[governance] WSIS, ICT4D, the IGF and other...

[Michael Gurstein]

Thanks for the opening Parminder and note that I've changed the subject
linel...

As some of you will recall, the WSIS was nominally directed towards linking
ICTs with the "development agenda".  Much of CS participation in the first
(and ostensibly 'substantive") Geneva round (and led by Bill McIver and
others) was to deal with ICT4D issues.

It was only in the second (Tunis round) that "governance" issues came to the
fore and where CS (through this list) and others began to focus more or less
all of its attention onto those matters through the IGF.

The designation of groups for post-WSIS "implementation" has meant that most
of the substantive issues were assigned to one or another of the UN paper
mills never again to see the light of day among non-paper millsian folks...

Post-WSIS policy discussions were (at least informally) meant to be
proceeded with on the governance side through the IGF and on the ICT4D side
through the Global Alliance for ICT4D (i.e. the GAID which morphed from the
UN's ICT4D Task Force when that agency sunsetted in December 2005...

Since then, the IGF has captured more or less all of the attention of CS,
and seems well on the way to becoming some sort of "agency" and focal point
for all forms and measures of post-WSIS substantive policy discussions cf.
Don Maclean's recent post on Sustainable Development and the IGF, and Tom
Lowenhaupt's suggestion of a Cities TLD theme.

In the meantime the GAID publicly abjured itself from a "policy role" (the
Santa Clara meeting), attempted to establish itself as a
programmatic/implementation body (through its partnership with Intel and
through its adoption (as its own) of various already existing programmatic
initiatives (Telecentres.org, the African connectivity initiative)). In
addition, the GAID adopted for itself a completely non-transparent and
top-down governance structure and only infrequently surfaced as the
sponsor/co-sponsor of various events in various places with little
coherence, virtually no frameworks for non-centralized participation, and
little visible contribution to ICT4D "policy".

In the absence of any "there" being "there", the IGF has, through its own
vague adoption of a "development" mandate (and "access" as a theme) begun a
measure of mission creep into the ICT4D space.

Back to what Parminder points to below... Before the Rio IGF I did an
informal survey among the various e-lists where grassroots ICT4D engaged
parties would be found to determine how many of them might be attending the
IGF.  I got, I believe 3 positive replies--one of whom was an official who
would likely be sent as part of a delegation, and two were from Brazil who
might be attending out of some general interest in the subject... (of course
there may have been more, who didn't reply but the email was circulated to
the 3 or 4000 folks who would most likely have an interest (from a "bottom
up perspective") in ICT4D policy issues.

The recent GK3 conference in KL on the other hand had very large numbers of
the relevent ICT4D folks, virtually no participation from the CS folks on
this list (at least by casual observation) and again willfully and evidently
deliberately stayed away from substantive policy discussion in favour of
case studies, how to's, presentations of programs etc.etc.

To conclude this ramble, I do not think that the IGF is an appropriate forum
for ICT4D policy discussion (not including the very very small sub-section
where ICT4D and IG issues narrowly defined overlap...) 

The communities (particularly on the CS side) do not overlap in
representation, knowledge bases, interest, or overall desired outcomes (for
the events).  ICT4D needs to have its own policy forum (I guess a subsidiary
spun off group from the IGF if properly constituted might work) and
particularly one where the necessary voices of grassroots ICT4D folks can
make themselves heard.

How or where to do this, I have no idea at this point, but that a gap exists
becomes more evident each day.

Michael Gurstein

M. Gurstein (2007) "What is Community Informatics? (and Why Does It
Matter)", (Polimetrica. Milan) 
http://eprints.rclis.org/archive/00012372/01/WHAT_IS_COMMUNITY_INFORMATICS_r
eading.pdf

-----Original Message-----
From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] 
Sent: February 18, 2008 8:45 AM
To: 'Adam Peake'; governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: RE: [governance] Reconstituting MAG

> I believe we should be looking to increase the
> number of stakeholder groups (giganet anyone?)
> not trying to put things back in WSIS style
> boxes.  Expanding participation is progress.

