[governance] Strangeness in the IGF programme

Fouad Bajwa fouadbajwa at gmail.com
Wed Mar 3 16:26:40 EST 2010

Very valid points to some extent in understanding though we may be at
different levels of understanding on similar issues within developing
and developed contexts. Things do happen for a reason and we must not
forget that there are two other stakeholders from the
multistakeholderism in the discussions and if there is one thing
suggested by CS, there is a lot of twisting and rephrasing done by the
other two groups with their own examples and evidence and at the end
of the day the Chair tries to strike a balance that again is a notion
accepted by members of the multistakeholderism so only one group
doesn't drive the process and it stays mutual.

But Milton, these are ideas and not specifically enforced terms like
main theme topics. Out of the three mutually decided main theme
suggests, IG4D found its way in, rights again went under freedom of
expression which again is under a main theme itself and so forth. We
can only make progress as many of you have shared with me in the past
that the process is a slow one and yes its a very slow one with so
many multistakeholders on the table.

With the amount of topics being discussed in that time frame of two
days, we must accept that the multistakeholderism tries to touch base
on as many inputs from the open consultations and their groups as
possible and that is what is reflected in the program paper and of
course even myself haven't been so happy with the outcome though I
have a sense of belief evolving that with the inclusion of IG4D as a
main theme, it is a matter of time only that other topics will see the
daylight too.

Once again, event though I tried to state my problem and you gave a
very valid clarification but myself and many people in my part of the
world cannot understand these competitive behaviours unless informed
stakeholders like your kind self bring these up in the IGF and open
consultations. Everyone has a role to play and the programming by the
MAG is not perfect but is not final unless it is locked by the

Maybe from your standpoint I am unable to explain theactual context
about Internet Security as part of the Mobile topic but I am pretty
much sure that it was shared in the context of developing countries,
mobile access to the Internet and then the issues of security with
relevance to that and is only a topic suggestion for discussion which
will be stimulated by the stakeholders themselves and might not be
there in future IGFs (if the mandate is renewed).

I don't know if you have noted on the IGF website or not but the MAG
is also to decide its future in May if the mandate is renewed so a lot
is bound to change and improve so lets stay open for change until and
at IGF!!!!

On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 9:59 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
> Fouad:
> Based on your discussion below, I conclude that the "Mobile telephony and internet security" theme is simply badly phrased. You are talking about "mobile networks (telecoms)" and internet security, not telephony per se.
> More comments below
>>Most of my interaction in the lists comes through my accessing the
>>Internet through my meagre Nokia cell phone (without touch-screen or
>>qwerty keyboard features) because most of the time I don't have
>>electricity due to the prevailing energy crisis in Pakistan. I am in
>>an urban setting of Lahore and it is much worse are the conditions for
>>our rural regions that comprises 66% of national population of over
>>180 million citizens and sometimes have power for less than a few
>>single digit hours.
> Definitely interesting and important access issues here, but not a security issue - or even an internet governance issue - per se.
>>I also pay a much higher cost to connect through a mobile network to
>>the Internet as opposed to my ADSL provider. For 1MB on my cell, I pay
>>Rs.150 per MB almost equivalent to approx. USD $2.00 whereas I pay Rs.
>>1200 equivalent to approx. USD $14 for my ADSL per/month with a 20 GB
>>cap. When you compare this, I am paying 8 times more for access on my
>>cell as opposed to the  direct Internet connectivity with similar
>>usage. This is one way of looking at it.
> This is a well-known economic regulatory issue; in developed markets, mobile internet has gone from being an expensive, pay per bit walled garden to a pretty good approximation of the fixed internet, both in terms of interface and in terms of access to services. The driver of this has been, almost entirely, competition. I would guess that market conditions in Pakistan are less competitive. However, with mobile bandwidth being mroe constrained than fixed, the pricing may also reflect significant cost differences. If there is competition and some good regulatory decisions regarding spectrum access then over time that difference may reduce or disappear.
>>When I connect to the Internet over the cell phone network, I am
>>exposed to the issues of another carrier/network medium so that's two
>>layers of connectivity on a mobile/cellular network. With the issues
>>of connecting to the Internet over the mobile networks, the issue of
>>Internet Security can also be looked at that what are the layers of
>>Internet Security in interplay with the mobile networks and I think
>>everyone present wanted to have a look at Internet Security issues
>>with relevance to Internet Connectivity through cellular networks.
> I still don't quite get this. By definition, the internet is a network of networks that involves multiple layers of connectivity. You may be going through cellular nets, WiFi, fixed copper, satellite, co-axial cable, fiber at any given time. Is there some specific security issue assocaited with internet access via "cellular" (by which I assume you mean 2G and 3G CDMA and GSM networks, or GPRS, or 3.5 HSPA, or 4G LTE standards???) that people are concerned about?
>>Trust me most of the topics included in the program paper have no
>>conspiracy theory attached to them and were suggestions with a bit of
> I reject entirely the language of "conspiracy" but I do believe that things happen for a reason and we can analyze and reconstruct what happened in order to understand it better. I would suggest that a specific person or group proposed a specific topic and gave it a specific construction for a reason, a reason that reflected their own agenda. I also believe that in committees working under time pressure words, concepts and phrases can become garbled beyond all recognition. Even then, it helps to reconstruct what compromises and deals were made to arrive at the awkward result.

Fouad Bajwa
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:

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

More information about the Governance mailing list