[governance] Blogpost: Alternative "Best Practices" for the A4AI (to be renamed Alliance for an Accessible Internet)

[willi uebelherr]

Dear Nick,

sometimes you speak about "ideology" very negative. But your answer is 
full of ideological args. For me, this is very normally. Because our 
thinking is our "Ideology".

You wrote:
"... but there is a very great deal of evidence that competitive telecom 
markets produce lower Internet access prices at higher performance ...". 
This is a selfmade argumentation. A circle argumentation.

You know the situation in the telecommunication and therefore you know 
all this stupid construction, what we have there. You know all this lies 
in the term "InterNet". You know, that in the existing telecommunication 
you never find the Net-structure. Only bus and star.

You know the massivly exclusion in the telecommunication, if people have 
no money to buy the access systems. You know the perverse routing 
mechanism. You know the big resource burning in the telecommunication 
systems. All this inefficieny you know.

So, in the reality, you know. But not in your thinking. This we call the 
dogmatic. You look for arguments, to defend the market ideology. And 
therefore you have to hidden all your knowledge.

I know all this contradiction from our discussion on the 1net.org list. 
2 years ago. And now i read, you follow all time this dream.

Clear, i know, you need your job in this environment. But sometimes, we 
should go over to find the truth.

many greetings, willi
St. Elena de Uairen, Venezuela


Am 27.03.2016 um 09:37 schrieb Nick Ashton-Hart:
> Dear Michael,
>
> Since you didn’t actually ask for a dialogue, but simply proposed rewriting their activities, I - were I them - would not divine that a dialogue is what you had in mind, quite the opposite in fact.
>
> As to your views on competitive markets and their suitability, I don’t wish to get into a debate - you are free to think what you like - but there is a very great deal of evidence that competitive telecom markets produce lower Internet access prices at higher performance. I am sitting in an LDC which has exactly this experience and it is far from unique. If your objection to markets means you object to this fundamental idea, again, your free to do what you like, but unless you can point to an equally effective non-market-based solution that works at scale and across all levels of economic development I would’t expect your counterargument to get very far.
>
>> On 27 Mar 2016, at 19:12, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Actually Nick (and Mwendwa) I was hoping to engage with one or another of the CS A4AI Alliance members several of whom are active on this list, to discuss my observations on the Best Practices document and that after an appropriate back and forth they might carry those comments forward to the Alliance itself.
>>
>> One thing I want to be very clear about—it is the stated primary objective of the Alliance to ensure that Internet policies in Less Developed Countries conform to the “Best Practices” document.
>>
>> This document from a policy perspective is explicitly market fundamentalist.
>>
>> There is no evidence provided or available that a market fundamentalist approach to providing service to the un or underserved in Less Developed or Least Developed countries is an appropriate one and significant evidence from other sectors that this might not be the appropriate policy strategy.
>>
>> It is noteworthy that otherwise market friendly countries such as the US are now recognizing that domestically, alternative approaches such as municipally/publicly provided broadband infrastructure is the most appropriate way to proceed to ensure service to the marginalized and those who, for example because of geography, are unlikely to ever receive Internet service from commercial providers.
>>
>> I await critical or constructive comments from those CS organizations active both as colleagues in these lists and who are members of the A4AI alliance.
>>
>> M
>>
>> From: Nick Ashton-Hart [mailto:nashton at consensus.pro <mailto:nashton at consensus.pro>]
>> Sent: March 26, 2016 11:52 PM
>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>>
>> Cc: bestbits <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>
>> Subject: Re: [governance] Blogpost: Alternative "Best Practices" for the A4AI (to be renamed Alliance for an Accessible Internet)
>>
>> Dear Michael,
>>
>> May I suggest that in the first instance, before proposing to rewrite A4Ai’s entire mission and purpose, you and those interested could have a conversation with them about your concerns?
>>
>> I suspect that will get a better reception from presenting them with a redraft completely out of the blue, without having any dialogue.
>>
>> Regards, Nick
>>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>       http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>

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