[governance] ITU Broadband Commission

Mon Apr 9 05:58:46 EDT 2012

FWIW, Lee I should point out that I'm quite critical of the conventional
ICT4D approach(es) for precisely the same reasons as I'm critical of the
BBC... while perhaps having an effect in realizing some degree of
"development" overall they do little if anything to actually achieve a
greater degree of social and economic equality within a society and in many
if not most instances actually have the effect of increasing inequalities in
developing countries i.e. accelerating the advantages of those who already
possess certain social and economic advantages while having some sort of "a
raise all the boats" effect on the rest.

M

http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2010/06/15/some-comments-on-ict4development-an
d-internet-governance/

I should add here that at the time of the
<http://http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Summit_on_the_Information_Society>
World Summit on the Iformation society Tunis and immediately afterwards, I
argued quite extensively and publicly for "development" (ICT4D) issues to
NOT be included in the agenda for discussion of the IGF while a number of
actors seemed to be suggesting that this in fact should be case. My
reasoning at the time was that the IGF, being a forum concerned largely (and
dare I say narrowly) with the more "technical" areas where a global
discussion on Internet Governance might prove useful, was the wrong place
with the wrong set of participants to discuss ICT4D issues. It was my
opinion at the time that discussion at the IGF would tend to reduce
ICT4D/development down to technical/access matters. This in turn would
divert the discussion away from the broader issues of governance in support
of applications and effective uses which I consider to be the primary
concern when viewed from the perspective of grassroots users particularly in
"development" contexts.

http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2010/12/01/the-idrc-and-%E2%80%9Copen-developm
ent%E2%80%9D-ict4d-by-and-for-the-new-middle-class/

Similarly with "Open Development" ("Open ICT4D" is the term in fact used
here (by the IDRC)); clearly the opportunity to participate in development
planning, information sharing, operational implementation will be of
interest to and benefit for those already possessing the skills, background
and time required to recognize this opportunity and to participate in these
processes. In most Developing Countries this would include the quite rapidly
developing cohort of technologically savvy recent graduates, newly employed
tech workers, many elements in the Diaspora community and so on-the "New
Middle Class".

Getting these people involved in development related activities is, one
assumes, overall a good thing.  However, putting one's emphasis and
resources behind these initiatives without putting commensurate resources to
support participation by those most needful of benefiting from such
development activities-the rural and urban poor, the landless, the
illiterate, women outside the paid workforce, the physically disabled and so
on is simply to further empower those already being empowered and to assist
them in further distancing themselves from the most needful.

That is, "Open (ICT4)Development" as through for example simply having newly
available "access" to information or the opportunity to "participate" does
little or nothing for those without the means to make effective and
organized use of those opportunities i.e. those who lack the required skills
or the means to hire the skills or more profoundly, without the background
and training to recognize the value that such opportunities and access might
provide to them.

The challenge for (ICT4) development is ...  is one of ensuring that those
who are the "object" of development are also its subjects.

-----Original Message-----
From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
[mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Lee W McKnight
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2012 12:26 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder
Subject: RE: [governance] ITU Broadband Commission

Parminder,

You're pushing on levels-of-analysis and levels of governance issues, that I
agree are important to keep clear but are only tangentially tied to an ITU
Broadband Commission's efforts.  So now you've pushed me to defend the ITU
Broadband Commission : (

Commissions, like multistakeholder processes generally, bring different
groups together and hope something good comes out of the dialogue. Sometimes
they work, other times not so much.  From one view, if say 10 more national
governments (to pick a low target) develop their own national broadband
plans in next few years, partially influenced/nudged by the ITU Broadband
Commission, then that's a good thing from Michael's ICT4D perspective or
from (presumably) the perspectives of the citizens in nations where more
advanced communication services become available sooner than might otherwise
have been the case. With plans developed by governments hopefully elected
democratically.

So, I'm not agreeing that the commission itself is unable to do anything
worthwhile just because Carlos Slim doesn't practice what I preach about the
social welfare  benefits of multiple versus monopoly providers.  (And I'll
pretend not to notice Jean-Louis's allegations of corruption, when as far as
I know Carlos got his monopoly the old fashioned way, he bought it. ; )

So yeah Avri and John, if people want to submit docs to the Broadband
commission by all means go right ahead.    And note there are some high and
mighty cs folks at the table already who may be natural allies, even if they
don;t hang on the IGC list.

Honestly though, I don't see the commission coming up with much of anything
new beyond some new staff or working group reports, which I expect will be
quite good and handy reference material on the state of broadband circa
2012. 

But I don;t imagine them being influenced or shaped much by grassroots CS,
even if one were to try, whether through (domestic) democratic means or
though (transnational) ms means.  ITU has been a pay to play organization
for 150 years, for governments and businesses. The few CS groups able to
afford to - play the game there - are tolerated and even welcomed for their
input at times, but certainly not on an equal footing.  Since IGC is not in
that club, we are not really in this game, which has been going on since
2010 already so at best we are very late to a table we weren't invited to
dine at.  

