[governance] IGF review--how can the IGF help in this process?
Ginger Paque
gpaque at gmail.com
Tue May 26 18:08:03 EDT 2009
I don't want it cut short! I want it to focus on the IGF review
process!!! Can we focus the discussion?
Milton L Mueller wrote:
> The short answer, Ginger, is that our discussion has absolutely nothing to do with the IGF process. So I'll cut it short...
>
> Milton Mueller
> Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
> XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology
> ------------------------------
> Internet Governance Project:
> http://internetgovernance.org
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com]
>> Sent: Monday, May 25, 2009 10:21 PM
>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein
>> Subject: Re: [governance] IGF review--how can the IGF help in
>> this process?
>>
>> This is a very interesting discussion thread--perhaps one of
>> the best I
>> have read on this list. However, I wonder if it is possible
>> to bring the
>> focus back to whether or how the IGF process can or should
>> affect this
>> whole situation. Is this possible? Has the IGF process
>> helped? How could
>> it? Do we have something concrete to say about the IGF
>> process? Is there
>> a way to evaluate (or review) the IGF?
>>
>> Thanks, Ginger
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks, Ginger
>>
>> Michael Gurstein wrote:
>>
>>> Milton,
>>>
>>> Basically your polemic comes down to -- only market based
>>>
>> competition
>>
>>> "creates wealth" -- and only wealth (i.e. investment)
>>>
>> created in this way
>>
>>> can provide the financial resources for infrastructure,
>>>
>> enabling education
>>
>>> and social programs etc.etc.
>>>
>>> Good question, but where exactly are the trillions of
>>>
>> dollars coming from
>>
>>> that are being used to patch over the gaping chasms that an
>>>
>> irresponsible
>>
>>> and ultimately totally irrational faith in the unfettered market has
>>> subjected on the world...
>>>
>>> One day there wasn't enough money to fill up a $100 mil
>>>
>> deficit in the World
>>
>>> Food Program and the next day, hey presto, the Fed and the
>>>
>> BIS and the IMF
>>
>>> or whoever can conjure up more money than has ever existed
>>>
>> anywhere out of
>>
>>> nothing to respond to some significant shortfalls in the
>>>
>> spreadsheets of
>>
>>> some totally utterly irresponsible bankers and other hangers on...
>>>
>>> If we are learning anything from the current global crisis
>>>
>> it is that
>>
>>> conventional i.e. free market/libertarian economics is a
>>>
>> belief system like
>>
>>> a lot of other belief systems and probably one that has rather less
>>> correspondence with reality than most.
>>>
>>> Where the money would come from, to answer your question,
>>>
>> it would/could be
>>
>>> created by policy fiat like all the rest only in this case
>>>
>> it would serve
>>
>>> rather more of a productive purpose than for example
>>>
>> tossing it into pots to
>>
>>> give million dollar bonues to "incentivize" folks to
>>>
>> "solve" the problems
>>
>>> that they were responsible for creating in the first place.
>>>
>>> MBG
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu]
>>> Sent: Monday, May 25, 2009 1:06 PM
>>> To: 'Michael Gurstein'; 'McTim'; governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> Subject: RE: [governance] IGF review
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Michael Gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com]
>>>>
>>>> Ah Milton, the blind faith in the "trickle down" canard...
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Michael. I can caricature people with the best of them. So
>>>
>> you may as well
>>
>>> try to engage with different viewpoints seriously, rather
>>>
>> than dismissively,
>>
>>> if only for self-protection purposes.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Reality check--reducing the cost of Internet access from
>>>>
>> $50/mon. to
>>
>>>> $30/mon. has little impact on those whose entire earnings
>>>>
>> are $30/mon.
>>
>>> Indeed. And this proves what, exactly?
