Walu, I do not prescribe to the school of thought "most of Africa continues to sleep as Nations and other stakeholders scramble to claim a stake and positions on what is becoming the most important battle of the 21st Century." Historically, Africa did not have critical amount of Internet to warrant heavy (of their scarce resource) investments on "strange foreign discussions" that had very little, if any, use to their unconnected peoples. But the fast changing situation due improving connectivity has made and brought governance issues closer to home, and IGF then starts to make sense of investment. Short of that, it would just have been just another globe trotting academic arguments exercise with little meaning back home. You have explained the origins of IGF well, but Internet issues morph so fast that todays issues are so different from last year's let alone back then when WSIS process was begun. India's will be the third of 5 total IGF meetings. After TEAMS connects us next year, and hardly before the region fully appreciate what THE REAL internet impact is, there shall only be 2 IGFs left and we might have had sufficient stock of experience comparable to North countries. But the importance of multi-stakeholderism quality of the IGF can never be emphasized enough. It addresses "contemporary" challenges of the day the "Forum" turning into a window where everyone is held accountable to online ecosystem actions and reactions. This is why the Forum was formed to allow everyone to bring out whatever issues affect them in an all-are-equal atmosphere (IGF under the UN oversight) The UK, upon realising the value, importance and benefits of multistakeholder spirit, participation environment under the IGF, foresaw internet challenges will continue after 5th and last IGF. In order to carry on with the "working" IGF past that, they have decided to form "UK IGF" <http://blog.nominet.org.uk/insight/category/igf/> that is coordinated by Nominet (their KeNIC). All the selected issues introduced for this discussion are very important - but they are not they only important issues on Internet Governance. We shall give them our best contribution but let us be very aware that the real challenges are ahead of TEAMS. Therefore, my day one submission is that this discussion aspires and translates into a structures representative, and multi-stakeholder framework able to resolve important domestic and regional issues in an atmosphere of trust and mutual respect of every stakeholder (current 80% connected in Nairobi and the interests of new, rural participants who will join the network from next year. I foresee cultural issues, such as those experienced by Fatmar Bashil at an upcountry school becoming more widespread and relevant to Kenyans in future. Beyond winners sponsorship abroad, let us aspire for the establishment of "Ke-IGF"? Regards, Alex On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 9:56 AM, John Walubengo <jwalu@yahoo.com> wrote:
Greetings all,
Today we just want to get upto speed with the genesis and rationale for Internet Governance. Internet Governance issues arose from the increasing use of the Internet during the mid and late 1990s. Most countries were surprised at the increasing role the internet was having on their Socio-economic as well as Political landscape. They then realised that lacked the oversight power the US government unilatery enjoyed over the development and use of the Internet resources.
Indeed one of the Key questions then as it is now, was why should one Government influence the direction of a global resource without reference to other governments? The way the Internet was governed was definitely not commensurate with its global reach or nature. A lot of lobbying and pressure particularly from Latin America, Asia Pacific and ITU started agitating for a change in the oversight role the US government had and continues to have over the Internet. The anti-change proponents however maintained that the current governance structure through the US Dept of Commerce and ICANN is what has given the Internet this phenomenal growth – hence the famous cliché – "If it ain't broken, why try to fix it?"
The World Summit on Information Society (WSIS) process was commissioned by UN in the late 1990s to look into this and other emerging issues of the Internet such as the legal, economic and social-cultural dimensions of the Internet. The WSIS process concluded in Tunis, 2005, give no definite rulings on these issues but recommended instead the creation of a multi-stakeholder forum, the IGF – the Internet Governance Forum which continues to study and deliberate on these issues to date. WSIS also supplied the working definition for Internet Governance as:- the development and application by Stakeholders of the rules, norms, procedures and practices that influence the evolution and use of the Internet.
The Stakeholders (States, Civil Society, Academia, Media, Businesses, etc) are all actively involved in the Internet Governance Forum with the sole objective of ensuring that their interests are catered for as the Internet continues to evolve. The IGF has so far held two summits, Greece, and Brazil with a 3rd due at the end of this year in India. The stakeholders propose positions on the emerging and contentious issues that are used to somewhat inform the direction the Internet takes. However, most of Africa continues to sleep as Nations and other stakeholders scramble to claim a stake and positions on what is becoming the most important battle of the 21st Century – the battle for the Information Superhighway.
Those with experiences, comments, clarifications, observations or objections have 1day to say something on today's Introductory theme.
walu.
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
This message was sent to: alexgakuru.lists@gmail.com Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/alexgakuru.lists%40gmai...