[governance] MAG consultations

[McTim]

On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 9:04 AM, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>>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_Hyderabad_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

Can you be more specific about this "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 J,
> 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.
>

It seems to represent the comments people have made.  Would you rather
the agenda be set without taking these comments into account?

>
>
> 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.

How do you know they don't? It seems more likely that they do, but
realise that "universal" may be too big a goal (after all, telecoms
reach is not yet 'universal" despite it being policy terminology.  I
think reaching the next billion is a much more practical goal.

We can then be discussing issues
> opening and honestly, rather than subterfuges of  'this is confusing and
> unknown' etc.

You can't say for certain this is dishonest or subterfugal (is that a word?).

>
>
>
> 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.
>

Maybe it was just the first one they got, really, I think you are
reading too much into this!


>
>
> 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….

Maybe because it is a hierarchical UN thingy?


 '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.

of this process, certainly, you should disabuse yourself of this
notion, but certainly not of all 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 (???).

Because it is.  It is not possible to "manage" the Internet.

It must be the same set which finds the term
> 'universalisation' confusing,

Why MUST it be? Apples n oranges, IMHO.


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.

Internet resources can be coordinated, even managed, but not the whole Internet.

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

policy discussion forum, the word "deliberation" is not in the TA, but
the word "discuss" can be found many times.


 and TA also spoke of need of
> 'globally applicable public polices' etc ,

I've got to blow the whistle here again.  The TA does not say this at
all, it says:

70. Using relevant international organizations, such cooperation
should include the development of globally-applicable principles on
public policy issues associated with the coordination and management
of critical Internet resources.

In other words 'globally applicable public polices' is not at all the
same as "globally-applicable principles on public policy issues"!

 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'.

I agree with you on this one.  As Milton and I have found it's not
ALWAYS possible to be in disagreement ;-)

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.

You said it, not me ;-)

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
$ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim
____________________________________________________________
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