>>>
>>> If I can make any sense of your position, all you are
>>>
>> proposing is that
>>
>>> wealth be transferred to deliver service to people who
>>>
>> can't afford its real
>>
>>> cost. I say, fine, as an ameliorative measure, and it will
>>>
>> and should happen
>>
>>> insofar as a country can afford it. What you refuse to face
>>>
>> is the issue of
>>
>>> what a country can afford. How does a society gain the
>>>
>> wealth to help
>>
>>> people? Who will build the bulk of a society's infrastructure on a
>>> long-term, self-sustaining basis? Ameliorative measures are
>>>
>> no substitute
>>
>>> for the wealth-creating drivers of an entire economy.
>>>
>> Government-sponsored
>>
>>> wealth transfers can't happen until there is wealth there
>>>
>> to transfer.
>>
>>> Few government subsidy programs create wealth, they mostly
>>>
>> redistribute it;
>>
>>> and even then they have a budget constraint. They can't
>>>
>> give everyone the
>>
>>> benefits they want without taking the money to do it from
>>>
>> someone else. To
>>
>>> spend money on telecom service subsidies they have to not
>>>
>> fund something
>>
>>> else, and/or take more income away from people. (You do
>>>
>> believe in budget
>>
>>> constraints don't you? or do you think that capitalists
>>>
>> just made that all
>>
>>> up to prevent people from getting good things, out of the
>>>
>> inherent meanness
>>
>>> in their hearts?) How high should taxes be raised, Michael,
>>>
>> to fund your pet
>>
>>> projects at your desired level? (If you actually talk to
>>>
>> the rural poor in
>>
>>> the same developing countries I have visited you will find
>>>
>> them complaining
>>
>>> about the level of taxation.) What other do-gooder's pet
>>>
>> projects won't get
>>
>>> funded if yours are funded? It's all well and good to appear deeply
>>> committed to the eradication of poverty by asserting that
>>>
>> all poor people
>>
>>> should have things regardless of cost (even as you live in
>>>
>> upper class
>>
>>> conditions in a first-world country), but unless you can
>>>
>> answer the hard
>>
>>> trade-off questions it's little more than posturing.
>>>
>>> Are you asserting that an entire country's infrastructure
>>>
>> is going to be
>>
>>> built through static wealth transfers outside a market
>>>
>> regime? If so, we
>>
>>> part company. I suggest you take a look at a simple
>>>
>> statistical comparison
>>
>>> of penetration rates in countries with and without competition and
>>> liberalization. The disparities you speak of have gotten
>>>
>> much, much better
>>
>>> in the last 20 years, not worse as you assert. No, a
>>>
>> liberalized market
>>
>>> doesn't instantly deliver 100 Mb broadband to every African
>>>
>> village. But
>>
>>> it's gotten mobile service far, far deeper into those
>>>
>> territories than the
>>
>>> state monopoly ever did. Plus, I just have trouble grokking
>>>
>> the logic behind
>>
>>> an assertion that a policy is bad because it doesn't
>>>
>> instantly rain down
>>
>>> benefits that cost $50 a month on people who can only pay
>>>
>> $10 a month. A
>>
>>> policy that quadruples the level of access in a country in
>>>
>> a decade is a
>>
>>> pretty damn good policy. Unless you believe that no one
>>>
>> should get anything
>>
>>> unless everyone has it.
>>>
>>> Services and infrastructures COST MONEY to deliver,
>>>
>> Michael, and unless you
>>
>>> have some new method of generating the financial, physical and human
>>> resources to build them, you aren't helping much.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Providing an appropriate physical/social/economic (and
>>>>
>> stable profit)
>>
>>>> environment so that those who have sufficient income to
>>>>
>> pay $30/mon.
>>
>>>> for the Internet can have the opportunity to use their earnings and
>>>> spend it in this
>>>> way, in many instances takes a very very large proportion of
>>>> the "addiitonal
>>>> revenues and economic benefits" that these investments
>>>> generate...hence the
>>>> closing of the loop as can be seen in the accelerating
>>>> disparities between
>>>> the impoverished areas both rural and urban and the enclaves
>>>> of high tech
>>>> First World glitter in many bi-modal economies/societies
>>>> (such as South
>>>> Africa) (and yes there is advance in income and well-being
>>>>
>> among the
>>
>>>> majority population in South Africa for example, but the
>>>> disparities -- to a
>>>> considerable degree fueled by technology -- are growing
>>>>
>> even faster.
