[governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG available

[Parminder]

Avri


> that is _not_ the only possible topic, that is the only topic that
> happens to be on the list at this point in time.  I think there is
> lots of opportunity for other possible topics to be added to this list.

I did not say it was the only possible topic. I clearly said that we should
now get actively engaged because there is still much scope to get the right
topics in. 

Quoting myself

"So, I can still see that some of the topics we want discussed can seem
buried in the listed text.. I also understand that there is going to be a
further process of fine-tuning of these topics - and we need to really be
ready to influence that process in all ways that we can."

I couldn't be clearer. But you also can't expect me to completely ignore the
significance of the only one possible topic that is already listed there.
And that in the context, as I described at length, of what happened in the
run up to the last IGF. So, I am only trying to tell members here that we
need to be vigilant and active. 


> i believe they will be helped by lots of strong, focused proposals.
> and as Adam says, the sooner the better.
>

Will surely give. That's what I am trying to make the context and state the
urgency and important of.

> and personally i don't think putting down ISOC, who can be a strong
> and worthy ally in certain battles, is  the best policy.

I am willing to and do work with the business sector as well in areas they
are allies, and there are significant such areas. This doesn't change my
views on their policies in the areas I don't agree with them on. And I do
let them know what I think of those polices, as well. Same stance towards
ISOC... And I very much respect the technical standards work they do through
support to IETF, and other Internet infrastructural development work they
do. 

BTW, I know many here keep forgetting this, but for us quite often
developing country governments are key allies on development and public
domain kind of issues. But, at the same time, we keep telling governments
what we think of them in other areas/ aspects.  

My comment about marketisation of development (and also the Internet) comes
from studying their IGF contributions and interventions as well as other
policy document. I havent seen much difference in their policy positions vis
a vis business sector in these areas. I don't think business sector will
mind my saying this about them - that they are for marketisation of
development, Internet plus all/ most other sectors. Why should then ISOC be
offended, if that really is their policy stance.

Belief in markets, and in marketisaiton, of a sector is not inherently bad.
Is it? Why is my statement of what I understand is their policy stance
therefore be taken as 'putting them down'. 

I will be happy to be told by ISOC, or any of their defenders here, that
market is the not the principal, mostly the exclusive, solution for the
'development problem' in ISOC's mind and policy stance. For if it is really
so, that opens up good ground for us to discuss this issue further. And I am
keen to do this discussion. IGF is a good space for that.

I don't understand this high sensitiveness of what may be said and what cant
about institutions in CS spaces. In development related public discussions
we often openly berate say World Bank's policies on certain matters. No one
comes down hushing us...In fact, after that we get invited to WB workshops,
and even may work with them on some stuff. 

Apart from stating what I think is ISOC's policy stance, if there was some
looseness in my comment, I am sorry for that. 

Parminder   




> -----Original Message-----
> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com]
> Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2008 5:05 PM
> To: Governance Caucus
> Subject: Re: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG available
> 
> 
> On 1 Mar 2008, at 12:04, Parminder wrote:
> 
> > 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."
> 
> 
> that is _not_ the only possible topic, that is the only topic that
> happens to be on the list at this point in time.  I think there is
> lots of opportunity for other possible topics to be added to this list.
> 
> 
> > I will request CS MAG members to be as vigilant in pushing this kind
> > of progressive agenda
> 
> i believe they will be helped by lots of strong, focused proposals.
> and as Adam says, the sooner the better.
> 
> but please, everyone pay special attention to the opportunity to still
> get in reports on the workshops that show the importance of these
> topics and how/why they were interesting and vital to those who
> participated.
> 
> > in as the business sector and ISOC are in marketising development
> > and Internet and everything that they can lay their hands on.
> 
> and personally i don't think putting down ISOC, who can be a strong
> and worthy ally in certain battles, is  the best policy.
> 
> a.
> 
> 
> (still employed by the IGF secretariat for another few days, but
> speaking for myself as usual.  oh yeah, i am also a supporting member
> of ISOC - not that i ever speak for them.)
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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