geert lovink on Thu, 18 Dec 2003 14:08:56 +0100 (CET) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
<nettime> wsis digest no. 5 |
World Summit on Information Society Nettime Digest, no. 5 December 18, 2003 1. Allan Liska: More Questions Than Answers 2. WSIS Report by Jo van der Spek 3. Richard Stallman on WSIS 4. OurMedia Clemencia Rodriguez reports 5. Wolfgang Kleinwächter (Telepolis, in German) 6. World Summit of Cities and Local Authorities 7. Official WSIS Press Release 8. Civil Society Representatives Present Declaration 9. WISIS-Award.Org 10. NTK on WSIS -- 1. WSIS Leaving More Questions Than Answers By Allan Liska http://www.circleid.com/article/397_0_1_0_C/ An amazing thing has happened over the last month: People all over the Internet are saying nice things about ICANN. It is difficult to imagine something that would make so many people stand up and defend ICANN, and yet they are. What brought about this sudden change? The change in attitude reflects the idea that an organization even more derided than ICANN might take over the governance of the Internet. That organization, of course, is the United Nations, under the banner of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). The WSIS is an attempt by the United Nations to extend the reach of information technology throughout the world and to use the power of information technology to allow people to reach their full potential and improve their quality of life. One of the ways the United Nations proposes to encourage this development is to take the control of the Internet from ICANN and instead place it under control of the United Nations. The WSIS is organized around two different documents, A Declaration of Principles and A Plan of Action. The two documents discuss a broad range of technology issues, but the area that has created the most controversy are the few paragraphs discussing Internet governance. Two things are important to stress. First, nothing was decided in this meeting, and no actions will be taken until the next meeting in 2005. Secondly, and more importantly, as with anything the devil is in the details. Given the vagueness of the documents available, there are few reliable conclusions that can be drawn from the summit. Those who wish to see bad things will see them, those who want to see good things will find them as well. The fact that the documents are so vague actually generates more questions than answers, especially in the area of DNS control. Management of ccTLDs: The final Plan of Action produced by preparatory committee (the December 12th version) encourages governments to "manage or supervise, as appropriate, their respective country code top level domain name (ccTLD)." This implies that the United Nations would take over the management of the ccTLD DNS infrastructure. At one level this is not a bad idea. ICANN is not a political organization -- political in the sense of dealing with the structure or affairs of government -- the United Nations is entirely a political organization. One of the problems Jon Postel, and his staff, ran into when initially setting up country code domains is determining what constituted a country. Rather than make that decision, the DNS forefathers decided to use the country code list from the International Organization for Standardization (ISO 3166). Over time, the original list of ccTLDs has become outdated, which results in oddities like the ccTLD .su still being in use, even though the Soviet Union no longer exists. It can also be difficult, not to mention outside the scope of their responsibility, for members of a non-political body to determine who the rightful owner of a ccTLD is. The downside is that precisely because the United Nations is a political organization the delegation of ccTLD authority may not be handled in an equitable fashion. It is possible that one country will unduly influence the delegation of the ccTLD for another country. There is no indication, within the Plan of Action, that safeguards should be put in place to ensure the ccTLD process is not politicized. Management of gTLDs: An obvious omission in both the Declaration of Principles and the Plan of Action is discussion of generic top level domains (gTLDs). GTLDs account for more than 90% of all registered domains. These domains are not political in nature, and therefore require a different level of scrutiny than ccTLDs. Conspicuous because of their absence, does the United Nations intend to leave the gTLDs under the control of ICANN, or do they intend to take those over as well. If the United Nations intends to take control of gTLDs, what is the justification for that? Also not mentioned in the Plan for Action is what would become of ARIN, RIPE, and APNIC (as well as the smaller registries). Currently, IP Address assignments fall under the control of ICANN, would those move to the control of the United Nations, or would ICANN maintain control? IP Address assignment is currently decided based on need, if the United Nations assumes control, would that remain the same, or would they choose another criterion. Management of Root Servers: The Plan of Action discusses the creation regional root servers: "In cooperation with the relevant stakeholders, promote regional root servers..." Again, the purpose of this is rather vague. As the Internet becomes more internationalized greater amounts of traffic will flow from countries that now have limited Internet access. It appears the United Nations is proposing the extension of the root servers into these parts of the world. This would be understandable if the current root server maintainers were not already aware of, and addressing, this problem. At last count, there were 22 root servers located within the United States and 19 located outside of the United States. Clearly, there is awareness within the root server community of the need to internationalize their presence and they are quickly addressing this. Returning to the political nature of the United Nations, is the idea of government-controlled root servers a good idea? Root servers are a powerful tool that can be used to limit access to information, and, more nefariously, to track the movements of citizens on the Internet. A government with a less than stellar human rights record could use this part of the plan to further limit the rights of its people. In this case, using independent entities to distribute and maintain root servers seems to serve the greater good. The Questions: Before any judgments can be made about the effectiveness, or feasibility of the ideas outlined in the Plan of Action more concrete information is needed. The details of these plans are currently unknown to the Internet community at large, and may even be unknown to the members of the WSIS. Based on the information that is available it appears the Plan of Action needs to be thought through a little more thoroughly. Despite its sometimes justified reputation there is nothing inherently wrong with turning some aspects of Internet governance -- such as it is -- to the United Nations, but based on this initial effort a lot more thought has to be given to the process. In the meantime, I would pose the following questions to the United Nations and the participants in WSIS. Solid, well thought out, answers to these questions will go a long way toward making people more comfortable with the idea of some aspects of the Internet falling under the auspices of the United Nations: 1. What benefits does the United Nations offer over ICANN? 