[governance] IGF review

[George Sadowsky]

All,

In sympathy with McTim's comments below, I feel compelled to add a 
similar experience.  It illustrates where the need for action is, and 
my conclusion are similar to McTim's.

Two weeks ago I was co-directing a NATO seminar in Dushanbe, 
Tajikistan.  The participants were scientists and government 
officials from what I call the lesser -stans: Kazakhstan, Kyrgystan, 
Ubekistan, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan.  In addition, several people 
were there from Afghanistan, making a 12-hour drive from kabul.

Most of these countries are not rich, and all are Internet-poor.

In each of these countries (except Afghanistan), there is a national 
education and research network, which is key to Internet development 
in each country.  When the scientists were queried regarding what 
they needed, the clear and universal response was "access, access, 
and more access," access to bandwidth, to information from other 
countries, and to collaboration through Internet with their 
counterparts in the west.  The needs of the inhabitants who have 
access to Internet in these countries are similar.

Very few of them would benefit in the short run from what is 
happening at IGF.  It is true that the majority of these countries 
have regimes that many of us would consider undemocratic, and it is 
true that liberalization of the legislative and regulatory framework 
in these countries would help Internet users there.  However, few if 
any of the debates existing in the IGF environment, with the possible 
exception of a few access issues, will help them.  The efforts and 
resources that might go to attendance at and work with the IGF might 
better be spent at home.

As in Africa, there are ISP and network associations in almost all of 
these Central Asian countries that are getting both local and 
international support.  These are levers that count, not the results 
of the IGF debates.  So I strongly endorse McTim's advice to the 
African community: get involved in your existing Internet 
organizations and use them as the instruments to improve local and 
national governance arrangements in your countries.  If you want to 
get involved in IGF also, ok, but do so with a clear understanding of 
that you think you can get out of it that will really help your 
country.

Regards,

George

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

At 9:09 PM +0300 5/22/09, McTim wrote:
>On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 1:23 PM, BAUDOUIN SCHOMBE <b.schombe at gmail.com> wrote:
>>  Dear Ginger and Ian,
>>  Subsequently abouT IGf review, I beleive that IGF process is till necessary
>>  for a most of developping countries specially in africa.
>
>This attitude breaks my heart, and I'll tell you why.
>
>There ARE existing African IG institutions that need support.
>
>When Africans (especially African CS groups) focus on the IGF instead
>of the Af*'s (AfNOG, AfTLD, AfriNIC, AfrISPA, et. al), there is less
>time, money and energy available for the home grown decade long (+)
>African IG experience.   That to me is a real pity.
>
>Why on earth one would choose to just talk about making policy (IGF)
>instead of actually making policy (as we did at AfriNIC 10 recently)
>is beyond me.
>
>I appeal to African CS orgs reading this list to become more involved
>in the Af*s mailing lists and meetings.  We need all the support we
>can get.
>There seems to be a smaller resource base here in Africa than in some
>other regions, I don't understand why we don't support our own
>initiatives when we easily can!
>
>
>I am agree Ginger
>>  position in following sentences :"The process of consultations should
>>  especially keep in mind constituencies that have lesser participation in IG
>>  issues at present, such as constituencies in developing countries including
>>  those of civil society. Other interested groups with lower participation in
>>  IG issues like women, ethnic minorities and disability groups should also be
>>  specifically approached."
>
>NB: there were more women than ever at INETAfrica/AfNOG10/Afrinic10
>this week. Several disabled folk as well.
>
>>  Indeed on this level, it would be desirable to reinvolve actors who were and
>>  remain active in the process of  IG in developing countries, more
>>  particularly in Africa. It will have to be recognized that many efforts is
>>  done in ICT applications  but about 70% of the marginalized or disadvantaged
>>  population still do not have access to digital technology
>
>and the IGF is going to fix this how?
>
>--
>Cheers,
>
>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