[governance] Is 'access' important (vis a vis CIRs) or is it MNCs telecom businesses

[Parminder]

This is especially for all those who have passionately argued that 'access'
was more important than CIRs to discuss at the IGF. I count on their support
to take up this matter with the IGF secretariat. 

 

In the new draft program ( www.intgovforum.org/ )  under the theme "access"
two important points which were there in the earlier drafts (enclosed) have
mysteriously disappeared. These are "Market and non-market structures and
their relationship to competition and investment in fostering innovation and
alternative business models" and "Public Infrastructure and the role of
public and private finance in providing access". As one can see both the
formulations were already quite balanced taking all different .perspectives
into consideration. So, what is the justification in removing them? These
issues had come on the agenda because of civil society inputs. Who would
have been instrumental in removing them? Significantly, this removal has
happened while the list of points in each theme has actually become longer. 

 

Such one-sided ideological distortions are being smuggled into the agenda of
global public policy bodies that have a professed principal orientation to
development,  when so many cities in the US and Europe are employing public
funds for wireless connectivity, and many studies indicate that countries
like the US which has no or shrinking government role and light regulation
polices are falling behind in broadband vis a vis countries with greater
public sector role (Korea and Singapore) and stronger regulation (Japan).
This is regarding developed countries, as for developed countries many
studies, and much project experience, have shown that non-market
interventions are key to reaching the benefit of the Internet to all. And
most developing countries are already doing something in this regard (India,
for instance). It is also important to note that, despite all these policy/
practice changes within the developed countries, they still keep giving the
prescription to developing countries of the keeping the public sector and
more proactive regulation away from the telecom sector, which of course is
not for serving connectivity objectives but the business interests of
telecom multi-nationals.

 

Why should even a discussion of non market structures (such community based
structures are mentioned in the WSIS docs, and this came from civil society
contributions to the text), alternative business models and the role of
public finance for connectivity (also mentioned in WSIS docs on basis of CS
inputs) taken off the table even as indicative possible areas of discussion
at the IGF, while they were there in the earlier versions of the draft
program. Who are these actors who are so over active to determine the agenda
at the IGF subverting all 'progressive' possibilities, and where are the
representations and the perspectives of civil society. What does it say
about the balance of power in the IGF? Who, one may ask in this light, is
supposed to be more threatened by the way IGF agenda is being determined? 

 

So one wonders if it is the MNC telecom operators huge business potential in
developing countries that is important or really the access for the
disadvantaged. Why did those who were so passionate about 'access' when the
issue of CIRs was sought to be discussed remain silent when these subjects
of vital importance for ensuring access to the disadvantaged, and which have
also been mentioned in WSIS texts, were excluded. Indeed, we all know that
those who actually would have been instrumental in removing these subjects
were a strong part of the 'access is more important than CIRs' lobby. 

 

If this is the way the CS involved in the IG is able to represent the
interests and struggles of wider CS constituencies, we shouldn't be
surprised if we have low credibility with them, and they doubtful of joining
us. 

 

This kind of agenda rigging is very disappointing. And we continue to have
development as the main and the overarching theme the forthcoming IGF
meeting, as it was at Athens.. Excuse me to use strong language but I think
whoever is responsible for this needs to be a little less hypocritical. 

 

And Jeanette, this, incidentally, is a good proof of the power of the MAG. 

 

 

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

 <http://www.itforchange.net/> www.ITforChange.net 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20070907/20907c9e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: DraftProgramme.13.06.2007-4.rtf
Type: application/msword
Size: 57253 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20070907/20907c9e/attachment.dot>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20070907/20907c9e/attachment.txt>