[governance] Building concensus on Access at the IGF

[karen banks]

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 ‘recommendations’ 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.

____________________________________________________________
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