…some random thoughts…

It was often difficult to follow exactly what was going on, as “formal presentations were discouraged”. Many of the presenters simply read off their computer screens which the rest of us could not see. I have to admit I was a little disappointed that more technology was not used throughout the presentations.

 

This conference was very different from the last ICT related event I participated in (WSIS), in that there were many stakeholders missing from the event/meetings/discussions. There was a lot of discussion about the need for a “Bottom up Approach” (this simply means that any change in the current situation has to come from the local level – people who want to live there and exact change. Meanwhile all of the discussions going on were from a “Top down Approach” (meaning that the people in charge are making all of the decisions to pass down to the locals & the opposite of what many of them were proposing was part of the solution. I have been struggling to get this information up b/c I really wasn’t sure what to write. I have many pages of notes and hundreds of pictures (Thanks to the combined efforts of everyoneJ.) but it was hard to describe exactly what I participated in.

There was little to no Indigenous or youth representation, although youth were mentioned during the conclusion of the IGF. During one of my panels I even made notes to myself that Canadian Aboriginal peoples had been completely left out of the discussion, and in fact it appeared as though they were not even considered in the debate surrounding access. I also wondered if it was because Canada is viewed as a developed country that Canadian Aboriginals were not being taken into account. Throughout virtually every workshop the issue of access was repeatedly considered from the perspective “developing” countries, but inequities within more “developed” nations were never even mentioned.  As far as content was concerned many of the panelists agreed that we must look at the demand side of things building an evidence base to justify content development, and that we need to take a closer look at what people on the periphery are saying. In other words if there was more meaningful documentation to share what people are doing with others there would be more communication and relationship building going on between groups.  I found myself wondering if content development was making a difference for Canadian Aboriginals. Arguably there has been an increase in Aboriginal content and related information available on the web over the past five years, so is it increasing access for Canadian Aboriginals? Furthermore exactly how do you measure whether there is a correlation between content development and increased accessibility?  One audience member commented that perhaps they (those who have been pushing connectivity across the globe) should look at all they have accomplished over the past fifteen years and congratulate themselves; hoping to meet again in new forums, with a different discussion. Initially I took this to mean that the job was somehow done – an assertion that seemed incorrect in my mind. What I realized later was that it could also have meant that the continuation of ICT development and globalization is inevitable when you consider the rate at which the world is embracing ICTs. If we look to the future then, what becomes important is whether people know how to manage the technologies that are available in their communities; and the best ways to avoid exploitation at any level. This means changing the focus of the discussion.  I am excited to see what comes out of the IGF, but I worry that it will simply become a place for discussion of what “Should be” and “is needed” with no discussion of how to actually go about it. Really it’s a discussion of standards, meaning that you as a local community need to figure out how to get it right. So perhaps there needs to be a gathering of different communities sharing what they are doing with ICTs and brainstorming together sharing research etc. networking. I believe that these types of meetings would be more beneficial to local economic development in the long run. Participants would be the people who are actually out doing the work and seeing the benefits of that work, the opportunity to broaden their horizons and knowledge regarding their business.  It could start out with regional meetings and then as time went on maybe have an international gathering similar to the WSIS exhibition. They could invite government and other potential supporters if they chose. 

“Access: The Local Challenge”

The general purpose of this panel was to discuss what should be done at the local level to reduce the costs of access and build sustainable locally developed ICT projects.

 

 Panelists included:

Sylvia Cadena: has been the coordinator of WiLAC, a wireless for development initiative and TRICALCAR, a capacity building and applied research project for community wireless networks for the past two years. 

Valerie d’Costa:  InfoDev’s Program Manager at the World Bank.

 

Jim Dempsey: Policy Director at the Center for Democracy and Technology, with offices in Washington and San Francisco. 

 

Christian O’Flaherty : the Regional IP Technology Manager at Impsat Fiber Networks (Global Crossing Latin America), Policy Chair at LACNIC (Internet Registry for Latin America and Caribbean), member of the board at ISOC Argentina, and a member (and co-Founder) of IPv6 Task Force Argentina.

 

Nii Quaynor : the Convener of the African Network Operators Group (AfNOG), a founding member of AfriNIC, the African numbers registry, Chairman of Network Computer Systems and a Professor of Computer Science at University of Cape-Coast, Ghana. 

Karen Rose (moderator): the Director of Education and Programs at the Internet Society. 

 

Rajnesh Singh:  the Chief Operating Officer at PATARA, a leading technology vendor in the Pacific Islands, and the current Chairman of the Pacific Islands Chapter of the Internet Society (PICISOC). 

 

David Souter: writes and provides expertise for a wide variety of organizations on issues concerned with information, communications and development.