2. If this plan is successful, where within the United Nation's organizational structure would DNS control lie? 3. The Draft Plan of Action specifically mentions ccTLDs as part of this plan, but avoids any mention of Generic Top Level Domains, would those remain under the auspices of ICANN? 4. The Plan of Action also calls for regional root servers. What is the advantage of promoting regional root servers, what benefits will they provide to Internet users? 5. If the plan is successful, how would the new organization impact existing domain name holders? Would there be additional restrictions placed on domain name holders? -- 2. Walking up and down the World Summit on the Information Society By Jo van der Spek (jo@xs4all.nl) It was a global marketplace in the Palexpo of Geneva, especially in Hall 4, ICT for development, where South-Africa had created a great safari environment, with Radio Lora streaming from a cabin. But even in Hall 1, with the media centre and government and company stalls, there was a quite exotic feel to everything. Blond Swiss ladies dressed like Mauritanian women, with posters calling for a closure of the digital gap, a cyberpuzzle from ARS ELECTRONICA offering you a chance to reconfigure your face and a speakers corner of the IFJ. However, one of the first shocks I got was when I (wearing a press accreditation) discovered that you could walk DOWN the stairs to Hall 4, but not UP the stairs to the realm of media, government and private companies. No way, you had to walk all the way back to the entrance hall, go once again through the security check, to go back to your workplace: the media centre. Losing 20 minutes of valuable time and peace of mind. Now the media have been a contentious issue of WSIS. Under pressure from China, Egypt and Mexico the Final Declaration threatened to make freedom of the press subject to limitation by national laws. In other words: freedom for governments to oppress the press. On the other hand a lot of mainly African developing countries had put their hopes on the establishment of a Digital Solidarity Fund, to bridge the digital divide. In the end it was a kind of trade off: the clause that permitted censorship on a national scale was left out, and the Digital Solidarity Fund was put on a low fire. HIGHwayAfrica is, "a vibrant and growing network of African journalists empowered to advance democracy and development through their understanding and use of appropriate technologies". This Highway staged a news agency that produced daily articles from the summit, see:http://www.highwayafrica.org.za/hana/ Here's a handful of headers from their website: The Information Communication Technology for Development (ICT4D) exhibition is a major event running parallel to the UN World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) in Geneva, Switzerland. The exhibition has more than 200 stands representing governments, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and companies from 80 countries worldwide. A slideshow of images and events taken at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Geneva, 2003. A new media study launched today at the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) shows that little or no media attention is given to issues related to the information society and ICT's by mainstream media in Africa A leading anti-poverty crusader, Palanguni Sainath, today lambasted mainstream media, accusing them of superficial coverage of poverty and playing to the whims of the corporate world. Zimbabwean President, Robert Mugabe, has accused "the rich imperialist northern countries" of using Information Communication Technologies (ICT's) as tools of espionage and propaganda. Funding for information technologies in the least developed countries has proved to be the most difficult obstacle to overcome in the negotiations leading up to the World Summit on the Information Society. Following intense lobbying by media and civil society groups, the declaration to be presented to the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) has included more progressive clauses on freedom of expression and the role of the media in the information society. Disappointed that initial promises of equal partnerships between governments and civil societies in the WSIS processes have been empty ones, over 300 Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) gathered in Geneva have decided to come up with their own separate Civil Society Declaration to WSIS. Open source software is the solution to making information technology accessible to people with disabilities. The jargon and buzzwords bandied about at the World Summit on the Information Society can be somewhat tedious to disentangle. We have put together this mind map to help you understand what it is all about by explaining the some of the more important concepts. World leaders have agreed to set up a workforce early next year to come up with a framework to build the Digital Solidarity Fund (DSF), to be created to finance projects to bridge the digital divide between South and North. The Gender Caucus of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) has called for a radical transformation of the ICT sector so that all people, regardless of their gender or socio-economic sector can benefit No doubt the effort to make a concerted stand in Geneva has cemented cooperation between colleagues, and raised awareness of the issues at stake, both challenges and threats. Not to mention all the shoppin', oops sorry, I mean NETWORKING that went on. The Right to communicate is a more fundamental and more clearly defined demand than freedom of expression, or freedom of the press. Freedom can mean anything these days of anti-terrorism and security. Read Orwell! But the right to communicate is just this: the right to send and receive messages, with all possible means. So please remember: media are just one form of communication, and mostly only down to the listeners/readers/viewers. Walking up and down a staircase, without being pushed back by a deaf and dumb security person, is another one. The right to talk back, which is now within reach thanks to ICT, cannot be denied to any human being. But this is still beyond the capacity of the delegates to grapple with, I'm afraid. (Jo van der Spek is an Amsterdam-based free lance journalist and radiomaker, specialized in tactical media in crisis areas. He trained journalist from