[governance] ITU Broadband Commission

Wed Apr 4 06:28:26 EDT 2012

Hi John,

I wrote this below in response to the first reports coming out of the
BBC/ITU and a quick glance based on your reference below doesn't indicate
that there has been much progress or advance since my initial comments.

http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2010/09/27/investment-58%E2%80%94poverty-14-th
e-un%E2%80%99s-broadband-commission-for-digital-development-vs-the-mdgs/
(the comments are also worth a look...

The problem with what you say below and as is suggested I think, in my
blogpost is not that "we" are focusing on the titles but rather that whoever
is organizing the initiative is focusing on the titles.  And the problem
with that is not either with the titles or the individuals behind the titles
but that the outcome is more or less completely predictable based on those
titles (presumably as executed by the various courtiers and functionaries
who actually did the work as opposed to having simply graced the meetings
with their presence...

And, since you asked, I sent my blogpost to one of the Commissions'
"researchers", who replied with some irritation but who failed to directly
address any of the points that I, or the commentators on the post were
raising.

M

-----Original Message-----
From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
[mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of John Curran
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2012 8:49 AM
To: parminder; Jean-Louis FULLSACK
Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ( 
Subject: Re: [governance] ITU Broadband Commission

On Apr 3, 2012, at 5:20 AM, parminder wrote:

Many people take IG's multistakeholderism, as it is practised, to be but a
trojan horse for mega corporates to enter and dominate policy spaces, and
their perception may not be entirely misplaced. Civil society needs  to do
more to dispel this impression, but sadly it doesnt...

Parminder, Jean-Louis -

I know this may be controversial, but rather than focusing the titles of
those leading this
effort, wouldn't it be more practical to comment on the actual work, and how
it does or 
doesn't meet the needs of civil society?

They have laid out four goals:

.   Target 1: Making broadband policy universal. By 2015, all countries
should have a national broadband plan or strategy or include broadband in
their Universal Access / Service Definitions.

.   Target 2: Making broadband affordable. By 2015, entry-level broadband
services should be made affordable in developing countries through adequate
regulation and market forces (amounting to less than 5% of average monthly
income).

.   Target 3: Connecting homes to broadband. By 2015, 40% of households in
developing countries should have Internet access.

.   Target 4: Getting people online. By 2015, Internet user penetration
should reach 60% worldwide, 50% in developing countries and 15% in LDCs.

Are these the right goals?  If not, why not, and what should the goals be
instead?  Has
CS indicated otherwise the ITU Broadband Commission, and if so, what
happened?

They have a "Sharehouse" open to any and all for submission of materials to
be considered
including "case studies, best practice, analytical reports and policy
recommendations." -
(<http://www.broadbandcommission.org/Sharehouse/Search.aspx>).  They also
have working
groups which appear to include additional participants from outside the
Commission and
from academia, industry and public institutions.  The IT Broadband
Commission web site
provides most of this information in an very straightfoward manner, with
outcomes and major
reports available in six major languages.  

Having participating in several more 'classic' ITU initiatives, I will say
that I find this relatively
straightforward in comparison and while perhaps imperfect in some aspects,
it is much closer
to what many folks have been asking for in multi-stakeholder policy
development than past 
practices by these organizations.

I have no involvement in the ITU Broadband Commission (and am the probably
one of the last 
folks on the planet expected to speak in defense of the ITU's attempts at
multi-stakeholder 
engagement), but is there an actual issue here to respond to?   Has IGC or
other CS 
organizations attempted to engage with the ITU Broadband Commission and been
told that
they are not welcome?  Has input been provided for consideration or to the
working groups
been set aside in the preparation of the major reports and outcomes?  If so,
then this matter 
should indeed be a major concern and should be raised loudly at WSIS and
elsewhere.  
However, if the issue is the Broadband Commission failing to listen due to
lack of actual
participation and input, then expressing concern over its structure is not
only specious, but 
it dilutes the voice of civil society when addressing matters of actual
substance elsewhere.

/John

Disclaimers:  My views alone. Concepts in the email may appear larger in
real life. Your results 
may vary. No user-serviceable parts inside.  Do not use this email as an
exit in case of fire.  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120404/ea4ea78a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/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