[governance] Internet for All ... this time from the UK
jlfullsack
jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr
Sun Feb 1 03:39:43 EST 2009
Dear all
I fully agree with Parminder's and Guru's comments, as well as with Michael's
complement.
IGF didn't « address any such universalsation policy options and
alternatives » and is not able to do this.
Not to be forgotten : Internet (broadband) access in DCs is the biggest
point and the most difficult to achieve. That was also missed by the
succcessive IGFs.
However, these issues are subject of the WSIS follow-up process through
different Action Lines, and these are dealt with in separate meetings, I
mean mainly the annual CSTD's meetings in May.
For these "universalisation" issues to be thoroughly addressed, we need to
link both processes, IGF and WSIS (CSTD) follow-up.
That's why I recently proposed to establish a "common entity" for IG and
WSIS follow-up on a regional level for Europe, instead of a "European IGF"
planned by the European Parliament. Such an entity should be "bicephalous" :
one sub-group being devoted to IG and constituting a "regional IGF" body,
whereas a second group handles the WSIS follow-up, line per line or through
agregated main action themes. A third part of this entity should be a
"bureau" or a coordinating group assuming among others the coordination of
the activities of both sub-groups and the necessary relations and links with
the different regional institutions (including UN ones). In my opinion, such
regional entities are the only relevant response to the decentralised WSIS
follow-up as it is set up in the official WSIS documents.
But, another transversal issue of paramount importance is financing. There
is a "discreet silence" even on our CS mailing lists on this question, not
to mention the ITU, Unesco and UNDP documents. Therefore, I'd suggest to
set-up a specific sub-group in charge of financing aspects in each region or
country where an IGF is working or to be established, or added to the
regional entity such as described previously.
Of course there may be objections that such bodies are complicated to set-up
and to be operated, but if we are conscious of the issues at stake and of
their strong interaction, there is hardly another way for going ahead.
All the best
Jean-Louis Fullsack
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Gurstein" <gurstein at gmail.com>
To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>; "'Parminder'" <parminder at itforchange.net>
Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2009 7:34 AM
Subject: RE: [governance] Internet for All ... this time from the UK
I'd like to echo Parminder and Guru's comments.
What I think needs to be added to Parminder's comments though is that the
simple provision of Broadband access is quite insufficient without the
parallel and associated investment in socially directed training, enabling
of locally accessible technical maintenance and support and community
focussed applications development (as for example in the area of health
management, support for local education and locally based training,
environmental management and so on... In the absence of these investments in
Broadband "access" are simply gifts to the telcos or other service
providers.
The global financial crisis has created an opening and opportunity for bold
thinking and initiatives from Civil Society among others and it is I think
incumbent on CS to move into that opening in the IGF among other venues.
MBG
-----Original Message-----
From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net]
Sent: January-31-09 6:10 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Roland Perry
Subject: Re: [governance] Internet for All ... this time from the UK
>So yes, this is "Internet for all", but it's important to separate the
two different cases:
>1) All the people, even those who can't afford it
>2) All the people, even those living 10km from the nearest road
I guess what Guru really has been trying to point out through a couple
of emails on 'universal Internet' is that the IGF, as a global public
policy forum is really not being able to lead the way, as such forums -
especially those that give an important role to civil society - are
expected to do. Governments are doing it before the IGF is as much as
able to even mention/articulate it.
I remember with some amusement the discussion in May 2008 when IGF
agenda was being framed whereby there was such, almost overwhelming
reservations about words like 'universal' and universalisation' . The
overall theme 'Internet for all' came because of some special efforts by
the host country. However, despite this overall theme, I do not remember
any discussion at all during the IGF which seriously addressed any such
'universalisation' policy options and alternatives as are now coming out
from some governments.
One is not sure if the IGF is not able to discuss and articulate real
and pressing Internet public policy issues - and these are actively
stone-walled - what exactly is it doing. It is time we gave up, 'lets
be cautious and nurture a budding organization' logic before it is too
late. IGF will loose its relevance if it does not not act soon to pick
up the most crucial public policy issues of the day, and discusses them
in complete earnest, and also tries to figure out and show some real
possible way forward. That needs to be the central axis for IGF reform
or realignment, whatever you call it, in this year of IGF review.
The same story of dragging feet on 'universalisation of the Internet'
may now be shown on the 'network neutrality' or the 'openness of the
Internet' issue - not in its generic 'good thing' meaning, but in its
specific policy implications for making policy choices that face all of
us 'today'.
In default what happens is as follows:
While governments of the North are increasingly recognizing broadband as
a key social infrastructure, which requires a 'rights based approach',
their prescription to the South through their donor programs etc is
still very much in a different cast - of the dominant ICTs for
development model which takes a arms-length approach to public
investments in digital infrastructure. IGF would have been the natural
place to seek development of a common global outlook and vision in this
area. However while the Commission on Science and Technology for
Development clearly recognized, and centrally dealt with the fact, that
the nature of the digital divide has changed, making broadband as a
central policy issue, the IGF (though with the nominal theme of an
'Internet for all') mostly only dealt with mobile phones (a good amount
of the reason for this is obviously ideological).
Now, on Network Neutrality issue rather than get into the meat of this
most important Internet policy issue, we may be expected to wait till
some dominant governments already set both the basic framework of the
issue, and possibly policy guidelines, and then we can try and build the
capacity of developing countries on how to best follow those guidelines
and principles.
One does hope that the IGC and other civil society groups are able to
take some clearer, and more energetic, position on (1) the process and
format of the IGF, including its readiness to pick up the most important
public policy issues of the day, do an honest and open discussion, and
seek to help us move forward, and (2) help the IGF pick up the most
important policy issues.
This will be important for maintaining the relevance and legitimacy of
the IGC/ other CS bodies in this area, as the overall issue if important
for the continued relevance and legitimacy of the IGF itself.
Apologies for this long posting. Parminder
Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <4982AF97.5070606 at itforchange.net>, at 13:13:19 on Fri, 30
> Jan 2009, Guru <guru at itforchange.net> writes
>> We have been hearing about the US Gov (FCC) plans to provide
>> broadband to all in the US, now there is a similar news item ...
>> quote " We know that every aspect of our lives in local communities -
>> every school, every hospital, every workplace and even every home -
>> will be dependent on the services that the digital network provides."
>
> Some of the homes can only realistically be reached by mobile (ie 3G)
> broadband. Therefore a major reason for the initiative being
> 'restricted' to "only" 2MB is because that's the highest speed that
> it's prudent to promise for such a connection.
>
>> (though the report has been criticised by UK opposition for 'not
>> doing enough!!')...
>
> That's because they think it's taking too long to make the decision to
> go ahead. This latest announcement is in effect "we plan to announce
> something later in the year" not "this is our announcement of what
> will happen". But it's still a step in the right direction.
>
> And they see advertisements on TV for 50Mbps broadband, and read
> overoptimistic reports that "everyone in country $foo already has
> gigabit fibre to the home" and think 2Mbps is too slow (but see above).
>
> So yes, this is "Internet for all", but it's important to separate the
> two different cases:
>
> 1) All the people, even those who can't afford it
> 2) All the people, even those living 10km from the nearest road
____________________________________________________________
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
____________________________________________________________
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
More information about the Governance
mailing list