Baghdad and Teheran covering WSIS. http://www.radioreedflute.net) -- http://www.newsforge.com/business/03/12/16/187234.shtml?tid=110&tid=85 Richard Stallman covers WSIS The World Summit on the Information Society is supposed to formulate plans to end the "digital divide" and make the internet accessible to everyone on Earth. The negotiations were completed in November, so the big official meeting in Geneva last week was more of a trade show and conference than a real summit meeting. The summit procedures were designed so that non-governmental organizations (mainly those that promote human rights and equality, and work to reduce poverty) could attend, see the discussions, and comment. However, the actual declaration paid little attention to the comments and recommendations that these organizations made. In effect, civil society was offered the chance to speak to a dead mike. The summit's declaration includes little that is bold or new. When it comes to the question of what people will be free to do with the Internet, it responds to demands made by various governments to impose restrictions on citizens of cyberspace. Part of the digital divide comes from artificial obstacles to the sharing of information. This includes the licenses of non-free software, and harmfully restrictive copyright laws. The Brazilian declaration sought measures to promote free software, but the US delegation was firmly against it (remember that the Bush campaign got money from Microsoft). The outcome was a sort of draw, with the final declaration presenting free software, open source, and proprietary software as equally legitimate. The US also insisted on praising so-called "intellectual property rights." (That biased term promotes simplistic over-generalization; for the sake of clear thinking about the issues of copyright law, and about the very different issues of patent law, that term should always be avoided.) The declaration calls on governments to ensure unhindered access to the public domain, but says nothing about whether any additional works should ever enter the public domain. Human rights were given lip service, but the proposal for a "right to communicate" (not merely to access information) using the Internet was shot down by many of the countries. The summit has been criticized for situating its 2005 meeting in Tunisia, which is a prime example of what the information society must not do. People have been imprisoned in Tunisia for using the Internet to criticize the government. Suppression of criticism has been evident here at the summit too. A counter-summit, actually a series of talks and discussions, was planned for last Tuesday, but it was shut down by the Geneva police, who clearly were searching for an excuse to do so. First they claimed that the landlord did not approve use of the space, but the tenant who has a long-term lease for the space then arrived and said he had authorized the event. So the police cited a fire code violation which I'm told is applicable to most buildings in Geneva -- in effect, an all-purpose excuse to shut down anything. Press coverage of this maneuver eventually forced the city to allow the counter-summit to proceed on Wednesday in a different location. In a more minor act of suppression, the moderator of the official round table in which I spoke told me "your time is up" well before the three minutes each participant was supposed to have. She later did the same thing to the EPIC representative. I later learned that she works for the International Chamber of Commerce -- no wonder she silenced us. And how telling that the summit would put a representative of the ICC at the throttle when we spoke. Suppression was also visible in the exclusion of certain NGOs from the summit because their focus on human rights might embarrass the governments that trample them. For instance, the summit refused to accredit Human Rights In China, a group that criticizes the Chinese government for (among other things) censorship of the internet. Reporters Without Borders was also excluded from the summit. To raise awareness of their exclusion, and of the censorship of the Internet in various countries, they set up an unauthorized radio station in nearby France and handed out mini-radios so that summit attendees could hear what the organization had been blocked from saying at the summit itself. The summit may have a few useful side effects. For instance, several people came together to plan an organization to help organizations in Africa switch to GNU/Linux. But the summit did nothing to support this activity beyond providing an occasion for us to meet. Nor, I believe, was it intended to support any such thing. The overall attitude of the summit can be seen in its having invited Microsoft to speak alongside, and before, most of the various participating governments -- as if to accord that criminal corporation the standing of a state. -- Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 13:41:13 -0600 From: "Rodriguez, Clemencia" <clemencia@OU.EDU> December 13, 2003. I am at the airport in Chicago, still trying to get home to Oklahoma after attending the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) in Geneva, Switzerland. Here are some highlights of what the summit meant for me. As I come across other reports on the Summit I'll try to circulate them so that we can have a more diverse and complex vision. Please keep in mind that this is a very personal view of the Summit. The Declaration of Civil Society "Shaping information societies for human needs" was, in my view, the most important accomplishment emerging from the Summit. The Declaration is a 21 page document that lays out the vision of civil society for an information and communication society conducive to inclusive, democratic, and fair societies. The Declaration includes key issues, such as community media, gender, indigenous knowledges, the role of media in war and peace, the public domain, open software, and the inclusion of "communication" as equally important to "information." The Declaration is a document we should all become familiar with, and use to trigger discussion, debate, and mobilization around issues of information and communication technologies among our people. Those of us in academia should include it in our syllabi; those of us working with grassroots organizations should disseminate it and facilitate discussions about it in our communities. Not that everyone should adopt the declaration as their own vision, but I truly believe in its potential to trigger local processes of awareness and mobilization. Please let me know if you are using the Declaration in any way, so that we can share potential uses. Endorsements to the Declaration should be sent to ct-endorse@wsis-cs.org <mailto:ct-endorse@wsis-cs.org> and will be archived on http://www.wsis-cs.org. The Declaration is available in Spanish, French, and English at http://alainet.org/active/show_news.phtml?news_id=5118. WE SEIZE: was the