[governance] IGF review

[McTim]

Hi George,

Thank you for your eloquence, and of course
AfREN is an Af* organisation that was present in Cairo.

Best Regards,

McTim

On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 12:15 AM, George Sadowsky
<george.sadowsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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