 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It was an extremely useful experience in many respects. On the one hand, I am a bit critical of the structure, where workshops and dynamic coalitions seemed to get much more attention than the best practice fora, which I found much more interesting than the former. I also heard quite a lot of repetition at the theme’s plenary sessions, perhaps because these contained similar panels to those in the workshops or dynamic coalitions. As of the content, I heard extremely interesting and useful thoughts about access. Almost every panellist I heard over this four days conference coincided that access was the most pressing issue, especially in developing countries. There also seems to be some consensus on the fact that topics like sustainability, capacity building, local content and dealing with demand-side issues need most attention. I also saw very interesting projects being implemented: from Extremadura to Sri Lanka (see IGF - Best practices in e-government (and more...)), Colombia, Latin America and India (see IGF - (Not just) Talking about multistakeholders´ partnerships), Brazil, Chile, etc. This made me reflect on the need for learning much more from experiences in different regions and countries in order to be able to capitalise them into new projects. Last, but not least, I met a very diverse, cosmopolitan and interesting group of people who came, like me, sponsored by IDRC, and with whom I shared various views about ICT4D issues and about our (quite varied) experiences in the field. This has been an incredible opportunity, which I hope derives into fruitful work in the future…
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tuesday afternoon, I attended one of the best meetings at the IGF 2007, called Moving Beyond the Talk: Partnerships in Practice. I was extremely interested in hearing the panel talk about their experience in bringing together different stakeholders to work together with a common target. Anriette Esterhuysen (Exec. Director, Association for Progressive Communications, APC) talked about the development of the CATIA project, which discovered the importance of using a multipartnership strategy to enhance the impact of the project. Ashis Sanyal (Department of information Technology, India) gave a very interesting insight on what a PPP partnership was able to do in a project creating common services centres in rural India. Silvia Cadena (WiLAC) talked about the “Tejiendo redes inalámbricas para America Latina y el Caribe” (i.e. knitting wireless networks for LAC) project, where even the private sector got engaged in the creation of specific devices that satisfied the communities needs. The last presentation, a person from Ethiopia (I am not sure he would want to have his name mentioned) talked about the extreme difficulties of implementing effective projects when a government is not interested in partnerships with the private sector and the civil society, and the disbelief that this in turn triggers in the two non-governmental sectors. The discussion lead to quite practical and handy “tips” on how to get everyone together (training workshops, tea houses, etc). The most interesting thing was to see that, even though these ICT4D projects have lots of difficulties, people who put them into practice feel that it is still possible to have a multistakeholder partnership with uneven players if each player feels its voice is heard and there is a convincement that they are all working for a common purpose...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
After one day and a half at the forum, I am now sitting down near IDRC´s booth to share some thoughts as of what I’ve heard and thought so far.
Some are related to access, which is the theme I am covering for IDRC (together with other people, so it’ll be interesting to see what they have to say about similar talks we attended to. The three people working on access (and the links to their blogs) are Shamistra Soysa, Cassondra Campbell and Robert Sagun. On the first (official) day of the forum I attended three workshops on access: - Regulatory Frameworks for Improving Access - The Intersection of Open ICT Standards, Development and Public Policy - Access: The Local Challenge
Here’s a brief summary of what (somewhat) called my attention:
Regulatory Frameworks for Improving Access (sorry, there does not seem to be any additional info on this session…) The Intersection of Open ICT Standards, Development and Public Policy Richard Owens (Director of the Copyright E-Commerce Division, World Intellectual Property Organization, WIPO, Netherlands) talked about the role of standards and their impact on access, stating that the key of Internet’s widespread popularity relies upon the fact that many people are able to use the same technology. Regulation-wise, he further talked about the importance of avoiding that only one organisation controls the production of such technology. Thomas Vinje (Clifford Chance) emphasised the role of competition law to improve interoperability and ensure open standards, while Malcolm Harbour (Member of the European Parliament) pointed to the need to monitor the process and competition authorities to enforce interoperability. On a related issue, Robin Gross (Executive Director, IP Justice) questioned developing countries´ bargaining power to question US bilateral practices on property rights. Access: the local challenge This was the first session where participants started talking about those access issues that I consider most pressing (and this is perhaps why the description is longer than the previous two!): capacity