But we cant be blind to the directions of this expansion. Giganet may be
fine, but what about the telecentre and ICTD groups Michael Gurstein keep
claiming representation for. We go back to boxes, only when we see safety in
the boxes. CS's fight for progressive interests is a big ongoing struggle,
and various kinds of cooptions is one of the main things it is often up
against. 

Parminder 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp]
> Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 7:16 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder
> Subject: RE: [governance] Reconstituting MAG
> 
> 
> >
> 
> snip
> 
> >Membership of the MAG
> >·         We think that 40 is a good number for
> >MAG members. One third of MAG members should be
> >rotated every year.
> >·         The rules for membership of the MAG,
> >including in terms of representation of
> >different stakeholders, should be clearly
> >established, and make open along with due
> >justifications. We think that as per Tunis
> >Agenda¹s multi-stakeholder approach, membership
> >should be divided equally among governments,
> >civil society and the business sector. TA also
> >rightly recognizes international organizations
> >involved in IG as a stakeholder category, and
> >they should be allowed an appropriate number of
> >seats in the MAG.
> 
> 
> The Internet organizations
> (technical/administrative community, whatever,
> the I*s) have been over represented in the MAG to
> date, but should continue to be represented as a
> separate stakeholder group.
> 
> I disagree with returning to the TA looking for
> rules. The MAG itself is an interpretation of the
> TA, picking and choosing from that document could
> dump us back with discussion of a Bureau, much
> reduced participation, perhaps even text about
> stakeholders acting in their respective roles.
> 
> I believe we should be looking to increase the
> number of stakeholder groups (giganet anyone?)
> not trying to put things back in WSIS style
> boxes.  Expanding participation is progress.
> 
> 
> 
> >·         As per above, if we leave, say, 6
> >seats for international organizations,
> 
> 
> Why?  What's wrong with the usual observer role.
> (And is it  international organizations or
> intergovernmental organizations and is there any
> difference in the UN... I should know this!)
> 
> 
> >  out of the remaining 34 seats civil should be
> >entitled to 11 seats. There are five civil
> >society members
> 
> 
> I think there are seven CS members.  You might be missing Titi and 
> Erick.
> 
> That's all for now.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Adam
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >at present in a MAG of 40, an anomaly which
> >should be corrected in this round of rotation of
> >members. Obviously, this cannot happen if we
> >replace each retiring member with one from the
> >same stakeholder group. Full civil society
> >representation is necessary to ensure legitimacy
> >for this new experiment in global governance.
> >·         Stakeholder representatives should be
> >chosen based on appropriate processes of
> >self-selection by stakeholder groups. We do
> >appreciate that it is difficult to recognize any
> >one stakeholder entity, or even a given set of
> >them, as completely representing the whole of
> >that particular stakeholder group. This
> >complicates the process of selection, especially
> >in the case of civil society and business
> >sectors, and makes for some scope for the final
> >selecting authority exercising a degree of
> >judgment. This, however, should be done in a
> >completely transparent manner. Deviations from
> >the self-selection processes of stakeholder
> >groups should be kept to the minimum and be
> >defensible, and normally be explained.
> >·         All stakeholders should be asked to
> >keep in mind the need to adequately represent
> >diversity in terms of gender, geography, and,
> >where applicable, special interest groups.
> >Special Advisors and Chair
> >·         The role and necessity of the Special
> >Advisors should be clarified, as also the
> >criteria for their selection. Adequate diversity
> >should be represented in the selection of
> >Special Advisors as well.
> >·         We are of the opinion that in keeping
> >with the multi-stakeholder nature of the MAG,
> >there should only be one chair, nominated by the
> >UN SG. The host country should be able to
> >nominate a deputy chair, an arrangement that
> >would be helpful in context of various issues of
> >logistics for the annul IGF meetings. In any
> >case, we will like to understand the division of
