IETF WAS Re: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation (was Re: reality check on economics)

[Hakikur Rahman]

I do agree with the last statement made by 
Nobert. It is not so easy to separate technical 
and policy issue as long as they build on each 
other. In terms of LDC´s context, I could not 
disagree with Michael on the representation part, 
as majority of them (as mentioned by him) rely on 
ITU at the ground reality. Furthermore, being a 
government official (to be part of ITU), lack of 
technicality, and most importantly permanent 
representation on specific technical issues are 
difficult, as most of the government positions 
are transferrable. Yes, those LDCs do not have 
strong private sector with technicality for 
active participation. The same applies to the 
civil societies there, but the good sign is there 
that the civil societies are more active in 
policy issues nowadays. So, there could a mix of 
these two from LDCs´ part of representation in 
the global platform. But, seems will require more 
time and patience to build up such teams from those countries.

Best regards,
Hakikur


At 17:39 29-05-2012, Norbert Bollow wrote:
>I wrote:
> >> Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > The problem is that for many "poor countries (LDC's)" there is no
> >> > "private sector" in this area and for the most part no civil society
> >> > with the expertise or the financial resources to participate in these
> >> > discussions or to acquire the requisite expertise. So in the absence
> >> > of governmental involvement there will be no involvement from those
> >> > parts of the world at all.
> >>
> >> Do these governments participate in IETF and the other global Internet
> >> governance structures where everyone is welcome to participate?
> >>
> >> If not, why not?
>
>Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> replied:
> > Norbert, as I said earlier I have no direct knowledge of the IETF,
> > what I do know from my experience with various LDC's is that they
> > are unlikely to have the expertise required for participation.
>
>Ok, but they could of course find one or more persons (of any
>nationality) who have the necessary expertise, and hire them to
>represent their interests.
>
>This doesn't have to cost a lot of money in relation to the budget
>of a government of a poor LDC. Even if it's a single technically and
>socially competent person who attends the face to face meetings,
>particpates by email in between, and regularly visits the government
>and other stakeholders in the country whose interests he represents
>for information and discussions, a single person could IMO make a huge
>difference!
>
>In fact, if that's still too expensive, the governments of several
>LDCs with similar situations and similar interests could jointly
>fund such a representative.
>
> > Further it would not be seen as a useful use of resources to acquire
> > the expertise since the issues being addressed were not ones that
> > would be appearing on the political/policy radar to those making
> > such decisions.
>
>The key question here is IMO whether it is a correct assessment
>that acquiring the expertise for participation (by hiring a
>knowledgeable person who will inform and represent them) is not
>a "useful use of resources" for them -- or is it maybe a key
>problem that no-one has explained to them that they could
>participate, and what the benefits of doing so would be?
>
> > Many/most would be relying on the ITU to guide them in these areas and to
> > provide training as might be seen as necessary/useful.
>
>There might be a conflict of interests here, since ITU's strong
>interest is to continue to be perceived as *the* relevant and
>important institution.
>
> > So, what is necessary I think, is to recognize that in the absence of
> > effective and visibly effective participation the political battles that
> > will be fought in its absence are less likely to have generally useful and
> > acceptable outcomes.
>
>I strongly agree with this assertion.
>
>We absolutely need what you very appropriately describe as "effective
>and visibly effective participation" of all kinds of stakeholders,
>including LDC governments.
>
> > For our purposes here it is eminently more desireable to separate out
> > technical from policy issues surrounding EC and to ensure that the broadest
> > possible consensus is achieved around the means for moving forward on both
> > of these fronts since the Internet policy related issues at least, are
> > starting to very quickly appear on the 
> political/policy radar in a number of
> > LDC's--some for "good" reasons but many for less beneficent ones.
> >
> > Having an appropriately structured session discussing at least the policy
> > aspects of EC at the IGF would I think, be an important beginning in this
> > process.
>
>Are you sure that it is possible to "separate out technical from
>policy issues"?
>
>Greetings,
>Norbert
>
>
>____________________________________________________________
>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


-------------- 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