building, appropriation, use of local content, buttom-up versus top-down initiatives, etc. Sylvia Cadena (WiLAC) emphasised the need for learning, cooperation and negotiation for capacity building as key element for ICT initiative. In that sense, she made the following: - need to incorporate promotion of regional talent - need to do more applied research to support cost and integral solutions to improve access quality - need to encourage not only telecom aspect but also other basic infrastructure (e.g. electricity) aspects, as the latter can sometimes go in detriment of the former - need to look at regulatory aspects of country borders, e.g. indigenous communities Valerie d’Costa (InfoDev’s Program Manager, World Bank) pointed that access is still a big a problem, especially in developing countries, as it concerns coverage, costs, servers and contents. Further considerations related to: - Looking at access issues from the user’s perspective, she highlighted the role for new participatory media (e.g. community radios) in the creation of local content. - Since there are currently one thousand mobile subscriptions per minute in the world, it may be that mobiles have become the preferred user interface device. - Looking at the development impact, one has to ask about the effects of ICT upon economic development, entertainment, communication within and between communities, etc. - Need to help the two ends meet: governments not knowing where to spend the collected universal service fund and the need of funding of local projects Jim Dempsey (Policy Director, Center for Democracy and Technology) defined five questions that would qualify the liberalisation process of a country: - One or more internet exchange points? - Are there license requirements for ISPs? - Is there true competition in the telecom sector? - How is the wireless technologies spectrum being controlled? - Is Voice over Internet Protocol (VOIP) legal, and without any (technical or regulatory) limitations? Rajnesh Singh (Chief Operating Officer, PATARA, Pacific Islands) made a point about the difficulties posed by geographical issues (distance, climate, etc) in most developing countries, especially in terms of infrastructure costs. He also emphasised the lack of political effectiveness, which most of the time have other priorities much more pressing than providing internet access with a small budget to spend on public infrastructure, asking for the use of “appropriate, feasible and sustainable” technology and local capacity building. David Souter highlighted the top-down aspect of many initiatives, and the need to look at the demand side of the community and the individuals who are at the margin of the service use, especially in those communities in a state of “multiple depravation” (poor, politically, economically and socially marginalised). He talked about seeking to reach connectivity in those communities, where linkages between our and their networks can come together.
All in all, I heard pretty interesting things, but nothing really new under the sun...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jorge Villar Guijarro described the open standards project in a FLOSS ecosystem in the Extremadura province as an extremely succfessfuil way of developing the region through the knowledge society. They created a network that links all centres in the region, and networks in Portugal, Europe and the rest of the world. With the use of a free software (“GNULINEX”), it seems that currently almost half of the population (47%) and almost half of the municipalities use it. Such system avoids technological dependency and enables knowledge socialization (i.e. collaboration and share of experiences throughout the world). This seems like an excellent example for successful multistakeholders´ partnerships, as the different elements of the FLOWW Ecosystem comprise the public administration, an incubator of technological business (VIVERNET), the civil society and citizenship, and a centre of new initiatives (CENATIC). Reshan Dewapura talked about E-Srio Lanka, an integrated e-development model developing ICT resources and skills, and involving the ICT industry, processes and social programmes. The key challenge identified in this case was the rapid rate of advancement in technology, which sometimes make previously defined standards and products obsolete.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
After attending three workshops and one dynamic coalition (which, by the way, did not notice the difference between these two categories) on access, I was a little disappointed with the Access Plenary Session on access, where I found too much repetition of speakers and their topics. The only worth reporting things I heard were (there is a complete transcription of the whole session): - Helio Costa´s analogy between Internet as a modern (and fire-proof) version of Alexandria´s library [a Internet e uma versão da biblioteca de Alexandria moderna, mais sem fogo]. - Richard Sambrook (Global News Division, British Broadcasting Corporation, BBC) commenting on the need to think who might be the next billion people to be connected and to look at demand-side issues (e.g. content, diversity, the elderly, linguistic issues) than only at the traditional supply side (regulation, capacity building). - Mike Jensen (Independent consultant, Johannesburg) asking for more competition in internet and telecom sector, which would in turn generate more innovative models for service provision and better capacity building with regulators and national policymakers. - Roque Gagliano, Chair, Latin American IXPs and Interconnection Forum; ANTEL Uruguay) emphasizing the importance of working for regional connectivity to strongly reduce its costs. - Valerie D’Costa (InfoDev) asking people at IGF to “think creatively” in terms of what the user interface device is, how to engage the users better, to expand evidence base for causal link between ICTs and development and to expand services to include those in science and technology, health, education, governance, etc. - Sylvia Cadena (wilac.net, Colombia) pointing that wireless technologies allow resource-sharing between small communities, triggering learning and cooperation processes, the development of employment skills and the need for further research.