> >work and responsibility between the two chairs,
> >in the present arrangement? It may be too late
> >to move over to this suggested arrangement for
> >the New Delhi meeting, especially if the Indian
> >government representative has already taken over
> >as the co-chair, but we can take a decision now
> >about the post-Delhi phase.
> >Role and Structure of the MAG
> >With the experience of two years of IGF, it is
> >also the right time to re-visit the role and the
> >structure of MAG. It will be appropriate to list
> >out the functions that MAG is expected to play.
> >·         One function is of course to make all
> >arrangements for the annual IGF meeting. We must
> >reviews MAG¹s experience with carrying out this
> >function. What more needs to be done by MAG to
> >further improve the effectiveness of the IGF? We
> >are of the opinion that MAG must review its
> >decision making processes to make them more
> >effective. These are especially important if IGF
> >is to evolve into something more than what it is
> >today, to enable it to fulfill all aspects of
> >its mandate.
> >·         It will be very useful for MAG to work
> >through working groups. These WGs should prepare
> >for each main session and the set of workshops
> >connected to this main session. WGs can also be
> >used for managing internal tasks of MAG more
> >effectively.
> >·         We will also like greater clarity at
> >this point whether MAG has any substantive
> >identity other than advising the UN SG. For
> >instance, to carry out some part of the mandate
> >which requires Œinterfacing¹, advising¹,
> >identifying issues¹, Œgiving recommendations¹
> >etc, MAG needs to be able to represent IGF. It
> >looks highly impractical that these tasks can
> >cohere in the UN SG.
> >·         Having some authority and identity of
> >its own is also required for MAG to do some
> >important regular tasks like assessing how well
> >is the Tunis Agenda mandate being fulfilled by
> >the IGF and what more needs to be done. Does MAG
> >ever undertake, or propose to undertake, such an
> >exercise? If not MAG, who would carry out this
> >exercise, which needs to be done with full
> >engagement of all stakeholders.
> >·         An annual report needs to be submitted
> >by the IGF to the UN Commission on Science and
> >Technology. Is MAG in anyway involved in
> >preparing this annual report, at present? It is
> >appropriate that MAG prepares and submits this
> >report, with engagement of all stakeholder
> >members.
> >·         (Alternate text for the above point
> >since CSTD is an inter-governmental body and
> >there is nothing very exciting about it. But
> >every organization including IGF should have an
> >annual report.) MAG should prepare an annual
> >report for the IGF. This report should mention
> >IGF activities and performance for the year
> >against relevant parts of the TA which lays out
> >its mandate, and also outline plans for the year
> >ahead.
> >·         IGF should actively encourage regional
> >and national level IGFs, and a specific plan
> >should be drawn out for this purpose, possibly
> >using a WG. Such a need is also expressed in the
> >paragraph 80 of TA.
> >Greater financial support for the IGF, through
> >untied public funds, is one of the central
> >imperatives for improving the effectiveness, and consequently, the 
> >meaningfulness, of the IGF. We understand that a meeting among 
> >potential funders is being held in Geneva around the
> >February consultations on this issue, and we
> >look forward to some positive results from that
> >meeting.
> >IGF should also fund the participation of at
> >least 5 members of civil society from developing
> >and least developed countries to ensure
> >meaningful participation in its open
> >consultations.
> >In the end, we appeal that we all use the full
> >term MAG at least for official purposes, because
> >multi-stakeholderism is the most important
> >aspect of the IGF.
> >Thank you.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >  > -----Original Message-----
> >  > From: Ken Lohento [mailto:klohento at panos-ao.org]
> >  > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2008 6:31 PM
> >  > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> >  > Cc: Parminder
> >  > Subject: Re: [governance] Reconstituting MAG
> >  >
> >
> >Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:MAG statement.odt (    /    )
> (00508305)
> >Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:MAG statement.doc (WDBN/«IC»)
> (00508306)
> >____________________________________________________________
> >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