[governance] IGF review

[William Drake]

Hi George

On May 27, 2009, at 2:36 AM, George Sadowsky wrote:

> 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 principle i take your point.  But in practice the objectives and  
values get interwoven once you move from clean ideal types to reality...
>
>
> 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.

Yup
>
>
>>
>> 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.

Right, but my question was, can you point to actual negative effects,  
things went to hell at home cuz a couple people went to  four day  
conference?  If not we don't need to periodically go around on this  
and can instead simply encourage significantly enhanced engagement at  
the local and regional levels as well as participation in relevant  
international processes.
>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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.

Personally I'd like to see both done, e.g. via a main session on  
national IG that shows how different countries respond to the global  
as well as more local dynamics.  As long as it doesn't turn into  
another enabling environment blah blah blah.
>>>
>>
>>
>> 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.

Seems like you dismiss the false dichotomy but then sort of repeat  
it,  How about we just recast the question, how can IGF be made more  
high value adding for people confronted by substantial local  
impediments, or whatever?
>
>
>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Bill
>
>
> And cheers to you, too ....
>
All around

BD

***********************************************************
William J. Drake
Senior Associate
Centre for International Governance
Graduate Institute of International and
   Development Studies
Geneva, Switzerland
william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch
www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html
***********************************************************

____________________________________________________________
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