[governance] IGF review

[George Sadowsky]

Avri, and others,

Sure, the IGF can shine a light on positive andnegative examples, and 
it can stress the desirability of all of the good things that would 
be present in a better world world, i.e. privacy, security, equal 
rights for _____ (fill in the blank).

My point is that the what happens at IGF is generally not translated 
into desirable local or regional action, or if it is, with very 
limited effect, in those countries that perhaps need it the most. 
I'm talking about Malawi and Tajikistan, not the U.K.

This is not to say that the IGF does not have value.  Rather, I 
believe that for a significant number of developing countries, it's 
more effective to work locally for improving things Internet than by 
attending IGF.  These countries need a lot of help, and people like 
McTim are in the field helping full time; I also do from time to 
time, but not full time.

I suggest that improving access, with all of its constituent elements 
such as confidentiality, lack of censorship, etc., offers the 
greatest opportunity for the benefits of the Internet to spread most 
effectively.  Issues affecting access are for the most part local, 
not global.  The IGF may be one of the right places to address the 
global issues, but those are likely to be addresses by people other 
than those working in the trenches at home.

Regards,

George



At 11:06 AM -0400 5/23/09, Avri Doria wrote:
>On 22 May 2009, at 17:18, George Sadowsky wrote:
>
>>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.
>
>
>i read this as saying that outside of local consciousness raising, 
>as you recommend in your next paragraph, the real goal might be 
>developing technology that is more resistant to government control - 
>or at least that takes the government another 10 years to figure out 
>how to control.
>
>in either case, are you are saying that the IGF cannot help in these 
>policy issues? not even by building expectations for liberalization, 
>or by shining the light on both positive and negative examples?
>
>On 23 May 2009, at 10:45, Michael Gurstein wrote:
>
>>... 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...
>
>
>what does this mean?
>
>how does the IGF  "open itself up to a broader understanding "?
>to whom is it not listening?
>
>a.
>
>____________________________________________________________
>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