Sally Burch of ALAI gives a very good overview of the state of play of WSIS
at present
Sally has played very vital roles in civil society WSIS spaces--among them
as co-coordinator of the Content & Themes Working Group in Phase One. She is
also a member of the International Organizing Committee of CRIS
Al Alegre
FMA
=================
ALAI, AmñÓica Latina en Movimiento
2005-02-28
World Summit on the Information Society
ICTs: funding, development and democracy
Sally Burch
Funding for information and communication technologies - ICTs- and
development, and democracy issues in global Internet governance, are the
two central themes that the UN will be addressing in phase two of the World
Summit on the Information Society, to take place in Tunisia next November
16-18. Beyond the technical aspects, both issues, that were debated during
the second Preparatory Committee (Prepcom), in Geneva on February 17-25,
have wide political and social implications, that several actors in the
process have been trying to bring into the debate.
In this Prepcom, the main advancement was the draft agreement governments
reached on the issue of funding mechanisms, which helped to break the
deadlock reached at the end of the first phase of the Summit (Geneva,
December 2003); but the agreement evaded engaging developed countries and
multilateral organizations to take on new financial commitments, in support
of "digital solidarity".
The documents under discussion, to be adopted at the intergovernmental
Summit, also include a political statement, (known as the "political
chapeau") and operational chapters, where the mechanisms and organisational
responsibilities for follow-up and implementation of the agreement of the
first phase of the Summit will be spelled out.
Meanwhile, the principle of an information society based on human rights is
once again in question. On the one hand, during the Prepcom IFEX launched
its report on a recent fact-finding expedition to Tunisia, that documented
systematic violations of freedom of expression. On the other hand, at the
end of the Prepcom, in a civil society exchange on the outcomes, a number
of people expressed concern at the loss of the vision: that of a more
equitable and inclusive information society, with human rights at its
centre, as set out in the Geneva WSIS Declaration adopted in December 2003
and the civil society Declaration.
Financial Mechanisms: no new commitments
The agreement, now almost finalized, on funding mechanisms lists a series
of challenges and options destined to closing the so-called digital divide.
These remain, however, at the level of recommendations, with no obligation
attached. The negotiated solution on the Digital Solidarity Fund (DSF), on
which Southern governments had hoped to get a firm commitment, only states
that the Summit participants "welcome" the voluntary Digital Solidarity
Fund.
For major telecommunications infrastructure projects, the favoured strategy
continues to be deregulation to encourage private investment. However, the
agreement does encourage allocation of multilateral and bilateral funding
for infrastructure projects, and recognises the necessary role of public
finance in certain areas where it is hard to attract private investment
(but without clarifying where these funds will come from).
Echoing the WSIS I Geneva Declaration and Action Plan, there is recognition
of the contribution ICTs can make towards fulfilment of the Millennium
Development Goals (MDGs). ICTs can be an important development enabler, for
example, through better ability to access key information and to answer
crucial communications needs, in areas such as health, education or
production. The refusal to consider new financing mechanisms could mean
that the onus of ICT development funding will shift to existing MDG funds,
in competition with other more immediate life-saving development needs such
as vaccination and clean water.
From civil society, there was criticism of the multi- stakeholder task
force on this issue, set up following the Geneva Summit, that operated for
two months under UNDP leadership. This task force decided to limit its
mandate to reviewing the adequacy of existing funding mechanisms, but
declined to explore new options. Civil society was not consulted on its
representation and was allowed few delegates on the force. The task force
report did point to new trends and identified some areas where present
mechanisms fail to "meet the challenges of ICT for development". The latter
include, among others, capacity- building programs, communications access
in remote areas, regional backbone infrastructure, affordable broadband
access, coordinated assistance for small islands and countries, and
integration of ICT (information and communications technology) into the
development sector in areas such as health, education and poverty
reduction, issues that are echoed in the intergovernmental document.
A proposal put forward by the CRIS campaign, jointly with other
organizations, stated that information and communications and networks
should be considered a global public good; it emphasized the centrality of
the role of public finance in the area of Information and Communications
for Development; and underlined the role of community driven and owned
initiatives, in contributing to sustainable development and social
empowerment.
Many civil society actors consider the Task Force report could have been
much more specific and forceful, which might have strengthened arguments
for greater commitment of governments. Task force member William Currie, of
the Association for Progressive Communications (APC), in an interview with
ALAI, expressed particular disappointment in the slack attitude of the
Brazilian and Senegalese governments, which failed to bring in to the task
force any sustained arguments or supporting data, to bolster up the
original proposal of a fully fledged international development fund,
despite Senegal being one of its main proponents at the 1st WSIS. Both
Africa and Latin America have the expertise within civil society, yet these
governments failed to tap this expertise, lamented Currie.
The Digital Solidarity Fund is thus the only concrete new funding mechanism
to come out of WSIS, and this was on the initiative of local, rather than
national governments. Geneva and Lyon announced it at the first WSIS
(December 2003), and contributed seed funding. The novelty is the funding
mechanism. Already some 120 local governments have voluntarily committed to
including a 1% levy on all public bids for electronic infrastructure or
service projects, to be paid by the vendor out of its profit margin. Other
local and national governments, as well as private companies, are being
invited to join, but there is no obligation attached. The Fund is intended
to support mainly community ICT initiatives, including training, content
and other aspects; but it is not intended to solve the major
telecommunications infrastructure projects.
Internet governance
Probably the most complex issue at this Summit will be Internet governance.
