org/GK3/ http://www.gkpeventsonthefuture.org/GK3/ ).

	I invite you all to read my summary below of the key discussions which took place during this e-conference. I would be interested to hear anyone's ideas on what they think we should focus our work on next. Please email your thoughts on this to tvetter at iisd.ca.

	Governance processes 
	================= 
	In this discussion thread some key challenges facing Internet governance (IG) were outlined by participants. The absence of adequate infrastructure and the skills required to effectively participate in the IG debate were highlighted as challenges facing most developing countries. One participant shared the observation that some governments lack the motivation to develop IG policies and show interest in decision making processes as a result of viewing the Internet as a turf they cannot control. Linking the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) to the IG debate was acknowledged as an effective way to bring issues important to developing countries to the fore of the discussion, like access, security, open standards and information rights . However one frustration noted was that in the actual IG forum it is often a subset of issues that gets most of the attention at the expense of others. This process of issue prioritization was acknowledged to be a complex and difficult one for developing countries to influence since it requires effective participation at national, regional and international levels. One approach to this challenge offered by a participant was to create the incentive for national investment in the capacity to participate through the fostering of ICT integration strategies based on grassroots economic activities that can also earn the government revenue. 

	Language as a barrier to participation 
	=========================== 
	The discussion thread on language as a barrier to participation featured two distinct and opposing points of view. Some participants felt that requiring a proficiency in English was a significant barrier and that offering conferences, materials and capacity building programs in more languages would enhance participation by developing countries. One participant felt that the nuances of policies and their principles are often difficult for non-native English speakers to grasp. It was suggested we should acknowledge that being able to uses ones native language represented a distinct advantage by allowing one to exercise authority over the meaning of words. Others felt that English should be accepted as the universal language for international meetings and that people should come prepared accordingly. It was even suggested by one participant that the Internet is more interesting and useful in English. Several participants felt that international meetings like the IGF should be leveraged as venues to offer language training to encourage people to learn English. Underlying both sides of this debate is the challenge of being able to effectively communicate global issues either through the filter of translation to multiple languages, or through the filter of comprehension for those participating in English as a non-native language. For example is the term governance interpreted as a multistakeholder activity under the watchful eyes of the global internet constituency, or is it an exercise of power and authority.

	Overcoming capacity issues through online participation 
	======================================== 
	A question raised by one participant was whether we effectively exploit the potential for online participation as a solution for overcoming the capacity issues facing many who wish to participate in international dialogues. It was pointed out that not enough important events support remote access, the ones that do poorly publicize this support, training to organize remote participation is lacking, and there is insufficient sharing of information on available tools. This prompted many other participants to highlight the barriers faced by many in developing countries of inadequate access (simple low bandwidth access can cost as much as a day of income per hour), inadequate infrastructure (repeated electricity failures leading to equipment damage), and knowledge to participate (language difficulties and lacking skills). Some reported being able to access the internet for free at universities and that they were sometimes used as points of access to attend e-conferences however this was not consistent across the board. Many reported that students had to often pay for access, and that often a small amount of bandwidth is being shared between hundreds of users making participating in e-conferences impractical. One solution proposed was that funding be offered to facilitate travel for participants to an adequate access point within their sub-region where they could effectively participate. Another example for overcoming these barriers included the leveraging other forms of connectivity such as SMS to facilitate participation by those lacking adequate Internet access by proxy as demonstrated by ACSIS members. In summary many seemed to agree that lack of access was the main issue and that solutions to this should be the top priority of all national plans of action, and a focal point for the dialog between government, the private sector and civil society. 

	IG and SD policy convergence 
	====================== 
	I started this discussion thread suggesting a motivation for IG and SD policy convergence based on the idea that those who would like to see SD work as an organizing principle for governments and business need to embed these values in our social, economic and political systems and that the IG debate has a critical role to play for seeing this happen. One participant made the point that the sharing of knowledge is central to this process and that this could challenge the survival of local languages and alternate ethos. So the question was asked whether SD practitioners need to acknowledge a trade off between realising the benefits of inclusion in the information society versus protecting traditional knowledge, cultures and practices. One participant offered an excellent example based on milk production that suggested that if a technology solves a particular need it becomes an enabler of the community and hence gets easily absorbed into their lives regardless of language and cultural barriers. Further investigation of the value chain in agriculture processes for ideas on how to infuse technology in this manner seemed well justified. It would certainly be encouraging to see a repeat of such scenarios where rural people absorb technology this quickly.

	Thanks again to everyone. 

	Tony Vetter
	Project Officer, Knowledge Communications
	International Institute for Sustainable Development, Ottawa, Canada
	1-613-288-2024
	http://www.iisd.org 

	---
	You are currently subscribed to igsd as: kboakye1 at yahoo.co.uk.
	To unsubscribe click here: http://lists.iisd.ca:81/u?id=328002.ba2f88e7221930bf44d1d9a5f4e905c7&n=T&l=igsd&o=678441
	or send a blank email to leave-678441-328002.ba2f88e7221930bf44d1d9a5f4e905c7 at lists.iisd.ca

..............................................................................................................................
"If I am not for myself, who will be for me? If I am not for others, what am I?    And if not now, when?" - Rabbi Hillal
..............................................................................................................................

________________________________

Yahoo! Answers - Get better answers from someone who knows. Try it now <http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTEydmViNG02BF9TAzIxMTQ3MTcxOTAEc2VjA21haWwEc2xrA3RhZ2xpbmU> .
____________________________________________________________
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 --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: winmail.dat
Type: application/ms-tnef
Size: 11957 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071002/83ceae86/attachment.bin>