[governance] IGF review

[William Drake]

Hi George

On May 24, 2009, at 6:42 PM, George Sadowsky wrote:

> 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.

The "as opposed to" is yours, not mine.  I don't see any contradiction  
between saying that developmental implications should be built in as a  
criteria of evaluation and arguing for rights and principles.   More  
generally, considering these implications is not an alternative to  
looking carefully at how global IG institutions work, procedurally and  
substantively; in fact, that's precisely what I'm for doing, from a  
developmental perspective.

Local access conditions vs international institutions is a false  
dichotomy, we should be concerned with both and recognize the  
interrelationships.
>
>
> 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.


I don't see the sidetracking going on, which raises a broader  
question.  You've been saying since WSIS that international meetings/ 
processes are a distraction and misallocation of resources (ISOC used  
to say the same, back when it was denying that IG even exists), and  
we've gone back and forth on the point a number of times on the list  
in over the years without (at least in my view) coming to a clear  
understanding of the purported problem.  So in search of clarity,  
allow me to re-spin one of your questions back to you.  You say  
there's no evidence that IGF discussions have done anything to make  
conditions better on the ground in developing and transitional  
countries.  So is there concrete evidence that because some people  
from these countries spend four days once a year at a meeting,  
progress on the ground has stalled or conditions actually have been  
made worse?

Cheers,

Bill


____________________________________________________________
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