[governance] IGF review

[Michael Gurstein]

Coming in late to the discussion and being sympathetic to McTim and George's
point I'm wondering whether the issue is that the IGF doesn't really include
discussions on issues of much interest to the Developing World and countries
in transition (and grassroots users who are the "stakeholders" that interest
me) so those folks shouldn't waste their time and money on looking to
participate; or alternatively that the way in which the issues of "Internet
governance" are being defined are rather too narrow or involve certain
assumptions about what is given, what is necessary/possible, what should be
included under "Internet Governance" etc. which inevitably excludes these
groups (and their concerns) and all but a rather narrow band of fairly elite
users/Internet Governance mavens.

So maybe its not that folks from Africa or the 'stans (or grassroots users)
shouldn't participate but rather that the IGF should open itself up to a
broader understanding of what Internet governance issues might include and
while doing that provide a more engaging and inclusive enviroment for what
would probably be a rather broader and much more diverse range of
stakeholders/participants/topic areas for discussion...

MBG

-----Original Message-----
From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, May 22, 2009 4:37 PM
To: George Sadowsky
Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; BAUDOUIN SCHOMBE
Subject: Re: [governance] IGF review


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

____________________________________________________________
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