[governance] How can civil society help the Internet to

[karen banks]

hi adam

At 14:05 05/06/2008, Adam Peake wrote:
>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 for posting this note.. i'd wanted to 
respond to the thread suresh and george had 
started - which i do think is useful.. and i 
understand that we're all at different points and 
levels in terms of access to information and involvement in the process

so it's understandable that many folk would not 
be aware of the - *not insubtantial work* - that 
has been done along the development, ICTD and 
Access themes at the IGF this past 2-3 years.

there are many groups and individuals involved in 
taking forward some of the issue areas mentioned 
- one area worth noting in particular i think is 
bill drake's work leading the 'development 
agenda' for the IGF - having organised workshops 
for the past two years, and another this year - 
i'm sure bill would have written something 
against this thread but i know he is travelling 
in china - and probably not accessing mail much

the access paper mentioned above - and the 
approach to it's development (the involvement of 
all or many of those, involved in access related 
workshops) is one way of building knowledge 
between and amongst the community - maybe we can 
propose similar approaches to clusters of issues for the upcoming meeting

in a way - they represent a record of sorts - and 
in the absence of formal reports - this is a good 
way of building 'process memory'  - that can be shared..

an extract form our upcoming 2007 annual report:

"In 2007, APC built on its strategy of 2006, 
which was to get the theme of “internet access” 
onto the agenda of the IGF at its first meeting 
in Athens. For the second IGF meeting in Rio, we 
had to do more than discuss access as a policy 
issue. So the CIPP team undertook to analyse [1] 
the content of the three workshops and the 
plenary session on access to see to what extent 
there was a convergence of views.

Whilst recognising that the IGF is currently 
viewed and operates primarily as a space for 
discussion, it is also a space in which consensus 
can lead to ‘recommendations’ [2]. The 
recommendations can then be repeatedly asserted 
independently in workshops, and strategically 
reinforced at different levels of the IGF – 
influencing governments, technical bodies and think-tanks.

Views converged in the following areas:
- Competition and incentives are needed if all 
citizens are to have affordable, available access
- Rural and local communities need suitable ICT 
and telecoms policies. Current policies –which 
usually serve urban areas- need adaptation.
- ICT regulation and policy need to complement local development strategies.

1 
http://www.apc.org/en/pubs/issue/openaccess/all/building-consensus-internet-access-igf

2 APC’s recommendations to the IGF: 
http://www.apc.org/en/pubs/briefs/policy/world/apc-statement-2007-internet-governance-forum

karen


____________________________________________________________
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