[governance] MAG consultations

[Parminder]

>A synthesis paper of received comments as an input into the IGF
consultations is also available >
(http://intgovforum.org/cont_may08/Programme_Agenda_and_Format_of_the_Hydera
bad_Meeting_.pdf ) .

 

I haven’t had time to go through the input paper but what I see cursorily
worries me. I think a certain ideological orientation overwhelmingly informs
what goes into the open inputs system of the IGF and gets reflected in these
papers, and then also in IGF meeting agendas. Progressive CS is not doing
enough to counter this, and this is a major failing we much reflect on. I
myself was not able to give inputs in time for the synthesis paper but I
think a much bigger section of progressive CS needs to be engaging with
this. I know a few must already be taking this to be my customary ranting
:-), so I must quickly substantiate. 

 

I have only seen the part on substantive agenda and the nature of comments
listed here, without any counter comments, worries me a lot. Apparently this
will now be accepted as what the world really wants, and what represents
best the interests of most, and be the agenda of the IGF.

 

In the part on “Universalization of the Internet / Expanding the Internet”,
the description of the theme part only mentions one slant of the theme.

 

““Possible focused topics for “Low cost sustainable access” could include
the role of entrepreneurship in providing low cost sustainable access with a
special focus on entrepreneurship and India's success.”

 

What about other possible foci. In light of the fact that references to
community and public models of connectivity and access disappeared
mysteriously from the agenda in the run up to Rio, this shouldn’t be
surprising though.  And also not surprising that those who contributed those
parts the last time did not consider it worth the effort to do so this time.


 

As for the listed new comments, the main one is about the ‘confusing nature’
of the term ‘Universalization of the Internet’.

 

“One comment mentioned that the term “Universalization of the Internet” was
unknown and possibly confusing. This contribution recommended an alternate
title: Expanding the Internet - how to reach the next billion.”

 

I don’t know what is so confusing to the persons who made this comment. And
did I hear ‘universalisation of the Internet’ was unknown ???
Universalisation of service is one of the main and most well known tenets of
telecom policies, expressed in the terms ‘universal service obligations’ and
‘universal service funds’. Almost all countries have some such provisions.
So, what is so confusing here, and ‘unknown’??? Why doesn’t the person(s)
just say more honestly that I do not believe in ‘universalisation of the
Internet’ as an important policy guideline. We can then be discussing issues
opening and honestly, rather than subterfuges of  ‘this is confusing and
unknown’ etc. 

 

And mark it, this is not just one odd comment, and therefore not to be taken
too seriously. The line in the input paper after the above quote is: “This
recommended term has been reflected in other comments received.’ And the
fact that this comment is quite on the top, means it is considered important
and perhaps quite representative of a major, even dominant, view. 

 

So, this is the outcome of our open agenda setting processes, whose level of
openness and participation are exemplary etc etc
 I know I could have
submitted counter views, and others should have. But why aren’t they. Do you
really believe that there aren’t strong counter views? In fact that a bigger
part of CS doesn’t not have counter views? Is there anything structural in
the IGF that keeps them out
. ‘Participation’ consists not only in what goes
in, but perhaps more importantly in what comes out – whose interests are
chiefly being served. So, I think we should disabuse ourselves of naïve
notions of openness and participatory-ness of IG processes.  

 

Should close it now, I know. But cant resist mentioning what is the major
set of comments on the second substantive theme of IGF Hyderabad
-“Managing/Using the Internet”

 

A fairly large number of people find the term ‘Managing the Internet’
misleading (???). It must be the same set which finds the term
‘universalisation’ confusing, but they are clearly the dominant voice out
here. 

 

“One comment indicated that that the term “Managing the Internet” was
misleading and recommended changing the theme to “Using the Internet” in
order avoid giving a false impression that these session would question the
legitimacy of the current Internet management arrangements. This
recommendation was also reflected in several other recommendations.”

 

And again this is the ‘top’ comment in this theme, and supported by many
‘others’. I think these guys should have spoken up during the WSIS when IGF
was set up as a policy deliberation forum and TA also spoke of need of
‘globally applicable public polices’ etc , and should have said that this
gives the impression that the legitimacy of existing policy making is being
questioned. And if these people really see this connection logical then let
them infer that WSIS has, through a major world level consensus, already
strongly questioned the legitimacy of these bodies. 

 

And these people give the ‘innocuous’ replacement of ‘managing the internet’
term with ‘using the internet’. Why cant we instead replace it with
‘examining food security issues’ or something. There is no connection
whatsoever between the suggested theme’ managing the internet’ and suggested
replacement ‘using the internet’. And I think this again is an extreme form
of agenda rigging. 

 

There are other great pieces out there – cultural diversity should be
protecting by enhancing IP protection and such
 with no counter views at
all. So much for open, participatory, inclusive, people-centric and
development oriented forums, and their agenda setting processes.

 

Parminder  

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080509/a964bc84/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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