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The dynamic coalition on Access and Connectivity for Remote, Rural and Dispersed Communities covered topics such as local content, sustainability and access in general. Vint Cerf (Internet Pioneer, Google) talked about the importance of building infrastructure within the region in order to construct a self-sufficient business model (e.g. managed by universities or the community). This in turn would make that content depends upon the community itself. He also guessed that mobile technology, given its current rapid propagation, will be the most used means to access the Internet. Gunnar Hökmark (Member of European Parliament, Sweden) also emphasised the rapid development and acceptance of the mobile technology, which is giving a relative advantage to the rural areas, at least in the developed world. [I do not believe this is the case at all in developing countries, where the network spreads out much more in urban centres than in rural areas.] An interesting point he made, which I thought was rather assertive, was the need of “not thinking about internet all the time, … because Internet is the service, not the content … [and some are] thinking too much about the technology, and not about its benefits”. Guilherme Saraiva (Comsat, Brazil) [who perhaps should have been talking at a best practice forum than in a dynamic coalition] described two projects (Compartel in Colombia and Gesac in Brazil) which were targeted at connectivity in schools (and the communities surrounding them). These projects seem to show that it is possible to implement affordable and sustainable local connectivity projects, which in this case evolved from simple Internet connectivity programmes to full user oriented integrated networked IT services (help desks paid by the monthly fee, with storage, etc). Hakikur Rahman (ISOC, Bangladesh)[who also should have been talking at a best practice forum] pointed that access is about infrastructure, which is lagging behind in the developing world. He talked about various connectivity projects to install telecentres that help farmers, fishermen, etc to access price information for their products, but still called for the needed of a self-sustaining model.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Throughout the opening session, I heard a lot of talk about the great importance of providing access to enhance the impact of ICTs upon development and poverty. Mr. Sérgio Rezende (Minister of Science and Technology, Brazil) talked about access to knowledge, the role for open standards and free software. Ms. Anriette Estherhuysen, (Executive Director, Association for Progressive Communications, APC) was the first speaker highlighting the fact that there are still 5 billion people without access to the Internet.
Mr. Guy Sebban (Secretary General, International Chamber of Commerce, ICC) talked about satisfying individual needs in order to allow access to those who still do not have it. Mr. Paul Twomey (President and CEO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, ICANN) pointed to access as the most pressing of the five themes covered at the IGF (the remaining four are: diversity, critical internet resources, openness, and security).
At the same time, more pragmatic comments were made by HE. Ms. Ivy Matsepe-Casaburri (Minister of Communications, South Africa), who called for practical solutions to support development, which is “crucial, and crucial now” (sic), while Mr. Jainder Singh (Permanent Secretary, Department of Information Technology, India) highlighted access as posing one of the key current policy challenges.
Despite all these stimulating comments, the structure of the forum does not seem to give the same priority to access subjects. To give a rough idea, in the schedule I counted there are only five access workshops and/or dynamic coalitions, six on diversity, seven on openness and critical Internet resources, and nine on security. While it can be argued that issues of openness and diversity are quite interlinked with access, I still do think it is worth a thought. I am not aware of the procedure used to choose and plan the forum’s workshops and dynamic coalitions (whatever they really mean!), but this might perhaps a point for future IG fora.
Another (perhaps minor?) point is that when you enter a session it is sometimes complicated to understand who is each person in the panel (the hyperlinks on the schedule may be useful as a guide). There does not seem to be a standardised presentation mode (e.g. introduce each speaker at a time, when they are about to speak and not run through their names at the very beginning). I perhaps found it even more difficult because of my relatively short experience on ICT issues, but I still think it would help the general public to know who is saying what at each point of the talk.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
andreamolinari's journal
Previous
