[governance] IGF review

[George Sadowsky]

Hi, Bill,

At 10:17 AM +0200 5/25/09, William Drake wrote:
>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.

"As opposed to" did not imply disposing of the other alternatives.

However, it would be interesting and profitable, I think. to look 
through that developmental lens and draw conclusions, and ten see how 
similar or how different they are from conclusions drawn when using 
other lenses.  In practice, we do generally look through multiple 
lenses at the same time, but that shouldn't stop us from examining 
the results of pure approaches using different objective criteria.

In particular, think how ICANN, IETF, IANA, the UN, GAID, ITU, UNDP, 
the RIR's, WIPO, etc., and even the current IGF itself would look in 
terms of orientation, support, efficiency and effectiveness when 
viewed through a purely developmental lens.  Identifying the 
positives and negatives is an interesting exercise, as is speculation 
about what kinds of structural and/or operational changes would 
improve the way they look through this lens.

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

That depends.  If you come from an Internet-poor country have a 
limited amount of time and resources, you have to make choices 
regarding where to expend your effort.  In the presence of scarcity, 
one has to make choices.  McTim was arguing, and I agree, that it may 
make more sense for people in such situations to work locally for 
change with existing local and regional IG institutions rather tan 
participating in international efforts.  That doesn't mean that 
international efforts are bad, or are not complementary to local 
efforts.

>>
>>
>>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.

I don't say that.  I do think that they are likely to make long run 
changes, and probably more indirectly than work at a national or 
regional level.

>   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?

Probably not.  But that's not a useful dichotomy.  We cannot test the 
hypothesis that if they had put as much effort locally into improving 
the Internet as they put into attending IGF, perhaps things locally 
would have improved more.  I also don't think it's a matter of just 
showing up for 3-4 days somewhere.  Attendance at IGF costs time and 
money, and in particular imparts an international view of the 
Internet governance situation.  Broadening, you may say, and it may 
be  But if you agree with me that 90++% of real Internet governance 
issues are national, then IGF may impart a view that takes away from 
the intensity of looking at local problems critically and working 
critically to solve them at that level.


>Cheers,
>
>Bill


And cheers to you, too ....

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