[governance] tick, tick, tick...

[Adam Peake]

Parminder, quick reply more later perhaps. Jetlag.

About the tradition -- all I can say is Jeanette 
and I didn't speak at sessions, tried to steer 
opportunities to others. When it comes to 
consultations it often seems IT for Change has 
comments in before the caucus.  So perhaps it's a 
matter of priorities?

About the access issues you're concerned about. 
Odd you think they came from IT for Change. See 
part of an email I sent to the MAG list in June, 
I thought I wrote the now deleted items. I am 
also unhappy they are gone, and I may well have 
screwed up last week, plus I had to leave early 
and didn't see the final draft of the access 
session.  But the items are a guide not rule. I 
expect each session will later have a written 
description and I will try to get those issue 
back in.

It's not helpful you always so aggressively negative about people's motives.

Adam

email comments on an earlier draft of the program:


>Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2007 23:58:54 +0900
>From: Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp>
>Subject: [igf_members] thoughts on Access session and sub-themes
>
>About the access session and sub themes.
>
>It would be a good opportunity to include some national case studies,
>national-level multi-stakeholder initiatives influencing the policy
>process (I mentioned some examples in earlier email. This was a key
>part of APC's contribution to the last consultation and I thought
>very useful and relevant.) Case studies would introduce some "real"
>issues and problems for the panel/audience to keep in mind.  Might
>also be an opportunity to have one or more of the Best Practise
>sessions focus on access related activities.
>
>  From the bullets in the Draft Program under access, suggest, in priority:
>
>1. Regulatory frameworks tailored to local conditions [, in
>particular towards improving access in rural areas.] and the effect
>of regional infrastructure and regulation on Internet connectivity
>costs and access to the Internet.
>
>(this combines two bullets)
>
>2. Market and non-market structures and their relationship to
>competition and investment in fostering innovation and alternative
>business models.
>
>(organize the session around problems/issues identified by specific
>stakeholder groups.)
>
>3. Public infrastructure and the respective roles and
>responsibilities of public and private finance in providing  access.
>
>(re-words what's in the bullet in the draft.)
>
>4. International connectivity costs
>
>This is an important topic, but is IGF the best place to discuss it.
>It might be better as the subject of an "open" workshop.
>
>5. The role of governments as key stakeholders in ensuring an
>enabling environment to improve access.
>
>(this is true, but will be be able to openly talk about the barriers
>govt often create to an  enabling environment?)
>
>So I suggest we make 1, 2, 3 the sub-theme workshops. List the rest
>an more as just other examples of issues thought important?
>
>Best,
>
>Adam
>





At 9:49 PM +0530 9/10/07, Parminder wrote:
>Adam
>
>>and I think best
>>  if the caucus coordinators also didn't
>>  participate as panelists, that's also been a bit
>>  of a tradition.
>
>I have no idea about this tradition. How and when was it established? And to
>keep me informed, please also let me know of all others traditions
>associated with coordinator-ship - like being members of officially
>empowered committees and working groups where they speak for themselves, and
>of holding positions in important IG institutions which themselves are often
>important subjects of discussion etc etc :-)
>
>Abstinence of MAG members is entirely another matter because they are
>supposed to choose speakers, and this rule has self-evident justification,
>and applies in every nomcom.
>
>I am not too eager to be a speaker, except for the fact that it is my
>organization that suggested the agenda of 'alternative business models for
>access' and 'public and private finance for access' in the access theme
>which were on the agenda till this latest draft. And its removal without
>assigning any reason is most objectionable, and ideologically motivated,
>compromising the neutrality of whoever decides these issues. I want to make
>sure that the access panel just doesn’t one-sidedly parrot the neo-liberal
>line of telecom, as it is obviously the intention of some powerful parties.
>Removal of these issues is even more unjustifiable because they are from the
>language adopted by WSIS. So much for upholding WSIS principles. Obviously,
>what are useful WSIS principles and what are not, is itself decided by some
>people on their own.
>
>I am in contact with a few experts in the area of community based/ owned
>access models (on which UNDP is doing a lot of work), but still not sure if
>they will attend (such is the dominant scene at the IGF). I am trying my
>best to get them over and suggest them as speakers in the access panel... If
>that doesn’t happen, I am fine to make a general appeal to anyone who will
>be at IGF and be willing to speak on this issue. If not, I would step up and
>offer myself as a speaker for the access panel.
>
>Incidentally, while we are on the subject can I inquire of you, as a CS
>member of MAG, (and of others on the list) what criterion is used to remove
>such perfectly balanced agenda items as have been removed from the 'access'
>agenda theme? Was there any opposition? What is your personal opinion on
>this? Or is access important only as promotion of telecom market models of
>MNCs, and alternative do not count, even as an item for discussion? Or is
>such 'hair-splitting' in the area of 'access' just not important, and access
>topic is good only to be used as a counterfoil to CIR issue?
>
>Since you have freely suggested traditions for co-coordinators, I think it
>will also be good to set up traditions of IGC nominated MAG members replying
>to questions on IGC list that relate directly to their MAG work.
>
>Best
>
>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
>
____________________________________________________________
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