 Revenues instead of developing industry (arguing there needs to be a shift) ex à majority (in Africa) are still searching for information outside of Africa. In general they need to improve access – to also improve the development of local content Wireless technologies in Latin America – it is perceived as the “new thing” which has enabled sharing of resources and encouraged learning cooperation and collaboration. There needs to be a promotion of regional talent as well. There could be a strategy for applied research by working on a dialogue between the regulatory bodies of nations. Rural communities should not be treated as an exception to the norm. This was a theme mentioned by many of the presenters throughout the conference. There is an urban standard, and so there should be a different rural standard.  There have been many questions surrounding how to improve service and lower costs as many of the issues at the local level relate to expenses and lack of infrastructure. For example many rural communities are hooked up using satellite connections – the most expensive way to gain access. This is due to a lack of infrastructure, which in turn is related to a lack of funds, which in many cases is due to geography or poor economic development.   d’Costa said that we must think of access beyond simply having a computer, and include service and content in our consideration. She went on to say that in many communities are beginning to access the internet not necessarily via a PC. The impact this could have on development is substantial, as it could improve life through a reduction of poverty.  Valerie d’Costa proposed linking the managers of universal service funds with community based access solutions. She also pointed out a contradiction within the system, as there has been so much focus and discussion on the tremendous progress of internet development; ignoring the unevenness of that development and the failure to make progress in developing countries. Privatization becomes problematic when put before competition, and can lead to monopoly. Another part of the problem is that so far there are few local stakeholders. There was also a lot of discussion surrounding monopolies, as with all of the sessions. There were many people who opposed the continued growth of current monopolies: and spoke out against various governments’ participation in the creation of these ICT monopolies.  Access is all about the perspective of the user and arguably demand drives substantive and useful content. d’Costa also mentioned that there is a stat somewhere saying that every 15 minutes there are 15,000 new mobile subscribers. When you consider the impact access to the net (not via a PC) can do to improve the standard of living within an otherwise isolated community.  There was also mention that the use of appropriate technology must also be consider when linking communities – going back to the mobile vs. PC debate.  Capacity building and the need for technical skill development for productive ICT use within communities was also recognized.  It was also pointed out that many rural/isolated communities are short on infrastructure in every capacity and we should be careful no to view communication as the single issue. Providing connectivity does not automatically provide access.  Some of the questions that arose from the panel were: -         What is the role of government in making regulations ?-         When should they be active and inactive? -         How do we drive local content? -         What is to be considered local?

 

For more information: 

http://www.intgovforum.org/wks_session_info.php?numes=32 

 

“The Intersection of Open ICT Standards, Development and Public Policy”

The purpose of this session  was to provide an update on recent global discussions on the intersection of open ICT standards, development needs, and public policy. It was a follow up to similar discussions that were held last year in Athens. Many of the participants were concerned with the political implications of ICT standards, as well as the role that intellectual property rights play in limiting access.

The panelists were:

Richard Owens: Director of the Copyright E-Commerce, Technology and Management Division at the World Intellectual Property Organization in Geneva, Switzerland. (http://www.wipo.int/portal/index.html.en)

Laura DeNardis: Resident Fellow at Yale Law School in the Information Society Project. Her research addresses the political and legal implications of information and communication technologies with a concentration in Internet technical standardization, information security, digital media interoperability, and Internet governance. (http://isp.law.yale.edu/)

Georg Greve: trained physicist and software developer with more than 20 years experience. He helped to initiate and found the Free Software Foundation Europe in 2001 and has been working as its president ever since. (http://www.fsfeurope.org/)

Robin D. Gross: founder and Executive Director of IP Justice an international civil liberties organization that promotes balanced intellectual property law and protects freedom of expression. (www.ipjustice.org)

 Rishab Ghosh: Economist and managing editor of First Monday, a peer-reviewed journal covering Internet economics, law and technology. (http://www.uic.edu/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/)

DeNardis discussed standards as politics by other means, as they affect how citizens participate.  There was some discussion of “ACTA” which stands for Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. According to an Office of the US Trade Representative press release (http://www.ustr.gov/Document_Library/Press_Releases/2007/October/Ambassador_Schwab_Announces_US_Will_Seek_New_Trade_Agreement_to_Fight_Fakes.html) there is a focus on health and safety. However, Grosse said that these agreements are really designed to enrich transnational corporations; not local communities which is where the focus needs to be. She went on to say that politicians need to pay greater attention to the process of standardization and the transparency of that process. Furthermore Grosse argued that although counterfeiting can be an Intellectual property crime, it can be debated whether it truly is a health and safety issue.   Cynthia D. Waddell’s main focus is human rights in relation to people with disabilities.  She was pushing for compliance to standards surrounding those with disabilities. In 1999 Waddell published “The Growing Digital Divide in Access for People With Disabilities: Overcoming Barriers to Participation in the Digital Economy” which was commissioned by the Clinton Administration (http://www.icdri.org/CynthiaW/the_digital_divide.htm).  