alternative summit event organized by Independent Media Centers' and other information and communication activists from different European communities. While the official summit was held in Palexpo, a sterile convention center entirely isolated and militarized where access was strictly restricted (even those of us with the official badge could not enter the rooms where official discussions were taking place), WE SEIZE was organized in the heart of Geneva, in a communal space entirely open to all. Although the Geneva police tried to shot down WE SEIZE, the organizers managed to negotiate with the city and organized a series of technology workshops and open discussions around issues such as infowars, the exploitation of information labor, and open source software. WE SEIZE was incredibly inspiring in its inclusiveness, openness, and technological savvy and beauty. Unfortunately the disconnection between Palexpo and WE SEIZE made it very difficult for academics and activists from the Global South to make it to WE SEIZE. Looking toward the future, those of us in contact with the Global South activists and the Indymedia activists in the North should do more to strengthen links between these two collectives. Information about WE SEIZE in http://www.geneva03.net/. The official summit was a mix between a high-end technology market, gubernatorial deliberations, and parallel panels, roundtables, and forums. Among all these, two forums were impressive: The Forum on Communications Rights and The Community Media Forum. The Forum on Communication Rights was organized by the Communication Rights in the Information Society Campaign (CRIS www.crisinfo.org), the World Association of Christian Communication (WACC http://www.wacc.org.uk/), the Association for Progressive Communcation (APC www.apc.org/english), General Intelligence Group, the Foundation Heinrich Böll (http://www.boell.de/), Panos UK (http://www.panos.org.uk/), People's Communication Charter (http://www.pccharter.net/), and the WSIS' Human Rights Caucus (http://www.iris.sgdg.org/actions/smsi/hr-wsis/). The Forum included panels on communication and poverty, communication and human rights, communication, war and peace, and communication, copyrights and trade. Soon all Forum presentations will be available at www.communicationrights.org <http://www.communicationrights.org/>. The Community Media Form was organized by Bread for All ( www.bfa-ppp.ch <http://www.bfa-ppp.ch/>), the Swiss Catholic Lenten Fund, (www.fastenopfer.ch <http://www.fastenopfer.ch/>), ALER (Asociación Latinoamericana de Educación Radiofónica, www.aler.org.ec <http://www.aler.org.ec/>), AMARC (Asociación Mundial de Radios Comunitarias www.amarc.org <http://www.amarc.org/>), CAMECO (Concejo de Medios Católicos www.cameco.org <http://www.cameco.org/>), and the Civil Society's Community Media Caucus of the WSIS. (I mention all these organizations because we should keep track of their key role in promoting global and regional mobilization initiatives). From this Forum I came out convinced that despite the incredible potential of recent communication technologies, radio is still the most accessible and therefore most important technology for most people on the planet. I was particularly impressed by the evaluation initiative developed by ERBOL (http://www.erbol.com.bo/) and ALER in Latin America called La Práctica Inspira [Practice that Inspires]. On the basis of 24 case studies plus a comprehensive inventory of community radio in the region, this project reveals when and how community radio contributes to building more democratic, empowered, and fair communities. In January the project will be available in a book and a CD, in Spanish at least. A final comment looking toward the future: I believe it is important to get involved in the second phase of the WSIS, in Tunisia in 2005. At local, national, regional and international levels, we all have a role to play in the WSIS. Personally, I see two types of actions we should all contribute to: first, to connect with others; there are so many different groups, NGOs, and individuals working with overlapping agendas but isolated from each other. So, the community radio folks should connect with the Internet governance folks; the social movements folks should connect with the technology policy folks (people working on governance, standards, open software, technology design, etc). Second, we should all initiate processes of dialogue, discussion, and debate around the WSIS Civil Society Declaration. I hope OURMedia IV in July in Porto Alegre can become a meeting point where we can advance these lines of action (http://www.ourmedianet.org/eng/conferences.html). Clemencia Rodriguez -- 5. Nach dem Gipfel ist vor dem Gipfel Wolfgang Kleinwächter 16.12.2003 Die Genfer WSIS-Deklaration enthält zwar nur vage Grundsätze, aber dennoch fand eine Bewegung in wesentlichen Dingen statt und es wurde zusammen mit einem neuen globalen Problembewusstsein auch ein neuartiges globales Forum geschaffen Die erste Phase des Weltgipfels zur Informationsgesellschaft ( WSIS [1]) ist vorbei. Die 14.352 registrierten Teilnehmer sind nach Hause gefahren. Die angenommenen Dokumente [2] sind ins Internet gestellt. Und die Beobachter fragen sich, was hat die Bergbesteigung denn nun wirklich gebracht? Sucht man nach konkreten Resultaten, wird man kaum fündig. Außer Spesen also nichts gewesen? Oder war da noch was? Schaut man aus der Froschperspektive auf die WSIS-Konferenz, dann ist zweifelsohne die landläufig zu vernehmende Kritik an den verabschiedeten Regierungs-Dokumenten berechtigt. Sie sind vage und unverbindlich. Die Cyberwelt sieht nach dem Gipfel nicht viel anders aus als zuvor. Und der digitale Graben ist nicht flacher geworden. Schaut man aber aus der Vogelperspektive auf den mühsamen Aufstieg zum Genfer Gipfel, dann entdeckt man, dass sich einige wesentliche Dinge zwischen Minneapolis 1998, als die Veranstaltung beschlossen wurde, und Genf 2003 bewegt haben. Neues globales Problembewusstsein Geändert hat sich vor allem das öffentliche Bewusstsein zum Thema Informationsgesellschaft. 