It is complex because it is a new and rapidly evolving area, because there
is not yet agreement on the scope of the issues it covers, and because of
the powerful interests involved.
Unravelling what Internet governance is or might be, what it should and
should not address, who should make decisions and who should implement
them, are some of the questions to be addressed. For civil society
organizations, the issue has fundamental human rights implications and must
be addressed within a framework that incorporates human rights, development
and democracy as basic principles.
Governments have very differing positions on this issue, and it is not at
all clear what level of consensus, if any, could emerge from the Summit.
However, there is almost unanimous disagreement (the US excepted) with the
status quo, in which most countries have no say in how the Internet is
managed, and where a company registered under US law (ICANN), manages the
administration of Internet (IP) names and numbers. Under the present
system, organizations from certain countries can effectively be denied web
domain names, as a result of US foreign policy or under the dictates of its
antiterrorist legislation. In fact unilateral control of the system in
theory gives the US the power to cut off a whole country from Internet
access. However unlikely this may be in practice, many consider
unacceptable a system that makes it possible.
Brazil's representative to the Prepcom denounced that in the current
situation, there is an undemocratic decision- making process on how the Net
is being administered, a lack of transparency in who is making decisions,
and insufficient participation of the international community.
The range of positions among governments varies from those that are
concerned mainly with development and digital divide issues, relating, for
example, to lower interconnection costs to ensure better access for all; to
those that are keen to get a bigger share in the business interests of
running the networks, at present largely monopolized by US companies. Other
governments, meanwhile, hope to increase their possibilities of monitoring
or blocking content through technical means, or to be able to introduce
regulations -something similar to the present regime in the fields of
broadcast media or telecommunications, by means such as national control of
registration of Internet addresses and IP numbers.
A multi-stakeholder working group on Internet Governance (WGIG), set up as
a result of the 2003 Summit, is developing a report to be presented next
July, intended to frame discussions at the third Summit Preparatory
Committee (Prepcom), to take place in Geneva next September.
Civil society has been working actively in and around the WGIG. The
Internet Governance Caucus, set up during phase I of the Summit, went
through an extensive consultation and nomination process to propose civil
society members for the WGIG (most of whom were accepted), with a careful
distribution by region, gender and areas of expertise. Despite the
difficulties of working in a multi-stakeholder environment, the WGIG
members are convinced that is has so far been a positive and necessary
experience of dialogue, and allows civil society a unique opportunity to
express and detail the positions they developed at the Summit, in an open
exchange with state and private sector actors.
There is nonetheless concern among some civil society actors that the
heated nature of debate around the control and regulatory aspects of
Internet governance, such as those mentioned above and issues such as
cybercrime and Spam, are tending to overshadow the broader but very
necessary discussions on the more enabling aspects and social implications
of Internet governance.
The IG caucus statement presented at this Prepcom, and endorsed by the
civil society Content and Themes Working Group, addresses a number of these
issues.
"The WGIG should ground its work within a human rights and development
framework. The rights to freedom of expression and privacy are of special
importance in this context as is the need for a greater emphasis on the
principles of openness and transparency.
"The caucus believes that two outcomes of the WGIG that will add
significant value are: 1. An understanding of how governance mechanisms can
further these basic rights and principles, 2. An elaboration of the concept
of democratic internet governance which fosters the goals of creativity,
innovation and cultural and linguistic diversity."
And the caucus enumerates among other key issues that the WGIG will need to
address:
. Unilateral control of the root zone file and its effects for the name
space
. The crucial role of technical standards in the preservation of an
interoperable global Internet
. The impact of Internet Governance on freedom of expression and privacy
. The different implications of Internet Governance for women and men
. The impact of Internet Governance on consumer protection
. International Intellectual property and trade rules where they intersect
with Internet Governance
. Access to knowledge as global commons.
The statement also underlines the importance, in this debate, of giving
opportunities for all concerned or affected groups to participate and
influence outcomes, including those social groups that do not yet have
Internet access, from all regions of the world, both men and women.
Tunisia under observation:
On February 23, the worldwide freedom of expression network, IFEX,
presented a report on its recent fact- finding mission to Tunisia. The
results contained in a report of almost 60 pages can be found on the IFEX
website (www.ifex.org)
The main findings of the mission include:
- Imprisonment of individuals related to their opinions or media activities.
- Blocking of websites and police surveillance of e-mails and Internet
cafes.
- Restrictions on distribution of books and publications.
- Restrictions on the freedom of association.
- Restricted movement of human rights defenders and political dissidents.
- Lack of pluralism in broadcast ownership.
- Press censorship and lack of diversity of content in newspapers.
- Regular use of torture by the security services.
The mission has made several recommendations to the Tunisian authorities.
The paradox of holding a Summit on the Information Society in a country
where several young people are serving 13-year prison sentences, under
anti- terrorist measures, for simply surfing the Internet, was underlined.
Tunisian human rights defenders nonetheless welcome the Summit being held
in Tunisia, as an opportunity to bring these issues to international
attention.
The Summit organizers, however, have declined to recognize that systematic
violations of the basic right to freedom of expression in the host country
is a problem for the Summit. The Summit secretariat deemed that neither the
report, nor the Tunisian response to it, were appropriate for dissemination
on the official website or to delegates in Geneva, as they are not directly
related to the themes of the Summit. Yet if freedom of expression is not
relevant to the Information Society, then there is certainly cause for
concern.
* Sally Burch, ALAI/CRIS
More information: http://movimientos.org/foro_comunicacion/
http://www.alainet.org/active/show_news.phtml?news_id=7704