[governance] How can civil society help the Internet to

[Adam Peake]

George, about a month ago Karen posted a note 
(below) about APC's work on access, it's an 
outcome of their efforts in the IGF and their 
work with other stakeholders. You've been very 
involved in IGF access sessions and discussions 
so know most of the progress in IGF on access has 
been very much a join effort between CS and the 
Internet community, particularly ISOC/APC (and 
the organizations/people they respectively 
brought to the process.)

My understanding is APC, ISOC and private sector 
are trying to make progress with these ideas, 
they are specific to IGF, cover many of the 
issues you mention, so if we are to discuss 
something perhaps it could be part of an ongoing 
IGF dialogue.

Thanks,

Adam



At 8:12 AM +0100 5/7/08, karen banks wrote:
>
>Dear all
>
>Just prior to the February consultation, i 
>posted a report on the cluster of access related 
>events at the Rio IGF - "Building concensus on 
>Access at the IGF"
>
>The paper has now been edited and formatted and 
>will be available in hard copy at the May 
>consultation for thos interested.. soft copies 
>available online here: 
>http://www.apc.org/en/pubs/issue/openaccess/all/building-consensus-internet-access-igf
>
>An abstract of the paper is below which contains 
>specific proposals to the IGF community on how 
>to address the theme of access in the coming 
>years.
>
>We are very interested to hear reactions from colleagues ..
>
>thanks a lot and see some of you in geneva next week
>
>karen
>
>Building consensus on internet access at the IGF
>Abiodun Jagun
>APC, Montevideo, May 2008
>
>This paper identifies and documents the main 
>areas of discussions and ‘recommendations’ that 
>were generated under the Access theme at the 
>second Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in Rio De 
>Janeiro, November 2007.
>
>Whilst recognising that the IGF is currently 
>viewed and operates primarily as a space for 
>discussion, the paper finds that (specifically 
>in the case of Access) it is also a space in 
>which commonality of opinion occurs to the level 
>at which "recommendation" can be made and 
>repeatedly asserted independently/individually 
>in the workshops, and strategically reinforced 
>at different levels of the IGF.
>
>The levels addressed in the paper include:
>
>- the three "thematic" workshops on access
>- the reporting back session
>- and the main access plenary
>
>The paper finds the generation and articulation 
>of recommendations to be in line with the 
>mandate of the IGF, specifically:
>
>"Advising all stakeholders in proposing ways and 
>means to accelerate the availability and 
>affordability of the Internet in the developing 
>world."
>
>Whilst a variety of recommendations were made, 
>these can be categorised into the following 
>broad areas:
>
>* Enhancement of the development of and access 
>to infrastructure -- in recognising that the 
>availability of internet infrastructure needs to 
>be considered hand-in-hand with the 
>affordability of the infrastructure, this 
>recommendation calls for the consistent 
>implementation of competitive regimes and the 
>creation of incentives that facilitate the 
>co-existence of competitive and collaborative 
>models for providing and/or improving access.
>
>* Localisation of ICT and Telecom policies and 
>regulation -- refers to calls for a review of 
>the ways in which access issues are articulated 
>and ICT/Telecom policy and regulation is 
>formulated. It asks that the 
>translation/customisation of largely 
>urban-centric policies be challenged and that 
>greater emphasis be given to demand-side 
>characteristics and the needs of rural/local 
>communities.
>
>* Promoting the development potential of ICTs 
>and integrating access infrastructure 
>initiatives with other basic needs -- calls for 
>a multi-sectoral approach to infrastructure 
>development and regulation; specifically the 
>integration of ICT regulation and policy with 
>local development strategies, as well as the 
>exploitation of complementarities between 
>different types of development infrastructure
>
>This paper proposes that the convergence in 
>opinions about how to address the challenges of 
>access may be a result of a maturity in 
>understanding of the issues relating to access 
>that has built up over time and is discussed in 
>other related bodies and fora. However, thinking 
>and understanding of "tools" and implementation 
>procedures/processes of solutions for 
>resolving/addressing these well understood 
>issues and challenges cannot be described as 
>having attained a similar level of maturity -- 
>in fact, particularly in the case of rural/local 
>access they can be described as infantile.
>
>There is therefore continued need and relevance 
>for addressing Access at future IGF meetings, 
>however the way in which this will need to be 
>done will have to be different from the largely 
>discursive identification of issues and 
>challenges. The Internet governance community 
>and indeed the portion of the world's population 
>waiting to gain access to the Internet would 
>benefit from a more implementation-orientation 
>to future discussions on Access.
>
>One idea proposed by APC is that the IGF uses 
>the format of the Working Group on Internet 
>Governance (WGIG, established during the World 
>Summit on the Information Society), or bodies 
>such as the Internet Engineering Task Force 
>(IETF) to convene working groups to address 
>complex issues that emerge during a forum. These 
>groups can be made up of individuals with the 
>necessary expertise and drawn from different 
>stakeholder groups. These groups can then engage 
>specific issues in greater depth, and, if they 
>feel it is required, develop recommendations 
>that can be communicated to the internet 
>community at large, or addressed to specific 
>institutions.
>
>These recommendations need not be presented as 
>formally agreed recommendations from the IGF, 
>but as recommendations or suggestions for action 
>from the individuals in the working group.
>
>These working groups have a different role from 
>the self-organised dynamic coalitions which we 
>believe should continue. Dynamic coalitions have 
>a broader mandate and are informal in nature. 
>APC sees IGF working groups as differing from 
>dynamic coalitions in that they should address 
>particular challenges rather than a general 
>issue area. They will also have a degree of 
>accountability and an obligation to report that 
>dynamic coalitions do not have. One such group 
>could be a working group on competitive and 
>collaborative models for access.
>