1998, im Sog des Dot-Com-Booms, war das Thema primär auf die Faszination der technologischen Revolution, auf die kommerziell verwertbaren Aspekte und die digitale Spaltung fixiert. Ein Thema für Experten, Techniker, Risikokapitalinvestmentbanker und niedere Beamte in Wirtschafts- und Entwicklungshilfeministerien. Der Genfer Gipfel hat das Thema in den großen weltpolitischen Kontext des 21. Jahrhunderts gestellt. In Genf ging es nicht um die "Informationsrevolution", es ging um die Gesellschaft, die sich darauf zu konstituieren beginnt. Zu den politischen und wirtschaftlichen Interessen, die sich 1998 abzeichneten, kamen gesellschaftliche und kulturelle Werte. Das machte die Verhandlungen so schwierig, weil es eben leichter ist, einen Interessenausgleich zu erreichen als sich über Wertvorstellungen zu verständigen. Das rückte aber das Thema auch vom Rand der globalen Politik mehr ins Zentrum. Die WSIS-Deklaration sagt in ihrem ersten Paragraphen, welche Informationsgesellschaft man denn aufbauen wolle. We, the representatives of the peoples of the world, declare our common desire and commitment, to build a people-centred, inclusive and development-oriented Information Society, where everyone can create, access, utilize and share information and knowledge, enabling individuals, communities and peoples to achieve their full potential in promoting their sustainable development and improving their quality of life, premised on the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and respecting fully and upholding the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Den Menschen in den Mittelpunkt und das Schaffen, den Zugang und den Austausch von Informationen und Wissen ins Zentrum zu rücken, sind sehr noble, aber leider auch sehr allgemeine Zielsetzungen und Formulierungen. Sie haben es aber dennoch in sich. Der hohe Abstraktionsgrad bietet ein nicht zu unterschätzendes Referenzpotential. Man denke nur an die langfristigen Wirkungen von ähnlichen Dokumenten wie der UN-Menschenrechtsdeklaration von 1948 oder der KSZE-Schlussakte von 1975. Erst Jahre später merkte man, was solche allgemeinen Formeln tatsächlich bewirken. Die Zivilgesellschaft hatte sich vom ersten Tag der PrepCom1 (Juni 2002) gegen eine technokratische oder bürokratische Informationsgesellschaft gewandt und eine "Informationsgesellschaft mit menschlichen Antlitz" eingefordert. Der stete Tropfen aus den unendlichen Quellen der globalen Zivilgesellschaft höhlte offensichtlich den Stein, der nun ein Meilenstein ist, an dem sich zukünftige Entwicklungen messen lassen müssen. Neues globales Verhandlungsforum Ein zweites, nicht sofort sichtbares Resultat, ist die Tatsache, dass WSIS einen Prozess in Gang gesetzt hat, der die Grundfragen der Informationsgesellschaft zum Thema globaler Verhandlungen für das nächste Jahrzehnt gemacht hat. Bei allen fünf WSIS-Themen geht es um Grundsätzliches. Beim "Digitalen Solidaritätsfonds" geht es ums Geld, bei "Internet Governance" um Macht, beim "geistigem Eigentum" um Wissen, bei "Cybersicherheit" um Kontrolle und bei Informationsfreiheit und Datenschutz um Menschenrechte. Die Organisation und Verteilung von Geld, Macht, Wissen, Kontrolle und Menschenrechte im Cyberspace aber ist eine gigantische langfristige Herausforderung. Genf 2003 ist nur eine Zwischenstation. Es folgt Tunis 2005. Und der Aktionsplan zielt auf das Jahr 2015, also Tunis 10+. Zwar enthält die Genfer WSIS-Deklaration zu den fünf Themen nur vage Grundsätze. Das Interessante daran aber ist, dass diese Themen, die natürlich alle miteinander verquickt sind, bislang global entweder gar nicht oder völlig isoliert voneinander behandelt wurden. Mit WSIS haben diese Themen nun ihre globale Verhandlungsheimstatt gefunden. Der Europarat, Depositar der "Cybercrime Convention", wird sich die Prinzipien der WSIS-Deklaration anschauen müssen, wenn er das Konzept der Cybersicherheit weiter entwickeln will. WTO und WIPO werden nicht umhin kommen, sich mit der von der WSIS-Deklaration eingeforderten Balance zwischen Schutz des geistigen Eigentums und freien Zugang zu Wissen zu befassen. Die Weltbank wird sich mit der Idee des "Digitalen Solidaritätsfonds" auseinandersetzen müssen. Und bei "Internet Governance" wird ICANN prüfen müssen, inwieweit ihr gerade beendeter Reformprozess dem von WSIS geforderten "multistakeholder approach" entspricht. Während vor dem Genfer Gipfel Europarat, WTO, WIPO, Weltbank und ICANN so gut wie nichts miteinander zu tun hatten, werden sie jetzt in ein entstehendes globales institutionelles Netzwerk hineingezogen, in dem nicht nur Regierungen, sondern auch die private Industrie und die Zivilgesellschaft eine von der WSIS-Deklaration bestätigte "bedeutende Rolle" spielen. Wie weiter mit "Internet Governance"? Die Globalisierung der WSIS-Themen wird sich vor allem bei der weiteren Diskussion über Verwaltung der Kernressourcen des Internet zeigen. Die Kontorverse "ITU vs. ICANN" und der dahinter liegende Konflikt über die Zukunft des Internet zwischen der chinesischen und der amerikanischen Regierung einerseits, sowie zwischen Regierungen, Privatwirtschaft und Zivilgesellschaft andererseits hatte WSIS zeitweise an den Rand des Scheiterns gebracht,. Der schließlich erreichte Kompromiss ist die Auslösung eines neuen Prozesses. Nun soll UN-Generalsekretär Kofi Annan mittels einer Arbeitsgruppe bis 2005 einen funktionsfähigen und akzeptablen Vorschlag aus dem Hut zaubern. Das Internet wird damit zu einem eigenständigen globalen Verhandlungsgegenstand. WSIS holt das Thema praktisch aus der Ecke der technischen Expertengremien mit unklaren politischen Zuständigkeiten und transportiert es auf die große politischen Bühne der globalen Politik. Was dass im Einzelnen bedeutet, ist momentan schwer abzuschätzen. Möglicherweise ist Paragraph 50 der WSIS-Deklaration, der Zusammensetzung und Mandat der neuen Gruppe definiert, das weitreichendste Ergebnis von WSIS I. Die Gruppe soll, so der Text von Paragraph 50, aus "Vertretern der Regierungen, der privaten Wirtschaft und der Zivilgesellschaft aus entwickelten und Entwicklungsländer und unter Einschluss bestehender zwischenstaatlicher und anderer relevanter Institutionen und Foren" gebildet werden. Den Regierungen wird dabei primär ein Mandat für die mit dem Internet zusammenhängenden Aspekte öffentlicher Politik zugewiesen. ("rights and responsibilities for international Internet-related public-policy issues"). Der privaten Wirtschaft und der Zivilgesellschaft wird eine "wichtige Rolle" bescheinigt. Zwischenstaatliche Organisationen, wie die ITU, sollen eine "fördernde Rolle" spielen. Bemerkenswert darin ist nicht nur, dass erstmals in einem offiziellen UN-Dokument der Zivilgesellschaft eine "bedeutende Rolle", ähnlich wie der privaten Wirtschaft, zugewiesen wurde, sondern vor allem der konzeptionelle Ansatz, der auf einem neuen "trilateralen Politikmodell" basiert, bei dem Regierungen, private Wirtschaft und Zivilgesellschaft mit unterschiedlichen Rollen und Verantwortlichkeiten, aber praktisch weitgehend gleichberechtigt, Hand in Hand arbeiten sollen. Das ist neu. Wie das funktionieren soll und kann, ist noch unklar. Aber es wird spannend werden zu beobachten, wo diese Reise hingeht. Die neue "Kofi Annan Gruppe" soll zunächst definieren, was man denn überhaupt unter "Internet Governance" versteht. Dann soll sie herausfinden, welche politischen Aspekte davon tatsächlich einer staatlichen Regulierung bedürfen. Und schließlich soll sie der zweiten Gipfelphase im November 2005 in Tunis einen Mechanismus vorschlagen, wie die unterschiedlichen Themen durch unterschiedliche Akteure global und effektiv gemanagt werden können. Dieser WSIS-Beschluss enthält möglicherweise mehr Dynamik, als man sich heute noch vorstellen kann. Schon hat die Diskussion begonnen über das "Wer", "Wie", "Wann" und "Wo" der Gruppe. Nitni