[governance] Internet for All ... this time from the UK

[Parminder]

>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