[governance] IGF and GAID

[Parminder]

Jean-Louis FULLSACK wrote:
> Dear Parminder
>
> As usually your message clearifies the debate ; therefore all my thanks.
>
> > concrete suggestion for IGF reform, which may be taken up when the 
> resolution/
> > discussion on IGF continuation finally comes up at the UN general
> > assembly or at the CSTD (there is a confusion at this stage how the
> > process will go forward).
>
> Isn't there another confusing situation with GAID as far as IG is 
> dealing with Developing Countriers issues are concerned ?
> If this is the opinion of a majority among us, our relation with 
> -and/or position on- GAID should be laid down accordingly. 
Dear Jean-Louis,

Development has never been a serious political issue at WSIS, and has 
been even less so post-WSIS. It is for this reason that the levels of 
interest of major actors and therefore the trajectories of the IGF and 
GAID have been very different. (It is a different manner that the 
subject of development is treated as a red herring with such regularity, 
and often deviousness, in the IGF that it would make a very interesting 
study/ story.)

IG is very political because it concerns the governance, and thus the 
possibilities of shaping, of the Internet. Development in post-WSIS 
structures has been seen in largely in the normal 'charity view' of 
development, plus as new possibilities of political alliances for 
transnational businesses to expand their markets in developing 
countries. The fact is that, at present, no major actor of any 
significant power has really much interest in ICTD at the global level. 
(UNDP for some strange reasons has mostly withdrawn from this area.)

So while IGF seems to be headed towards even keener political contests, 
GAID, post-Sarbuland, may be headed towards getting folded up into a 
regular UN department, doing mundane work (thats what I fear). The way 
GAID was run as a new age network had many huge problems - and we kept 
pointed them out at all GAID meetings - but it will be a mistake to 
forgo  its open new-age network structure for a bureaucratic UN 
department. What we need instead is a set of more focussed and clearer 
objectives and work plans, and a better network structure focussed on 
public interest actors, chiefly those involved with development issues.

Parminder

>
> > many among us are focusing on just one thing - the
> > danger that ITU may take over the IGF
>
> Right. That is just another point of concern for me. not only because 
> I was working in the (far) past with this Un Agency. I do think that 
> IG needs a strong framework as to be able to apply in any country. 
> /Per se/ ITU isn't qualified for "governance" matters, but it happens 
> to be an intergovernmental body that has a world-wide competence and 
> standardization authority in the ICT/telecom domain, whose circuitry 
> the Internet relies on. That's why I wonder if CS shouldn't rather put 
> its efforts to gain both its place and respect inside this agency. The 
> IGC should also remember that a large part of the CS orgs committed in 
> the WSIS follow-up -especially those working in or with DCs- are 
> struggling for CS being given a plain "ITU member" status.     
>
> > there could also be new
> > options. Thematic working groups, inter-sessional programs, some
> > possibilities of clear advisory outcomes etc may be some things we have
> > earlier alluded to.
>
> Among these thematic working groups one should deal with some issues 
> related to technical matters such as critical Internet resources, 
> network architecture, network neutrality, etc
>
> With my best wishes for a happy and fruitful New Year
> Jean-Louis Fullsack
>
>
>
>     > Message du 31/12/09 10:20
>     > De : "Parminder"
>     > A : governance at lists.cpsr.org
>     > Copie à :
>     > Objet : Re: [governance] Online survey on reform of the IGF
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > Hi All
>     >
>     > While the survey may or may not provide useful inputs for IGC's
>     position
>     > on IGF reform, we should in any case discuss the issue here on
>     the list
>     > so that the coordinators can attempt a consensus position.
>     >
>     > I do think that, in the formal consultation process at Sharm,
>     IGC failed
>     > to provide a comprehensive set of suggestions, even the ones
>     which we
>     > have often discussed in past and adopted by consensus. We may
>     still have
>     > a chance of putting our views forward, now through the channel of
>     > government reps that may be on the lookout for possible good
>     concrete
>     > suggestion for IGF reform, which may be taken up when the
>     resolution/
>     > discussion on IGF continuation finally comes up at the UN general
>     > assembly or at the CSTD (there is a confusion at this stage how the
>     > process will go forward).
>     >
>     > While seeking to trigger a discussion on this subject after
>     Sharm I had
>     > pointed to fact that many among us are focusing on just one
>     thing - the
>     > danger that ITU may take over the IGF, (or even that the IGF may be
>     > closed down), and consequently not engaging as much as we should to
>     > propose real improvements in the IGF. Apparently, the view is
>     that if we
>     > breathe but one word on possible improvements, it may be taken as
>     > statement of failure of the IGF and be used by those keen on
>     shutting
>     > down the IGF, or seeking an ITU take over of it.
>     >
>     > One proof that these fears are hugely exaggerated, and even
>     > diversionary, can be found in the fact that recently a UN general
>     > assembly resolution for more stable public/ UN funding for the IGF
>     > (which some groups tend to equate with possible ITU takeover)
>     was shot
>     > down, and another one calling for more voluntary contributions
>     to the
>     > trust fund (status quoist) was adopted. One can clearly see here
>     who
>     > calls the shots and which way the wind is blowing.
>     >
>     > So lets relax our exaggerated caution, and boldly seek IGF
>     reform of the
>     > kind we have asked for over the years, while there could also be
>     new
>     > options. Thematic working groups, inter-sessional programs, some
>     > possibilities of clear advisory outcomes etc may be some things
>     we have
>     > earlier alluded to. I personally think that we should also seek a
>     > clearer role for the MAG, and more agenda setting power for it,
>     > including of developing recommendations and advices as per the IGF
>     > mandate based on the proceedings of the IGF and other WGs etc.
>     There
>     > could be other possibilities, but we need to discuss them, and
>     maybe
>     > speak out at Feb meeting (even if thats not the agenda) to catch
>     the ear
>     > of some gov reps, and also pass our views on directly to
>     interested gov
>     > reps.
>     >
>     > Have a great last day of 2009, and wake up to a hopeful and
>     fruitful 2010!
>     >
>     > Parminder
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > ____________________________________________________________
>     > 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
>     >
>     >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100102/f47248fa/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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