[governance] IGF relevance?

[Milton L Mueller]

OK, grande Carlos that is a reasonable view. I certainly agree that wksps  should be WORKshops, organized around proposals for action. And there is some room for norm-building, spirit-building and knowledge exchange among transnational groups on NN as any other issue. But in this case, what I see brewing is another  one of your "one-speaks-everyone-else-listens-(or-not)" affairs airing very familiar and predictable views. Perhaps it could be framed and defined more specifically. What "mechanisms and decision from above" are you going to confront? What actions contemplated? What new information will be brought in? What new ideas for action? 

One reason I plan to _not_ be at IGF this year is that I will be at TPRC (academic conference) in the U.S. presenting the results of a comparative study of how US and Canada are handling the bandwidth management/DPI issue. Canada has a law that embodies what US NN advocates would love to have, and yet DPI may be even more widespread there. Can you give me a reason why I should want to have that conversation in Nairobi instead of in the US where I will be heard and interacting with North American regulators, policy experts, advocacy groups who will directly affect what happens here? 

--MM

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Carlos A. Afonso [mailto:ca at cafonso.ca]
> Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2011 8:26 AM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller
> Cc: cstd at igf-online.net
> Subject: Re: [governance] IGF relevance?
> 
> 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
> >
> >
____________________________________________________________
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