I will say now that I look more closely at what the Commission has done so
far and who is playing this game, that there are some very worthwhile folks
engaged, eg Mohammed Yunus of Bangladesh of Grameen Bank/Grameen
Phone/microcredit/Nobel Peace Prize fame, joined  now also by my old pal
Vanu Bose of Vanu Inc.   

It's just I don;t see where they are asking for or looking for IGC's help
and input, and don;t see a strategic opening to make the ITU Broadband
Commission or any of its working groups a priority for IGC.   

IGF on other hand, has more than enough problems and needs help...right?

Or Parminder, do we need to solve the problem of the deficit of democracy
for global/multinational processes first? Since I fear that could be a very
long wait.

Lee

  _____  

From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
[governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of parminder
[parminder at itforchange.net]
Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2012 10:18 PM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: Re: [governance] ITU Broadband Commission

The original issue in this discussion was whether conflict of interest is an
important principle to ensure and fight for with regard to public policy and
governance systems. MS-ism (multistakeholderism)  seeks to avoid this
question - and that is what I see in John Curran's response, diverting the
issue towards a 'we should participate in any case' discussion. This
avoidance is because MS-ism at its heart is based on an inversion of the
long held sacrosanct democratic principle that if one has a clear private
interest in an outcome of a policy/ governance system, he/she should not be
a part of the 'high echelons' of the system.  A stakeholder after all is
basically one with direct 'narrow' private interest or stake in a policy
outcome. There is no attempt at achieving of a higher, no doubt politically
constructed, public interest. MSism seeks a patch work of accommodating
private interests, with the involved actors at the policy table legitimately
pursuing their narrow private interests. Obviously, the most powerful are
most able to be present and drive their agenda (there being no 'conflict of
interest' related norm) ...... Additionally, MSism, by its convenient ploy
of the 'need for consensus', also by its very nature lead to status quoist,
conservative politics. 

Traditional democratic norms and systems were built, for instance,  to keep
powerful businesses from directly shaping political decisions. That of
course is seen as 'the' problem by neolibs. MS-ism as a political system is
their clever answer to the problem. In order to co-opt civil society, and
overall present a more acceptable image, MSism seeks to take up the
vocabulary, and outwardly the concerns, of the long standing demand and
struggles for participatory democracy, deepening democracy etc.... Some
civil society people have considered it a useful tactical move to go along
with this much more powerful global move towards MS-ism (especially when
participatory/ deepening democracy etc have not had that much success). 

My view is that at this junction we need to review - is it that we were able
to co-opt the power of the global capital to open up more participatory
space, or, whether, we have got co-opted in the big business and neolib plan
to supplant democracy. 

parminder 

On Sunday 08 April 2012 09:09 PM, Avri Doria wrote: 

On 7 Apr 2012, at 16:22, Lee W McKnight wrote:

My 2 cents is the general principles/objectives being pushed by the ITU's
Broadband Commission are not bad, but the fact of the matter is it more a
classic high-level talkathon opportunity than anything else. Submitting docs
to them is likely not worth the time it would  as Michael suggests. And for
CS, certainly not worth the bother of trying to shape/steer at this late
date when the dye is cast. 

I am not sure I understand why submitting existing docs, by someone who knew
what to submit, was not worth the bother.

On the topic of participating or not.  I think that is the wrong question.

If the topic is important and the venue relevant, CS should participate.

The fact of whether we are included at the table or not, would seem to
dictate tactics as opposed to participation.  There are different ways by
which CS makes it views heard, when it has a seat at the table or  when it
is forced to stand outside the door making itself heard.  And if CS is being
excluded from this table, and we thinking there is any chance they are going
to do something harmful to the public good, then we should be screaming our
heads off outside the door and should gear up a campaign to do so.

One of the disadvantages of the multistakeholder model (i bet some of you
thought i never saw a disadvantage to the model) is that when we are not
included we just sort of whinge and sputter.  We have lost some of the anger
that made CS a force at WSIS and this is partly because we have changed over
all of our methods to Multistakeholder reasonableness.  And personally I
think one of the reasons we see a pull back in the support of the
multistakeholder model by the other stakeholders is that we have become
docile, or even invisible, when excluded.

The only time many of the others will allow CS at the table is when they
think that excluding CS will be more annoying than having us at the table
is.  To expect governments or business to it because it is the right thing,
is sort of wishful thinking.  governments do what make retention of power
easiest and business do what maximizes profit.  So CS has to be prepared to
be  disruptive of easy power and profits if it wants to be included in the
discussions.  And sometimes it just has to flex its disruptive muscles just
to remind the powers that be that it is ready to do so.

my thoughts for an easter morning.

avri

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120409/24c500cf/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