Desai, Kofi Annans WSIS-Botschafter, will erst einmal zuhören, was denn die einzelnen "Stakeholder" zu sagen haben. Das erste Vorbereitungstreffen für die zweite Gipfelphase findet im Juni 2004 statt. Bis dahin will er seine Gedanken sortiert haben. Einige Regierungen haben bereits vorgeschlagen, die neue Gruppe schon Ende März 2004 in New York zu gründen, wenn sich die UN ICT Task Force [3], die auch unter der Schirmherrschaft von Kofi Annan steht, trifft. Der zivilgesellschaftliche "Internet ICT Governance Caucus" hat noch in Genf einen Vorschlag zur Zusammensetzung der Gruppe in die Debatte gebracht. Man solle den Text von Paragraph 50 wörtlich nehmen und eine 18köpfige Gruppe bilden mit je sechs Vertretern von Regierungen, der privaten Wirtschaft und der Zivilgesellschaft, jeweils drei aus dem Norden und drei aus dem Süden. Der private Sektor wird sich bei seiner routinemäßigen ICANN-Tagung Anfang März 2004 in Rom positionieren. Neue Rolle für Zivilgesellschaft Ein drittes langfristig wirkendes Resultat ist die neue Rolle der Zivilgesellschaft im globalen Verhandlungsprozedere. 1998 in Minneapolis spielte die Zivilgesellschaft überhaupt keine Rolle. Dann meldete sich im Dezember 1999 in Seattle die Zivilgesellschaft auf der Strasse zu Wort. Die Kritiker der WTO waren von den verhandelnden Ministern durch einen schwer bewaffneten Polizeikordon getrennt. Die Staats- und Regierungschefs mussten sich durch die Hintereingänge den Weg zum Plenarsaal und zum Konferenzdinner erschleichen. US-Präsident Clinton, der die "Dinner Speech" in Seattle hielt, machte damals einen süß-sauren Scherz. Das Winken mit der Serviette von WTO-Generalsekretär Moorer bei seinem verspäteten Eintreffen im Ballsaal des Konferenzhotels, so Clinton, hätte ihn an das Hissen der weißen Flagge erinnert. Manche der vorwiegend jungen Leute draußen, so Clinton weiter, hätten aber ein durchaus legitimes Anliegen, dem man drinnen zuhören sollte. "Wir sollten sie in den Verhandlungsraum einladen", sagte der US-Präsident damals. WSIS-Genf war nicht WTO-Seattle. Die Zivilgesellschaft hat hier nicht Steine geworfen, sondern Papiere produziert. Noch bei PrepCom1 gab es tumultartige Szenen vor geschlossenen Konferenztüren. Zwar öffneten sich später die Türen ein wenig, aber das "Rein oder Raus" zog sich durch den gesamten Vorbereitungsprozess. Beim Gipfel waren aber immerhin bei den drei offiziellen Round Tables neben Staatspräsidenten und Ministern auch jeweils vier Vertreter der Zivilgesellschaft als Redner eingeladen. Im Plenum konnten zehn zivilgesellschaftliche Repräsentanten ihre Meinung sagen. Und nachdem die Regierungen ihre Dokumente am Freitag Nachmittag per Akklamation verabschiedet hatten, trat Bill McIver ins Rampenlicht und ans Rednerpult und präsentierte im Namen des "Civil Society Plenary" die zivilgesellschaftliche WSIS-Deklaration [4]. Sie sei keine Anti-Deklaration, sagte McIver, sondern eine auf das Morgen ausgerichtete Vision, die das sage, was Regierungen, die zum Konsensus auf dem kleinsten gemeinsamen Nenner verpflichtet seien, nicht sagen könnten. Die Tatsache, dass sich im WSIS-Prozess die Zivilgesellschaft in zahlreichen "Familien", "Caucusen" und "Arbeitsgruppen" organisiert und sich handlungsfähige repräsentative Gremien wie die "CS Plenary" (CS-P), die "CS Content and Themes Group" (CS-C&T) und das "CS Bureau" (CS-B) geschaffen hat, gaben ihren Aktionen ein bisher kaum vorhandene Legitimität. Der Schritt von "Turmoil" zu "Trust" wurde zwar noch nicht mit einem signifikanten Schritt von "Input" zu "Impact" belohnt, aber sieht man sich die Regierungsdokumente genauer an, dann haben schon einige Buchstaben den Weg von den zivilgesellschaftlichen Einlassungen in die regierungsoffiziellen Auslassungen gefunden. Die übliche Frustration der zivilgesellschaftlichen Gruppen hielt sich denn am Abend des 12. Dezember 2003 daher auch in Grenzen und mischte sich mit einer Hoffnung, dass sich engagierte und konstruktive Einmischung, wenn sie mit Substanz und Hartnäckigkeit vorgetragen wird, am Ende doch irgendwie lohnen kann Für die Zivilgesellschaft gilt daher in besonderer Weise die alte, einst von Sepp Herberger formulierte Fußballweisheit, dass "nach dem Spiel immer vor dem Spiel" ist. Links [1] http://www.itu.int/wsis/ [2] http://www.itu.int/wsis/geneva/docs.html [3] http://www.unicttaskforce.org/ [4] http://www.worldsummit2003.de/download_en/WSIS-CS-Decl-08Dec2003-en.pdf Telepolis Artikel-URL: http://www.telepolis.de/deutsch/inhalt/te/16333/1.html -- 6. From: plenary-admin@wsis-cs.org Subject: The world Summit of Cities and Local Authorities on the information society ends today The world Summit of Cities and Local Authorities on the information society has just released a final Declaration of principles and an Action Plan that is to be discussed in the following part of the summit. It might be worth to take a look on the documents, which are, for Guy Olivier Second, the Special Ambassador for the WSIS, of " superior quality than those debatted in Geneva". Declaration of principles: http://www.cities-lyon.org/en/uploadfiles/27/download Plan of action: In line soon Official site: http://www.cities-lyon.org/ -- 7. Official WSIS Press Release Geneva, 12 December 2003 - The World Summit on the Information Society closed on an optimistic note of consensus and commitment, but Yoshio Utsumi, Secretary-General of the International Telecommunication Union and Summit cautioned that the meeting was only the start of a long and complex process. "Telephones will not feed the poor, and computers will not replace textbooks. But ICTs can be used effectively as part of the toolbox for addressing global problems. The Summit's successes now give us the necessary momentum to achieve this," he said. "Building the inclusive information society requires a multi-stakeholder approach. The challenges raised - in areas like Internet governance, access, investment, security, the development of applications, intellectual property rights and privacy - require a new commitment to work together if we are to realize the benefits of the information society." Seeing the fruits of today's powerful knowledge-based tools in the most impoverished economies will be the true test of an engaged, empowered and egalitarian information society, he added. Over 54 Heads of State, Prime Ministers, Presidents, Vice-Presidents and 83 ministers and vice-ministers from 176 countries came together in Geneva to endorse a Declaration of Principles - or a common vision of an information society's values - and a Plan of Action which sets forth a road map to build on that vision and to bring the benefits of ICTs to underserved economies. The three-day Summit is the first multi-stakeholder global effort to share and shape the use of information and communications technologies (ICTs) for a better world. But the Summit was groundbreaking in other ways too. It offered a genuine "venue of opportunity" in a unique meeting of leaders, policy-makers, ICT