[governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG available

[Parminder]

Adam

> There is room in the draft for us to propose all
> the topics we think important.  So let's not
> think about "battle lines" but wait for the call
> for workshops, etc. We can respond to the draft
> program outlines now (the summary of the MAG
> meeting is six pages), and it would be good to
> think about our response. A positive approach
> will likely be more successful, and more
> interesting (who enjoys volunteering to be
> miserable...)

I have already said in my email that there is scope to ge the issues we want discussed even into the main sessions, and some flexibility seems to be still open in this regard.

Other than that, one needs to balance what you call a 'positive approach' to being strident on pushing what is important... And I say what I said about 'battle-lines' and what to expect when these issues will be scoped put in further MAG meetings with the benefit of experience. 

Remember what happened last time, how elements about public and community financing disappeared form the text without any explanation. To refresh your memory I am enclosing my email on the subject. To quote for this email

"In the new draft program ( www.intgovforum.org/ )  under the theme “access” two important points which were there in the earlier drafts (enclosed) have mysteriously disappeared. These are “Market and non-market structures and their relationship to competition and investment in fostering innovation and alternative business models” and “Public Infrastructure and the role of public and private finance in providing access”. As one can see both the formulations were already quite balanced taking all different .perspectives into consideration. So, what is the justification in removing them? These issues had come on the agenda because of civil society inputs. Who would have been instrumental in removing them? Significantly, this removal has happened while the list of points in each theme has actually become longer."

For us this is not a small issue. This kind of rigging the agenda is the whole issue, and often one has to go beyond 'positive approach' to counter this.

BTW, did you notice that in the present 'summary of MAG deliberations'  while a useful topic of “Low cost sustainable access” is listed, the only possible specific topic under this which is listed is "the role of
entrepreneurship in providing low cost sustainable access with a special focus on entrepreneurship and India's success."

First of all there is a problem of going from the overall topic of 'universalisation of the Internet' to the topic of 'low cost sustainable access'. Havent you heard of public programs of free access in most developed countries. Why isn’t that a policy option. Why can t developing countries too have it. And there are numerous places where community ownership/ finance is increasingly employed. 

And then within 'low cost sustainable access' we go further to the specific topic of 'role of entrepreneurship....' Could public and community finance and models also figure here please. Heard of Muni wifi programs in the North? Or is IGF to do what most ICTD forums do, and serve as marketing spaces for multinational telecoms. 

Isnt this going exactly the way it went in with the process of agenda development in Rio. (ITfC is happy and proud that its rep on the panel did manage to bring the issue of public finance centre stage to the discussions)

I will request CS MAG members to be as vigilant in pushing this kind of progressive agenda in as the business sector and ISOC are in marketising development and Internet and everything that they can lay their hands on.

Parminder 



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp]
> Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2008 3:45 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: RE: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG available
> 
> At 1:55 PM +0530 3/1/08, Parminder wrote:
> >On the substantive issues proposed for main sessions at Hyderabad.
> >
> 
> 
> (snip)
> 
> 
> >
> >One can already see the battle-lines in the way
> >the main themes and possible alternatives are
> >listed.
> >
> >³Universalization of the Internet - How to reach
> >the next billion (alternate title: Expanding the
> >Internet)², and,  ³Managing the Internet
> >(alternate title: Using the Internet)²
> >
> >No prizes for guessing who was pushing for what.
> 
> 
>   OK
> 
> 
> >Universalization of Internet is the social
> >policy language, Œhow to reach the next billion¹
> >and Œexpanding the Internet¹ are market and
> >business sector languageŠ..
> 
> 
> Chatham house, not allowed to attribute comments.
> But I think I can say you don't get a prize.
> 
> There is room in the draft for us to propose all
> the topics we think important.  So let's not
> think about "battle lines" but wait for the call
> for workshops, etc. We can respond to the draft
> program outlines now (the summary of the MAG
> meeting is six pages), and it would be good to
> think about our response. A positive approach
> will likely be more successful, and more
> interesting (who enjoys volunteering to be
> miserable...)
> 
> From the MAG summary:
> 
> "The final programme will be defined in light of
> the proposals made for holding workshops and
> best practice forums. In order to speed up
> planning all interested stakeholders are invited
> to submit proposals by 30 April. Preference will
> be given to organizers who submitted a report of
> events they staged in Rio de Janeiro."
> 
> If you held a workshop and haven't yet submitted
> a report, please submit that report. 500-800
> words isn't much to ask in return for a space on
> the agenda of an important international meeting
> (free). And these reports become part of the
> unofficial proceedings of the IGF, so would be
> pretty dumb to argue for the IGF to produce
> outcomes and then not bother to contribute.
> 
> We have about 8 weeks to get proposals in.  Earlier the better.
> 
> I'm travelling until next weekend, probably won't be replying in much
> detail.
> 
> Adam
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded message was scrubbed...
From: "Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net>
Subject: [governance] Is 'access' important (vis a vis CIRs) or is it MNCs telecom businesses
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 13:03:48 +0530
Size: 78835
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080301/677d21c9/attachment.eml>