Some links of interest… 

http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/2318/125/ 

 http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/2301/276/ 

http://www.icdri.org/CynthiaW/UN_06_16_2003.htm 

http://www.wipo.int/portal/index.html.en http://www.wipo.int/about-ip/en/iprm/index.html

Questions that arose from this session:

1) Who’s setting the standards and what is the political legitimacy of that?

2) What is the impact of not being at the table?

“Regulatory Frameworks for Improving Access”

In general, this panel was dedicated to discussing the role of regulation in promoting equitable deployment and affordable access to communications infrastructure at international, regional and national levels. Many of the presenters talked about what they were doing to improve access in rural/remote communities around the world; and then offered recommendations or conclusions on what they feel is needed in order to successfully promote the growth of not only infrastructure, but local economic & social development.

The panelists included:

Abi Jagun:African ICT Policy Research Coordinator with the Association for Progressive Communications (APC).

Edwin San Roman: an independent consultant with 15 years experience in Internet applications, Rural Telecommunications and Regulatory issues.

Helani Galpaya: Director, Strategic Development at the Learning Initiatives on Reforms for Network Economies; Asia (LIRNEasia).

Radhika Lal:a Policy Advisor on ICT for Poverty Reduction & Millennium Development Goals in the Bureau for Policy Development, United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). 

Ilkka Lakaniemi: Head of Global Political Dialogue and Initiatives at Nokia Siemens Networks out of Finland. Nokia recently unveiled its “Village Connection” project designed to  bring connectivity to rural/remote areas by allowing local entrepreneurs to become local service providers thereby extending the network base. For more information check out:

http://ec.europa.eu/development/ICenter/Pdf/2007/interconnectivity_en.pdf

http://www.iweek.co.za/ViewStory.asp?StoryID=177042

http://allafrica.com/stories/200710180908.html

Some of the main recommendations that came out of this panel included:

1) Develop a new regulatory approach: treat rural/remote areas differently than  urban areas: including the recognition that there are different issues/challenges facing rural/remote areas than those faced in urban areas.

2) Simplify licensing procedures for smaller (local) operators: costs often create barriers for smaller operators that otherwise would not be there.

3) Increase collaboration: Create incentives for operators to help put an end to monopolies internationally, nationally and regionally. Including for example incentives for collaboration to facilitate resource development. Encourage infrastructure developers to work together and begin to look at things as a whole, not in pieces. It was said by Ms. Lal that roads (for example) are politically more popular than IT services, but by combining the infrastructure development of the two you could increase support. Also, by enhancing public-private networks there is the potential to enhance the priority of ICT investments in nations/regions.

4) Promote community-based development (capacity building): The creation of small cooperatives would encourage focus, knowledge, and  community input at the local level, thereby driving local development and the promotion of local re-investment. In the long run such a strategy could increase the sustainability of such projects.

2 questions that came out of the panel were:

What is the role for ICT in economic development?

Do the views of competition differ between vendors & operators?

Thoughts anyone?

For more information on the Panellists or a listing of recommended readings on this area, please visit http://www.intgovforum.org/wks_session_info.php?numes=16 

4 Workshops & 1 Panel – Is that it??

 So it’s the afternoon of Day 2 and we have already completed all of the discussions and workshops regarding Access! I have to admit I was a little disappointed that there was not more time spent on my topic. Especially considering that the Synthesis paper prepared by the IGF Secretariat for this meeting stated that:

“Many speakers during the preparatory process pointed out that despite the rapid spread of the Internet, five billion people remained without access to this important tool for economic growth and social development. They recalled that access could, therefore, be the single most important issue to most people, in particular in developing countries,” p. 6(emphasis added). 

Oh well, what I did catch has definitely left me with some interesting material, and perhaps more importantly has exposed some interesting contradictions…which I will get to…eventually. I am hoping to catch a few of the more interesting workshops being presented on the other topics over the next couple days. I will be sure to fill in on those as well. That being said I am sitting here trying to figure out exactly what to write (or rather what to leave out) and I am starting to get bogged down. So I’ve made the executive decision to go take a much needed nap, and come back to this silly computer to begin to share what is going on here a little later…so stay tuned : )

Or better yet, go check out the rest of the crew’s blogs as we are all covering different topics, and those of us who overlap might have different perspectives since we’re from different parts of the world….

I arrived in Rio…FINALLY!

