[governance] IGF and GAID
Raul Zambrano
raul at sdnhq.undp.org
Wed Jan 6 07:49:12 EST 2010
Dear Hakik,
Thanks for the inputs.
Since you have mentioned UNDP, I think there is need for me to step up to
the plate and clarify a few things.
I think you are 100% right when you say that support for ICTD in the donor
community has declined, specially if we compared current activities to say
the late 1990s (and before the dot com crash). But on the other hand, I
think what has really changed is the way most development practitioners
see ICTD.
IMHO, we all used to promote ICTD as an end in itself. That was the main
goal in the 1990s and early 2000s. Not surprisingly there was a lot of
emphasis on infrastructure, access and connectivity.
>From 2003 on this has changed dramatically. Now we see ICT as en means to
an end. Take for example the Millennium Development Goals. The targets
here are all socio-economic and the idea is not to close the so-called
"digital divide" but rather to use the new ICTs to close the traditional
socio-economic and even governance divides that still exist in most
developing countries.
This is at least the approach we have taken at UNDP. This at the same time
entails that we work more closely together to all those other
practitioners who do the traditional development work and are not really
aware of the opportunities that ICT offer to solve many (not all!) issues.
In other words, ICTs are being mainstreamed into the core development
areas. And the challenge today is to make such mainstreaming a more
successful one -as we all know that still many development programme
chose to ignore ICTs.
UNDP is still very active in the areas of ICT and e-governance. In 2008
alone for example we have over 150 programmes in over 70 developing
countries with budgets of over 200 million dollars. And many of these
programmes are supporting the achievement in one way or another broader
development goals.
I believe many other donors and agencies are taking the same approach. On
the other hand, I still see lots of opportunities to do lots of good work
supporting ICTs. So the future is still bright but it is very different
from the recent past. We just need to adjust to than and keep moving the
agenda forward.
Cheers, Raúl
___________________________________________________________________
Raúl Zambrano 304 East 45 Street
Senior Policy Advisor 10th Floor
ICTD & e-governance New York, NY 10017
UNDP/BDP/DGG 212 906-6654
raul at undp.org 212 906-6952 (Fax)
http://ictd.undp.org/e-gov
On Sat, 2 Jan 2010, Hakikur Rahman wrote:
Dear Parminder,
I agree with you cent percent, but wish I could have knew those strange
reasons that you have mentioned. Not only UNDP, but seems majority of
development partners are no more interested in ICTD. For many years, it has
become stalled somewhere, when the field was really going to launch in many
lagging nations. Hope GAID, as it has been expected could come up with
something in this aspect.
Best regards,
Hakikur
At 06:48 02-01-2010, Parminder wrote:
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
>
>
____________________________________________________________
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
-------------- next part --------------
The following attachment was sent,
but NOT saved in the Fcc copy:
A Text/PLAIN (Name="message-footer.txt") segment of about 343 bytes.
More information about the Governance
mailing list