business people, voluntary and non-governmental organizations of every possible kind, and top-level thinkers and speakers. Alongside the three-days of Plenary meetings and high-level roundtables, nearly 300 side-events helped bring the dream of an inclusive information society one-step closer to becoming reality. Partnership announcements included a USD 400,000 grant by the US Government for ICT development in low-income countries. Cisco and ITU also signed a Memorandum of Understanding to open 20 more Internet Training Centres in developing countries. As well, Hewlett-Packard will provide low-cost products that will help overcome the illiteracy barrier to ICT. Handwritten texts for example will be recognized for e-mail transmission. Microsoft, working with UNDP, will provide a billion dollar programme over 5 years to bring ICT skills to underserved communities. One innovative initiative announced to bridge the digital divide is the Bhutan E-Post project. For faster, cheaper and more reliable communication to remote, mountainous areas of Bhutan, the Government of India will deliver e-post services to the Bhutanese Postal Service via a USD 400,000 a V-satellite network and solar panels power system. The partners include ITU, Bhutan Telecom and Post, Worldspace and Encore India. And at the very close of the Summit, the cities of Geneva and Lyon and the Government of Senegal have announced contributions totaling about 1 million euros to fund information technology in developing countries. The contributions will represent the first three payments towards the Digital Solidarity Fund, the creation of which is to be considered by a UN working group for the Tunis phase. The second phase of the Summit takes place in Tunis in 2005 and will measure ambitious goals set this week. With WSIS phase I over, the hard work begins and hard work lies ahead in the two years before Tunis, to show that the information society is on the right path. The overarching goal of the Summit has been to gain the will and commitment of policy-makers to make ICTs a top priority, and to bring together public and private sector players to forge an inclusive dialogue based on the interests of all. In these two respects, the Summit has been heralded a success. United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan told delegates "technology has given birth to the information age. Now it is up to all of us to build an information society from trade to telemedicine, from education to environmental protection, we have in our hands, on our desktops and in the skies above, the ability to improve standards of living for millions upon millions of people. Top Summit targets now remain to be achieved, including connecting all schools, villages, governments and hospitals, and bringing half the world's population within ICT reach, all by the year 2015. The Summit has clearly identified national e-strategies as the key vehicle to meet the targets. Connecting public places, revising school curricula, extending the reach of TV and radio broadcasting services and fostering rich multilingual content are all recognized as needing strong national-level governmental commitments. To encourage and assist national and local governments in this work, the Summit also foresees the development of international statistical indicators to provide yardsticks of progress; exchanges of experience to help develop "best practice" models, and the fostering of public-private partnerships internationally in the interests of sustainable ICT development. Indeed, collaboration across the complex information society chain - from the scientists that create powerful ICT tools, to the governments that foster a culture of investment and rule of law, to the businesses that build infrastructure and supply services, to the media that create and disseminate content and - above all -human society which ultimately employs such tools and shapes their use -lays the foundation for an inclusive knowledge-based world on which the riches of an information society can flourish. The Summit's most notable achievement was across-the-board consensus earned for a Declaration of Principles and Plan of Action wording around several contentious issues, and the spirit of cooperation that permeated the Summit. Internet governance, and financing ICT investments in underserved economies were two of the issues which called for long negotiations. On the issue of Internet management, the involvement of all stakeholders and intergovernmental organizations to address both technical and public policy issues has been underscored although global Internet governance is set to be the subject of deeper talks up to Tunis in 2005. An open and inclusive working group will be set up on the topic, in order to review and make proposals for action by the 2005 Summit. Similarly on the issue of financing for underserved economies, a task force will be established to undertake a review of existing ICT funding mechanisms and will also study the feasibility of an international voluntary Digital Solidarity Fund. On the areas of intellectual property rights and the need for enabling environments, universal access policies, and multilingual, diverse and culturally appropriate content to speed ICT adoption and use -particularly in the world's most underserved economies - government-level commitment to follow a set of common values and principles has been attained. Although these achievements fuel hope and may stoke further collaboration, Mr. Utsumi, together with many world leaders, appealed to all stakeholders keep the spirit of cooperation alive well beyond the two years to Tunis, and to back up universally agreed principles with concrete actions to spark more peace and prosperity across the planet. "The realization of the Plan of Action is crucial to the long-term success of the Summit. We need imagination and creativity to develop projects and programmes that can really make a difference. We need commitment - on the part of governments, the private sector and civil society - to realistic targets and concrete actions. We need the mobilization of resources and investment," he said. "With the unique occasion of a World Summit, we have the chance to scale up our ambitions to the global level, which is equal to the size of the challenge. Let us not miss this opportunity." To access the Declaration and the Plan of Action go to: http://www.itu.int/wsis/documents/listing-all-en-s|1.asp -- 8. Frustrated by UN summit civil society representatives present their own declaration Geneva, Switzerland, 11 December 2003 -- At a conference this afternoon, civil society representatives presented an 'alternative' declaration to the official Declaration expected to be approved by the world's governments tomorrow at the final day of the World Summit on the Information Society in Geneva. The civil society declaration -called Shaping information societies for human needs- was needed because the process