(end KB email)


>All,
>
>Below is the combined list of a set of issues 
>(from previous posts) that Suresh an I seem to 
>feel would be worthy of discussion, and better 
>yet, action, by members of the group.  This is 
>clearly a subset of such issues, but it's an 
>important subset.
>
>Suresh has responded with a bunch of initiatives 
>that he has been involved in along these lines. 
>I've been involved in a variety of others; see 
>for example http://www.internetpolicy.net/.  It 
>could be useful to appreciate contributions that 
>others have made.
>
>* 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 don't trust each other enough to peer at an exchange point)
>
>- Appropriate policies for consumer protection for Internet
>   transactions, both national an international
>
>- Fair and equitable licensing regimes for ISPs consistent with
>   general business licensing processes at the national level
>
>- Regulation that encourages, or better yet, requires cost based
>   pricing of Internet access
>
>- A level playing field between incumbent telcos and international
>   Internet gateway providers on the one hand and independent ISPs
>   on the other hand
>
>- Ability of ISPs to form their own international gateway connections
>
>- Issues of filtering content at the national level
>
>- Permissive policies for anonymous communication
>
>- Acceptability of tools (such as encryption tools) for
>   protecting confidentiality of communication
>
>- Net neutrality with respect to traffic type, e.g. VoIP
>
>- Strong anti-spam legislation, effective implementation and
>   vigorous prosecution, including enabling national authorities
>   through training and facilities the ability to identify
>   prosecute and convict spammers
>
>I commented earlier that these are issues that 
>by and large unite civil society, the Internet 
>community, and the business community.  If so, 
>that's a major plus.  They are issues of policy 
>that can be addressed in parallel in all 
>countries of the world, and the goal of 
>addressing them is to make the Internet 
>available, accessible, affordable, useful and 
>more secure than would otherwise be the case. 
>IMHO these are the kinds of issues that not only 
>should be discussed here, but are directly 
>actionable at the national level.
>
>Is there any disagreement with this?
>
>Is there any interest in this within this group?
>
>Are other members of this group mobilizing action in these directions?
>
>I'm not disputing the value and the strength of 
>words and ideas.  As Barack Obama said in one of 
>his earlier speeches when he was accused of just 
>giving good speeches, " ... JUST WORDS?! 'We 
>hold all people to be created free and equal 
>....'  JUST WORDS? ... !"  So perhaps it would 
>also be useful to know the extent to which the 
>words and the discussion expressed internally 
>within this group have had a significant effect 
>on Internet governance issues.
>
>It is easy to talk on-line about issues at the 
>international level that have little if any 
>connection with the real individual user 
>experience in, say, developing countries.  But 
>is it worth doing  --  as opposed to really 
>addressing in an actionable manner the issues 
>above, and others, that really impact 
>development?
>
>Reactions to the above are welcome.
>
>George
>
>____________________________________________________________
>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