>>
>>>> It's not the absence of competition among telecom providers
>>>> that prevents
>>>> people earning $30/mon from getting Internet access it is the
>>>> fact that they
>>>> are earning $30/mon and they have little means to improve
>>>> their positions in
>>>> the absence of directed public policy in support of those
>>>> developments.
>>>>
>>>> My earlier point though which is rather different is that in
>>>> the absence of
>>>> a whole range of publicly supported (whether by funding or
>>>> policy or some
>>>> combination of both) institutional mechanisms--training,
>>>> public access,
>>>> appropriate content development, appropriate service design
>>>> and so on--a
>>>> community informatics--the simple introduction of
>>>>
>> "competition" has no
>>
>>>> chance to "trickle down" since no useable "trickle path"
>>>> exists between the
>>>> benefits "fountainhead" and the end user "stand pump"...
>>>>
>>>> MBG
>>>>
>>>> Michael Gurstein, Ph.D.
>>>> Director: Centre for Community Informatics Research,
>>>>
>> Development and
>>
>>>> Training Vancouver, CANADA and Cape Town, SA
>>>> http://www.communityinformatics.net
>>>> CA tel. +1-604-602-0624
>>>> SA cell
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu]
>>>> Sent: Monday, May 25, 2009 7:47 AM
>>>> To: 'McTim'; governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein
>>>> Subject: RE: [governance] IGF review
>>>>
>>>> When the costs of something -- anything -- are pushed down by
>>>> competition
>>>> and technical innovation, everyone benefits (except
>>>>
>> perhaps those who
>>
>>>> operated monopolies built around higher-cost system). So if
>>>> it once was too
>>>> expensive to build facilities into poorer areas, then cost
>>>>
>> reductions
>>
>>>> obviously especially benefit those with less money or those whose
>>>> geographical situation creates higher costs. So I reject absolutely
>>>> Gurstein's assertion that liberalization creates a
>>>>
>> zero-sum game which
>>
>>>> benefits only the already-wealthy. Furthermore, I also
>>>>
>> challenge his
>>
>>>> assertion that liberalization and a thriving market reduces the
>>>> opportunities for public intervention. Insofar as those
>>>> strategies succeed
>>>> in generating additional revenues and economic benefit, there
>>>> is more wealth
>>>> to be redistributed via public intervention, and if there is
>>>> no wealth,
>>>> there is nothing to redistribute. Liberalization of
>>>>
>> telecom is often
>>
>>>> associated with the reform and restructuring of universal
>>>> service programs,
>>>> making them more targeted and efficient, and generating more
>>>> revenues which
>>>> can be used to ameliorate poverty.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com]
>>>>> Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2009 4:10 PM
>>>>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein
>>>>> Cc: Milton L Mueller
>>>>> Subject: Re: [governance] IGF review
>>>>>
>>>>> On 5/24/09, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> hmm, this project (in SA, but supported by a variety of folk
>>>>> worldwide) might prove you wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.villagetelco.org/2009/05/first-phone-call-on-mp-arc
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> hitecture/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> and an early implementation of it:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>> http://www.shuttleworthfoundation.org/our-work/blogs/yabba-dabba-do
>>
>>>>> and Telkom complained to the regulator that Dabba was
>>>>>
>> "interfering"
>>
>>>>> with their service and had ICASA confiscate their kit.
>>>>>
>>>>> I for one would applaud "restricting the opportunities for public
>>>>> sector intervention", if by public sector you mean Telkom SA!
>>>>>
>>>>> My original point in this thread was that African CS can
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> actually DO
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> something instead of just talking about doing something (at
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> the IGF).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
____________________________________________________________
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
More information about the Governance
mailing list