[governance] what is it that threatens the Internet community or 'who is afraid of the IGF'

[Parminder]

While it is true that discussions on access and discussion on
> critical internet resourses don't exclude each other, it is also true
> that public attention is limited. During WSIS, the debate on Internet
> Governance was so dominant that other controversial issues such as the
> financing of ICTs never got the attention it deserved. This is why I
> understand that people fear debates on CIR.

Jeannette

But, do you find something strange in the fact that all those who were
thoroughly involved in 'financing ICTD' debates and other related processes
during the WSIS ARE the ones now calling for a discussion on CIRs (if you
want I can list them out), and all those who say CIRs should not be
discussed just because it may take attention away from the more important
issue of access were NOWHERE to be seen in the WSIS financing debates (I can
also list them)...

I can also tell you that many of the most vocal in this current 'access is
more important than CIRs' campaign (I refer mainly to the private sector,
but also some others) actually sabotaged the 'financing ICTD' debates and
possibilities of concrete action and follow up etc.... So, you can hardly
blame us if our primary feeling towards this campaign is of being amused,
and our language on this matter sometimes takes a somewhat sharp edge. 

And I also have in my recent email asked all those with this new interest in
access and financing (which is all about different models) what have they to
say about the removal of key points from 'access' agenda where models
alternative to the dominant ones (including community owned and community
based one, and those involving public finance - both terms, directly taken
from the WSIS texts), are sought to be discussed as well. How does
throttling such discussion impact 'access' and financing ICTD for the
benefits of those currently excluded.

What are your views on this, and well, those of others of the 'access is
more important than CIRs' campaign?

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: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu]
> Sent: Friday, September 07, 2007 10:31 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Guru at ITfC
> Subject: Re: [governance] what is it that threatens the Internet community
> or 'who is afraid of the IGF'
> 
> 
> 
> Guru at ITfC schrieb:
> > Completely agree with Milton .... Why is Access and CIR an 'either or'
> > situation? Why should discussion on CIR be perceived to be at the cost
> of
> > discussing access.
> >
> > Redistribution of power (influence over governance processes) is not any
> > less vital an issue than the actual provision of access. To me it is
> obvious
> > that such redistribution is a part and even a pre-requisite to
> meaningful
> > provision of equitable access. If some groups/countries have
> > disproportionate share of power/authority, what makes anyone believe
> that
> > the sharing of resources will not be in a manner inequitable to the
> rest,
> > who are out of this arrangement. Should we live on the 'goodness' and
> 'good
> > intentions' of those in power, doling out largesse?
> >
> > It would be great for CS/IGC to come out speaking for reform of the
> current
> > arrangements towards greater democratization in Rio.
> >
> > On a lighter vein ... On Milton's statement that "It is important to
> point
> > out that Jeanette is just accurately reporting what she hears, not what
> she
> > believes", it would be interesting to hear it from the horse's mouth  :-
> )
> 
> Hi Guru, I don't think of myself as a horse. Whatever. Milton is right
> that I was reporting about what I hear people say. My own position is
> somewhat inbetween the one that Milton expressed and the one that I
> described. While it is true that discussions on access and discussion on
> critical internet resourses don't exclude each other, it is also true
> that public attention is limited. During WSIS, the debate on Internet
> Governance was so dominant that other controversial issues such as the
> financing of ICTs never got the attention it deserved. This is why I
> understand that people fear debates on CIR. Personally I have always
> argued in favor of discussing the future of Internet Governance in case
> that is what you were asking about.
> jeanette
> >
> > Guru
> > IT for Change, Bangalore
> > Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities
> > www.ITforChange.net |
> > A man's worst difficulties begin when he is able to do as he
> likes.~Thomas
> > Huxley~
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu]
> > Sent: Friday, September 07, 2007 5:07 AM
> > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeanette Hofmann; Parminder
> > Subject: RE: [governance] what is it that threatens the Internet
> community
> > or 'who is afraid of the IGF'
> >
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> 2. A debate on critical Internet resources that absorbs almost all
> >> public attention although other issues, particularely access, are what
> >> most people in developing countries really care about. As long as they
> >> are not online they don't give a damn about the role of the USG in
> >> Internet Governance.
> >
> > It is important to point out that Jeanette is just accurately reporting
> what
> > she hears, not what she believes.
> >
> > And I have heard this argument many times before. Indeed, I heard it at
> the
> > Oxford Internet Institute conference last year, where a room full of
> > British, Americans and Europeans insisted that developing countries
> don't
> > care about the CIR issues, they care about development and access. And
> when
> > I pointed out that no one in the room was from a developing country, and
> > that the parties who had raised the issue repeatedly in global forums
> were
> > Brazil, South Africa, China and a other developing countries, that line
> of
> > dialogue came to a rather abrupt end.
> >
> > The theory here seems to be that time and energy spent discussing
> internet
> > resource policy is purchased at the expense of developing telecom access
> > facilities. So, for example, if Milton Mueller would just shut up about
> > ICANN for 30 days, this would immediately translate into, oh, 230
> additional
> > access lines in Kenya -- a net value of about US$ 230,000.
> >
> > I don't know whether the economics of this have been worked out yet. It
> may
> > be that my interventions in ICANN require such enormous investments in
> > countermeasures from the USG, the World Bank and Japan that funds are
> > diverted from global foreign aid. It may be that IGP's criticism of
> ICANN
> > unsettles international capital markets, raising the interest rate and
> > inverting the yield curve on bonds. Now there is a topic for future
> GigaNet
> > symposia.
> >
> > Anyway, in a period where we are about to run out of IPv4 addresses, we
> are
> > starting a debate on markets for IP addresses and the old regime won't
> even
> > consider it because it would upset their control. And there are serious
> > policy debates even within IETF about the bloc size of IPv6 address
> > distributions. The idea that CIR is not relevant to ALL countries is
> just
> > crazy. But it is certainly relevant to developing countries, who will be
> the
> > primary source of demand for address space in the years to come.
> >
> > Likewise, most growth in domain name markets will come from multilingual
> new
> > TLDs, which are most relevant to developing countries.
> >
> > Not to mention DNSSEC, another critical CIR issue.
> >
> > The challenge is indeed to move beyond old divisions and dichotomies.
> But I
> > am afraid that the ISOC-US crowd, or those who attempt to discourage
> > discussion of these issues, are the ones who are stuck in the 2005 WSIS
> > debates. They think there is nothing to say about this but to repeat
> > ITU-ICANN Punch and Judy show. Aside from showing a terrible lack of
> > imagination, this is irresponsible. There are really meaty policy issues
> > there.
> >
> > As physical access in developing countries grows, and as their own
> domestic
> > ISP market increases in size, they will inherit a world where the rules
> for
> > getting IP addresses and entering the domain name market have been
> written
> > in the USA. More important than the geographic source of the rules is
> their
> > substance: are they efficient, do they encourage competition, are they
> > equitable? Perhaps at Rio we can move beyond Tunis if we actually have a
> > real discussion of these issues.
> >
> > --Milton Mueller
> >
> >
> > No virus found in this outgoing message.
> > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > Version: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.7/992 - Release Date: 9/6/2007
> > 8:36 AM
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > 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
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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