[governance] tick, tick, tick...

[Parminder]

Adam

It is a few days old email, but I thought I shd reply to it because it
implicates my IGC co-coordinator role and responsibilities.  

> About the tradition -- all I can say is Jeanette
> and I didn't speak at sessions, tried to steer
> opportunities to others.

Which sessions are you speaking of. IGF started last year, you weren't the
co-coordinator, and there weren't any IGC nominations. 

In any case, I should inform you that I no longer am offering myself for
speaking at main sessions at Athens. One of the two persons I contacted for
speaking on the issues which were high-jacked off the agenda has agreed. The
person is a senior member of an UN agency and has worked on the issues of
pro-poor access and community based access models. Incidentally, the other
one was Sean Siochru who is also on your list. However, he wont be coming to
Rio. 

>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?

That's the main issue I seek to address. I don't understand what exactly do
you mean here. Should IT for Change cease its advocacy work since I am the
caucus co-coordinator. Is it a condition of taking up coordinator-ship? But
no real organization is going to give up its core work because one of its
members becomes a co-coordinator This will mean only individuals with no
organisational affiliations, or at least, presence in the IG arena with any
sort of views, can become a co-coordinator. Do you mean to propose such a
criterion for IGC co-coordinators?

I see few if anyone from the South who will meet this requirement. 

And I know when you read IT for Change you think me, and that is really not
my fault. IT for Change has an important presence in local, national and
global levels - in projects, research and advocacy. And our positions are
consistent across our activities as they emerge from them. These views and
positions are publicly available for others to hold us accountable as well,
since we live off public money. And we are responsible and accountable to
our members, out partners, funders and such stakeholders...

Which is much more than can be said of views and positions of individuals
actors in this arena (nothing against them, but since there seems to be a
position against organisational actors and the way they act, I am using this
argument). 

Is it not better to put out written views and positions and be accountable
to them rather than push individual politics through a variety of means
while appearing neutral, whatever it means in a political arena. 

I strive to balance my responsibilities in IT for Change and that of caucus
coordinator, and I wont agree to your suggestion that I am not doing it
well. Of course you have a right to say so, and seek accountability. Here
above is my response. Which is more than I have seen with regard to frequent
requests on this list on improving the information flow to the list from IGC
MAG members nominated to the selection process by the IGC - not only of
process issues, but also on more substantive matters. And now even the UN
Secretary General has shown impatience with the flow of information to
stkaeholders. 

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: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp]
> Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 10:37 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder
> Subject: RE: [governance] tick, tick, tick...
> 
> 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

____________________________________________________________
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