"Michael J. Oghia" <mike.oghia(a)gmail.com> writes:
I wholeheartedly agree Sylvia!
On Fri, Feb 26, 2021, 1:50 AM Sylvia Cadena <sylvia(a)apnic.net> wrote:
It may be worth if Carlos or any or the other active MAG members can
explain to the DC members about what the 2 policy networks are, how
are they different from the BPFs, who is sponsoring/supporting them,
the role of the secretariat, etc. It is worth reading or referring to
the UNSG Roadmap for digital cooperation, where the mechanism for
policy network is first introduced/proposed to the IGF.
As for the comments around not including Microsoft, Mozilla and
others, that will not be very multistakeholder-like, as the IGF
mechanisms are supposed to allow and support engagement and
participation with all stakeholders. These 2 companies in particular
have invested considerable funds and time from their staff to support
many projects from the ground up, so as donors/allies in this space,
they can bring other experiences to the table. Have a look at the
AirBand grant recipients from Microsoft for example, to see many
community-driven projects that are not on this mailing list and may
be good to engage.
Oh! So it is a question of funding. I see. Those who fund the
projects decide what the community needs and how it is to be
implemented. And the bureaucrats are the proxies.
Where does the population in general have influence in the process, if
the giants which already control the networks are everywhere? Isn't
there a real multistakeholder process where the giants get only one vote
per person as well as every single person in the planet? They would
certainly be outnumbered and would have little say regarding policy, if
it were a truly democratic multistakeholder process.
I Know that these social marketing campains are initiatives of those
giants. But there is no reason that community networks place their
stamp on those non-community policies.
The policies should be made by the people who will use the networks.
The networks should be controlled by the users. The standards should
not be advantageous to the giants, but to the small stakeholders.
The only way to give power to the powerless is to equate the power of
the least powerful with the power of the most powerful by way of an
equal vote. Regarding vote, rich white men were better prepared than
the poor or dark skinned or the women. But as soon as the vote was
given to these groups, they gained skills, little by little. Now all
groups have the same capacity. The same is with networks. As soon as
the unconnected get to decide, they will have the same experience as the
giants. But policy will be advantageous to them; not to the giants. So
investment or experience is no excuse to give them half the power
because the control the network or because they have money or
Change can come about if there are real intentions of allowing
appropriation of networks by the people and not of the implementation of
top-down policies. That would make the digital divide even worse, as it
has been happening with the current control of giants over the networks.
In wholehearted good will,