[governance] Cost of access - the meters ticking

[jlfullsack]

Dear Parminder

I fully support your opinion on Internet for development/developing 
countries being one issue among others of Internet governance. This was also 
expressed in a lot of CS statements all along the second phase of WSIS.
Therefore I also fully agree your statement that experts in development 
should be members of the MAG as to complement the experts in the technology 
domain. Moreover, there may be some CS people -mainly from NGOs that are 
active in the ICT/Internet domain in DCs and partnering with their 
local/national equivalents- who are are best aware of the cross-cutting 
issues, and should be therefore encouraged for representing the CS in such a 
body.
Conversely, only a strong presence of 'developing experts' in this body will 
be able to balance the 'technology experts' (and the private sector 
representatives) in its ruling and decison taking process.
Btw : The Action Lines facilitating meetings held in Geneva during one week 
in may, have shown (particularly on LA C2-4-6) a big lack in both 
domains -development and technology- of most of the participants, even of 
some on the platform. If we want the most important of the WSIS goals be 
achieved and the CS priority on development be respected, such situations 
both in IGF and in the Post-WSIS process must be cleared as soon as 
possible.
Friendly yours

Jean-Louis Fullsack
CSDPTT

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net>
To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>; "'Suresh Ramasubramanian'" 
<suresh at hserus.net>; "'Babatope Soremi'" <babatope at gmail.com>
Cc: "'Abi'" <abi.jagun at gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2008 7:18 PM
Subject: RE: [governance] Cost of access - the meters ticking


>
>> That is a governance issue of direct and immediate consequence to the
>> general public.
>>
>> * Last mile unbundling
>>
>> * Monopoly internet service and its pitfalls
>>
>> * Regulators who favor the government owned telco over private players
>>
>> * Monopoly suppliers of international bandwidth who fleece local ISPs
>>    (how many satellites or cables would the typical LDC have access to)
>>
>> * Local ISPs who need capacity building to use their existing resources
>>    (And who dont trust each other enough to peer at an exchange point)
>>
>> I do wish these got raised as well here, besides all the interesting (and
>> depressingly familiar) discussions about ICANN and the RIRs.
>>
>
> It is quite interesting that the same set of people (I am not referring to
> any specific person here) who have claimed that IGF should not focus,
> actually not even discuss ICANN/ RIR issues (the debates on this issue 
> last
> year) since these are not real IG issues, and claim that ICTs/ Internet 
> for
> development is the real governance issue for IGF, want a lot of people 
> from
> the ICANN/ RIR in IGF's MAG.
>
> If these are not real governance and IGF issues, why do we need these 
> people
> on the MAG and in IGF at all.
>
> And if Internet for development is the real governance issue do we not 
> need
> more 'development' experts in the MAG. That's the real 'technical' 
> expertise
> we should be trying to get into MAG, right.
>
> I must clarify that I do think that ICANN/ RIR issues are real governance
> and IGF issues, and therefore we must have ICANN/RIR etc people in the 
> MAG.
> I am only pointing to what to me appears a strange paradox.
>
> Parminder
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net]
>> Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2008 8:25 PM
>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Babatope Soremi
>> Cc: Abi
>> Subject: Re: [governance] Cost of access - the meters ticking
>>
>> That is a governance issue of direct and immediate consequence to the
>> general public.
>>
>> * Last mile unbundling
>>
>> * Monopoly internet service and its pitfalls
>>
>> * Regulators who favor the government owned telco over private players
>>
>> * Monopoly suppliers of international bandwidth who fleece local ISPs
>>    (how many satellites or cables would the typical LDC have access to)
>>
>> * Local ISPs who need capacity building to use their existing resources
>>    (And who dont trust each other enough to peer at an exchange point)
>>
>> I do wish these got raised as well here, besides all the interesting (and
>> depressingly familiar) discussions about ICANN and the RIRs.
>>
>> I do know various people are proposing workshops about these at the IGF.
>> And these are issues that CS should get involved in, at an international
>> level.  At least the RIRs do capacity building, groups like PCH help 
>> local
>> ISPs set up internet exchange points .. some real work gets done.
>>
>> suresh
>>
>> Babatope Soremi [04/06/08 15:01 +0100]:
>> >Hi all,
>> >
>> >Its not just the cost of access that is prohibitive but poor quality of
>> >service with no proper mechanism to deal with erring service provider.
>> >
>> >An example is the mobile telephony industry in Nigeria where quality of
>> >service has failed to *significantly improve *and subscribers have no
>> >effective outlet to address this.
>> >
>> >Best Regards,
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
>
> 


-- 
J'utilise la version gratuíte de SPAMfighter pour utilisateurs privés.
Ce programme a supprimé13561 d'e-mails spam à ce jour.
Les utilisateurs qui paient n'ont pas ce message dans leurse-mails.
Obtenez la version gratuite de SPAMfighter ici: http://www.spamfighter.com/lfr



____________________________________________________________
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