[governance] IGF relevance?

[Fouad Bajwa]

Hi Milton, you give a mixed opinion. By the way this would be of
interest to you:

The Net Delusion: How Not to Liberate the World
by Evgeny Morozov
http://www.amazon.com/Net-Delusion-How-Liberate-World/dp/1846143535/ref=pd_sxp_f_pt

Synopsis: "Does free information mean free people?
At the start of the twenty-first century we were promised that the
internet would liberate the world. We could come together as never
before, and from Iran's 'twitter revolution' to Facebook 'activism',
technological innovation would spread democracy to oppressed peoples
everywhere.

We couldn't have been more wrong. In The Net Delusion Evgeny Morozov
destroys this myth, arguing that 'internet freedom' is an illusion,
and that technology has failed to help protect people's rights. Not
only that -- in many cases the internet is actually helping
authoritarian regimes.

>From China to Russia to Iran, oppressive governments are using
cyberspace to stifle dissent: planting clandestine propaganda,
employing sophisticated digital censorship and using online
surveillance. We are all being manipulated in more subtle ways too --
becoming pacified by the net, instead of truly engaging.

This book is a wake-up call. It shows us how our misplaced faith in
cyber-utopia means the West risks missing the real challenges. Morozov
argues that we must look at other ways of promoting democracy abroad,
and forces us -- policymakers and citizens alike -- to recognize that
all our freedoms are at stake."

I actually bought the book and going through it I must agree to the
fact, network neutral for whom? For us, the developing world or for
the developed world and why? Maybe that is the primary question that
hasn't been answered at all. The debate cannot stop and the clarity
has to be sought!

-- Fouad

On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 5:25 AM, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:
> Milton, your argument is killed by your second phrase: "This is an issue
> that is being and will be handled by national regulatory authorities."
> Yes, like crime, privacy rights and so on -- aren't so many gov
> decisions on these and other issues done by simple ministerial decrees,
> directed at specific or all sectors, which are not really different from
> regulatory determinations?
>
> The point is not discarding wksps because the thematic field is one
> regulated by the State. Is to get us (at least non-govs) a space to
> exchange ideas and develop proposals on how precisely to confront those
> mechanisms and decisions from above.
>
> My point is that wksps are generally too academic, too
> one-speaks-everyone-else-listens-(or-not), and little is left in terms
> of what many of us defend for the IGF itself -- at least a consensus
> around proposals for action organized in a document. For me this is the
> main problem which makes most of them useless (like a stream of
> first-world phds presenting generalist views on "development and ICTs"
> etc etc), not because some of the themes relate to State's regulatory
> mechanisms or because the theme is already well discussed.
>
> frt rgds
>
> --c.a.
>
> On 04/14/2011 12:04 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>>
>> I am going to raise some eyebrows and question the decision to do a
>> Network neutrality workshop. This is an issue that is being and will
>> be handled by national regulatory authorities. The positions of the
>> various actors and interest groups are well known and well-aired.
>> Nothing the IGF says or does will have much impact on what happens in
>> this space. The US Congress will probably negate the current FCC
>> rules and the US will have to either pass new legislation or find
>> some other way to pursue those policy goals; the IGF does not enter
>> into the equation. The same can be said for Europe: the EU and
>> national regulatory authorities are actively debating this, and it is
>> the opinions of the nra's, DG INFO, DG MARKT and its competition law
>> that matter, not IGF.
>>
>> On the other hand, there are developments in IP addressing that cry
>> out for a global forum to work out a new policy. For some background,
>> see this recent IGP blog article:
>> http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2011/3/25/4778257.html
>>
>>
> In facing a controversial issue that seemed to require global policy but
> go beyond the mandate of ARIN, the head of ARIN recently asked on a
> public list, sincerely, which venue could be used to discuss the issue?
>>
>> It is abundantly clear that on a few key internet governance issues,
>> ranging from Wikileaks to IP addressing there are inadequate
>> globalized institutions.
>>
>> One reason IGF is losing relevance, is that IGF's leadership seems to
>> be utterly blind when it comes to distinguishing between issues where
>> it can be entrepreneurial and fill gaps in the current institutional
>> environment, and issues where it has no real capacity to contribute
>> anything. It seems that IGF always falls prey to the disease of UN
>> organizations, which is to create opportunities for politicians and
>> others who enjoy publicity to intone pleasing platitudes on gigantic
>> problems which it has no capacity to solve, while completely avoiding
>> the hard work of solving smaller, less glamorous problems it can
>> actually do something about.
>>
>> --MM
>>
>>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

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