[governance] IGF review

[Michael Gurstein]

Before I'm jumped on here, I'm well aware of the Christensen reposte to the
Solow paradox (organizations not showing any productivity gains from massive
investment in IT for almost a decade)... 

So far as I'm aware, neither the original productivity studies nor the
studies supporting Christensen's reposte have been done with any degree of
sophistication in the "Development" sphere.

From my own observations on the ground, many of the linkages that
necessarily exist between IT and system change in organizations (the careful
itemization of which provided the basis for Christensen's reposte/analysis)
are available or are even being effectively developed in most LDC's
(training programs, reinvention of supply chains, flattening of decision
making structures etc.etc.

MBG 

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2009 11:05 AM
To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'; 'Milton L Mueller'
Subject: RE: [governance] IGF review



Milton,

There is in many (most?) cases no direct (and arguably little or no
indirect) connection between the "most developed infrastructure" or "the
strongest content industries" and "development"--certainly among the poorest
and the least developed populations... 

There are in many cases statistical associations because infrastructure and
content industries support economic and social advance among the alteady
developed sections of those societies, but the reality is very different on
the ground as can be seen quite directly for example in India where highly
sophisticated inftrastructure/content development has had little or no
impact on the bulk of the rural population.

I'm now somewhat familiar with the situation for example in South Africa
where further liberalization whether of infrastructure or of content is
likely in fact to be an impediment to development by restricting the
opportunities for public sector intervention precisely to support
development among the 85% of the population which is currently not
effectively engaged with/enabled by the quite advanced infrastructure and
content industries in that country. 

Whether the State or not for profits would or could do any better is not
something I want to argue in this context, but at least as I see the SA
situation for example, further liberalization (i.e. more competition) will
lead to a reduction in cost for the already connected and have virtually no
effect on the not connected. How cell technology (the ICT of choice in most
LDC's) interacts with all this is another question very worthy of a second
thread but is an issue area which to my knowledge hasn't been addressed at
all in the context of the IGF.

MBG

-----Original Message-----
From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] 
Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2009 10:45 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: RE: [governance] IGF review


George
The problem is that rights and freedoms ARE development issues. It is no
accident that the countries with the most liberal telecom policies (going
back to 1890) have the most developed infrastructures and that the countries
with the most liberal content regulation policies are the ones with the
strongest content industries. 

Internet facilitates economic and social development precisely because it
enables decentralized, bottom-up initiative. True, this won't magically
create oodles of investment capital that will suddenly allow, say, the South
Sudan to instantly attain the infrastructures and income levels of Denmark.
But in that regard, there are a lot of socio-economic development issues
that have almost nothing to do with Internet, such as whether one has
stable, legitimate institutions, peace, etc. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: George Sadowsky [mailto:george.sadowsky at attglobal.net]
> Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2009 12:43 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein; 'McTim'
> Cc: 'BAUDOUIN SCHOMBE'
> Subject: RE: [governance] IGF review
> 
> Michael,
> 
> Thanks for an interesting perspective.
> 
> Bill Drake has put forward the notion that we should look at Internet
> governance through a strong development lens, as opposed to some of 
> the other lenses that seem to be used, such as fundamental rights or 
> power.  I think this would be a major step forward, and it would 
> benefit more the countries that are Internet-poor.
> 
> However, the current forces driving the IGF, partially through the
> MAG, are centered upon U.S. control, ICANN, and Internet rights. 
> Granted that there are issues there, they serve to sidetrack what I 
> think is a fundamental question:  What are the levers within Internet 
> governance that would make a real difference to people in 
> Internet-poor countries by enhancing their economic and social 
> development, and how can they be used?  the current questions 
> attracting attention only deal with this question peripherally, if at 
> all.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> George
> 
____________________________________________________________
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