has constantly been disillusioning and frustrating said representatives at the heavily-attended conference. They recognised that some impact was made on the official WSIS Declaration especially involving the vision and the principles, which were previously technocratic and have become more human-centred. However, the civil society declaration goes further, calling for information societies that are free from discrimination, violence and hatred, and based on a framework of social, political and economic justice and a more equitable distribution of resources. The civil society declaration has been written over a number of months based on inputs from a working group on content and themes and the various regional working groups, known as caucuses and families. The final compilation was made over the past few weeks and was unanimously approved by the decision-making body-the civil society plenary- on December 8. Representatives from each regional caucus -including three speakers from APC and APC members in the Philippines and Brazil- outlined the regions' main concerns. Alice Munyua of APC's Africa ICT policy monitor initiative and African caucus representative highlighted the areas of human development and social justice, the right to communicate as a human right and Africans' disappointment that a proposal made for a digital solidarity fund has not been included in the official Declaration. Carlos Afonso of RITS, Brazil, speaking for the Latin American and Caribbean caucus emphasised the diversity of the world's people and the need to refer to 'information societies', not one 'information society'. LAC representatives criticised what they referred to as a simplified concept of civil society included in the official Declaration, claiming that themes of importance have been marginalised, distorted and contexts have been ignored. Latin Americans and Caribbeans complained that the primary focus of the official WSIS documents continues to be on infrastructure and does not sufficiently include the social use of ICTs especially for education. Asian-Pacific representative, Al Alegre of the Foundation for Media Alternatives, Philippines, focused on the themes of culture, knowledge and the public domain. He pointed out that there are hundreds of languages in Asia, many using writing scripts that are not roman-based (the principal script used in internet). He called for cultural and linguistic diversity to be protected from homogenisation or the over-privelige of one language. He also referred to the need to support community media to encourage and strengthen freedom of expression as well as linguistic diversity and stated that intellectual property rights should serve to develop societies and meet the public interest and not to serve corporate interests. Jane Johnson of WFUNA, representing the Europe and North American caucus stressed the need for equal, fair and open access to be a guiding principle of the information society. Shaping information societies for human needs was based on the Essential Benchmarks which outlined what civil society representatives wanted to see in the official WSIS documents and was presented to government delegates in the resumed third preparatory committee meeting in November 2003. Civil society representatives will use the benchmarks to measure the actual impact of the official Declaration and Action Plan to be approved tomorrow by UN member states and to be implemented by the second WSIS which will be held in Tunisia in 2005. They are proposing that the declaration -Shaping information societies for human needs- becomes part of the official outcomes of the Summit, a decision that has to be taken by the governments. Shaping information societies for human needs" will be online shortly in English, Spanish and French. If you want to endorse it, please send your name and organisation to ct-endorse@wsis-cs.org. -- 9. WISIS-Award.Org <http://www.wsis-award.org/> Heads of State, Executive Heads of United Nations agencies, industry leaders, non-governmental organizations, media and civil society representatives - all will meet at the «World Summit on the Information Society» (WSIS), Geneva, 10-12 December 2003, to debate trends, perspectives and challenges of the emerging Information Society. The WSIS will provide a unique opportunity to develop a better understanding of new Information & Communication Technologies (ICTs) and their impact on the development of the international community. The World Summit Award (WSA) ? a global initiative to demonstrate the benefits of the Information Society in terms of new contents and applications - will be a highlight of the gathering. The World Summit Award is an official side event of the Geneva World Summit on the Information Society. A Showcase Event on best content from around the world will be held on December 10th in the framework of the WSIS in the Palexpo. This page links to the important bits re the Awards <http://www.europrix.org/wsis-award/printable/project.htm> -- 10. NTK on WSIS _ _ _____ _ __ <*the* weekly high-tech sarcastic update for the uk> | \ | |_ _| |/ / _ __ __2003-12-12_ o join! sign up at | \| | | | | ' / | '_ \ / _ \ \ /\ / / o http://lists.ntk.net/ | |\ | | | | . \ | | | | (_) \ v v / o website (+ archive) lives at: |_| \_| |_| |_|\_\|_| |_|\___/ \_/\_/ o http://www.ntk.net/ Everyone's got an opinion, haven't they? In a week when even the taciturn Torvalds started opining on how copyright law worked, the president of the notoriously fair and open-minded ICANN had *his* views summarily squelched, after a literal kickban from this week's WORLD SUMMIT ON THE INFORMATION SOCIETY. As guards hussled PAUL TWOMEY away from the DNS pre-meeting at the UN summit, he whined his complaints like... like... like an obscure domain registrar bitching on an ignored "public" ICANN mailing list, say. Will ICANN humbly learn its lesson? Hopefully not - given that the WSIS bouncers waved ROBERT MUGABE through to give his views on the Net (summary: Sluggy sucks, Penny Arcade much cooler). Is this some kind of hint that ICANN needs to start cracking down on its opposition? Or should it be more like the President of Iran, who found his WSIS Q&A getting bogged down in questions relayed from his nation of bloggers. "Do you blog?", they demanded, before going on to ask him whether he preferred Moveable Type or Livejournal, and Which Character From "24" Was He, exactly? http://kerneltrap.org/node/view/1735 - I Am Not A Linus http://www.itworld.com/Man/2685/031208torvalds/ - ... but I play one when subpoenaed http://www.iht.com/articles/120570.html - squeal little piggie http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3303129.stm - Mr Mugabe has "giant Orwellian viewscreen" in his rider http://www.dailysummit.net/english/archives/2003/12/11/iran_roundup_.asp - I'm sorry, am I hot or what? # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: majordomo@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net