I finally made it into Rio on Monday morning, (at about the same moment that various government and business representatives, and civil society members were celebrating the start of the 2nd IGF). It was raining when I arrived, which was a little disappointing. Being the optimist that I am I was hoping for nothing but sunny skies while in town. I immediately hopped in a taxi and headed out to the Rio suburb that is Barra da Tijuca, and where the conference is actually being held. Once at my hotel, I very quickly made myself look like I hadn’t just spent almost two days in transit and sped off to the conference.  At which time I got to walk through the rain to the badging centre on the side of the building, still not sure where the rest of the crew was. I was lucky enough to make it just before the first information workshops were set to begin, and thanks to the IDRC website that is showcasing the “young researchers” I was able to find my group relatively quickly. Then began the information overload…

A little about me…& being TRAPPED IN TRANSIT

what to say about me…at the moment I am in the process of changing careers. I mention this first b/c work is a lot (most really) of what I do these days. I was a Prevention Education Consultant, and now I’m going to be the Emergency Preparedness Officer/Pandemic Planner for my local RHA. I am super excited about my new position, and right now I am even more excited about Brazil and the IGF.

I really believe that discussions like this one are important, b/c they help to create awareness. I believe a good portion of the world’s general public does not realize how important the issue of Internet Governance is – for EVERYONE! Imagine if you could only access what one small group of people decide is “right”…wouldn’t you rather have a discussion among many groups – one of whom hopefully represents your interests.

AKA access to information, news, government, business, history, medicine, skill development & training opportunities etc. etc. etc…That list could get quite long, when you start to think about it. I think neutrality is key, but not everyone agrees so the debate is definitely opening up.

I first became interested in ICT development in my final year of university (Go Axemen!), when I took a course on the Politics of DIFFERENCE. It was then that I started to see the many opportunities that ICT access can present to otherwise isolated communities – and perhaps more importantly – youth in isolated communities can start to see what the rest of the world has to offer – and even what they can bring back or share with the rest of their community.

K so there’s my first rant for the evening I say first b/c I have a little something to say about being TRAPPED IN TRANSIT too…

So as everyone saw this morning I was supposed to be flying out to Rio in the morning – I had three connections to make. I missed the first one by 4 MINUTES and was forced to stay in Winnipeg for 24 hours until I could take the same set of connections. So I have made it 750 Kms so far out of how many thousand??? I will get there though and when I do I’m going to have to work to get caught up – FUN TIMES!

I would like to take a personal shout out to UNITED AIRLINES FOR BEING SO UNHELPFUL. Their CUSTOMER SERVICE was FOURTH RATE. But in the end after some tears and pleading I managed to get the flight for tomorrow (at least I will get to go!). I probably shouldn’t say too much since I am still with them for the last 15 hours of my journey tomorrow. hehe….nice flight attendent…

The final hour…

Hey hey…so I’m sitting at my computer and I have to leave for the airport in about 4 minutes, but I wanted to send a quick note. The Visa made it here Thursday (talk about close call!), and apparently I owe my luck to Maria Brunelli one of the IDRC staff who was gracious enough to spend 3+ hours on the phone with the Brazillian Consulate last week to ensure they understood the necessity of getting my Visa back in time & the lovely ladies at the Thompson Post Office b/c they went above and beyond in helping me get everything out to the Consulate in Toronto. So YAY to them & YAY for me, b/c I actually get to go! Once I am in Rio, I will send an update to explain a little bit about what the IGF is all about, and what my role as a “Young Researcher” will be. I won’t arrive until Sunday morning, so in the meantime check out the IDRC & IGF links on the side. Cheers!

Hello world!

Welcome to WordPress.com. This is your first post. Edit or delete it and start blogging!

Preparing for Brazil

So I am scheduled to leave in approximately 4 days and I still don’t know if my Visa is going to arrive! I’ve come to the conclusion that unexpected delays are all a part of international travel, and rather than worry about it I’ve decided to focus on the task at hand. That is – get myself to Brazil prepared and have my house in good working order before I leave. It may not sound like much but I am also changing careers at the same time and having just moved into my new apartment last week – it’s CRAZY!

I am however very excited and honoured to be going to Brazil for the International Development Research Centre! I am going to be attending the workshops related to ACCESS, as I want to focus the research paper I am writing on this issue along with how it has/can impact Aboriginal communities in Canada.

The goal is to start a discussion related to these topics using this web blog as the main source. I will be reporting on what’s happening in Brazil day to day, and hopefully you will be online discussing it in relation to things you might be studying, or experiences you have had with the issues. You would be surprised by all of the people these discussions really effect.

Also be sure to check out the links as they come out!