World Summit on the Information Society

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards.
Please discuss this issue on the talk page or replace this tag with a more specific message.
This article has been tagged since August 2006.

The World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) was a series of United Nations-sponsored conferences about information, communication and, in broad terms, the information society that took place in 2003 and 2005. One of its chief aims was to bridge the so-called "digital divide" separating rich countries from poor countries by spreading access to the Internet in the developing world. The conferences established 17 May as World Information Society Day.

Contents

[edit] History

In January 2002, the United Nations General Assembly endorsed a proposal for a global summit on Information and Communication Technology (ICT) issues. The International Telecommunications Union (ITU) took the lead in organizing the event, which included the participation of more than 50 heads of state. WSIS is also related to UNESCO.

In November 2002, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan issued a Challenge to Silicon Valley[1] to create the computers and communications systems that would enable villages to leapfrog several generations of technology and enter the Information Age directly. This would provide the technical basis for WSIS discussions. In fact, many of the most important developments in ICT for development (ICT4D) have taken place outside the Silicon Valley area of the U.S. state of California.

The Summit's first phase took place in December 2003 in Geneva. The summit process began with the first "Prepcom" in July 2002. The last Prepcom, held from 19-30 September 2005 in Geneva, ended without securing final agreement on "Internet Governance," with the US rejecting a EU proposal to put in place a new cooperation model that would end US dominance over vital parts of the Internet.

In 2003 at Geneva, delegates from 175 countries took part in the first phase of WSIS where they adopted a Declaration of Principles.[2] This is a road map for achieving an information society accessible to all and based on shared knowledge. A Plan of Action [3] sets out a goal of bringing 50 percent of the world's population online by 2015. It does not spell out any specifics of how this might be achieved. The Geneva summit also left unresolved more controversial issues, including the question of Internet governance and funding.

When the 2003 summit failed to agree on the future of Internet governance, the Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) was formed to come up with ideas on how to progress.

The second phase took place 2005-11-16 to 2005-11-18 in Tunis, Tunisia. It resulted in agreement on the Tunis Commitment and the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society, and the creation of the Internet Governance Forum.

[edit] "Civil Society"

A great number of non-governmental organizations (NGOs), scientific institutions, community media and others are participating as "civil society" in the preparations for the summit as well as the WSIS itself. They try to establish the broadest possible participation of civil society groups at the summit and to push civil society issues onto the agenda, including human rights, people-centred development, freedom of speech and press freedom.

At the same time, there is plenty of WSIS-related discussion outside the official conferences. Workshops on the themes of the summit were held e.g. at the World Social Forum in Porto Alegre, and plans are shaping up for alternative events outside and parallel to the official WSIS summit.

In Germany, a WSIS working group initiated by the Network New Media and the Heinrich Böll Foundation, has been meeting continuously since mid-2002. This group has gradually developed into a broader Germany-wide civil society coordination for the WSIS.

Some civil society groups have expressed alarm that the 2005 phase of the WSIS is being held in Tunisia, a country with serious human rights violations. [4] A fact-finding mission to Tunisia in January 2005 by the Tunisia Monitoring Group (TMG), a coalition of 14 members of the International Freedom of Expression Exchange, found serious cause for concern about the current state of freedom of expression and of civil liberties in the country, including gross restrictions on freedom of the press, media, publishing and the Internet.

The coalition has published a 60-page report that recommends steps the Tunisian government needs to take to bring the country in line with international human rights standards. [5] At the third WSIS Preparatory Committee meeting in Geneva in September 2005, the TMG launched an update to the report that found no improvements in the human rights situation. [6]

The Digital solidarity fund, an independent body aiming to reduce the digital divide, was established following discussions which took place during the Tunis summit in 2005.

[edit] One critique

In a press statement released 14 November 2003 [7] the Civil Society group warned about a deadlock, already setting in on the very first article of the declaration, where governments are not able to agree on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as the common foundation of the summit declaration. It identified two main problems:

  1. On the issue of correcting imbalances in riches, rights and power, governments do not agree on even the principle of a financial effort to overcome the so-called "digital divide", which was precisely the objective when the summit process was started in 2001. But the 'digital divide' concept was also under criticism of the civil society. Groups such as FFII rejected the term.
  1. In its view, not even the basis of human life in dignity and equality, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, finds support as the basis for the Information Society. Governments are not able to agree on a commitment to basic human right standards as the basis for the Information Society, most prominent in this case being the freedom of expression.

[edit] At Tunis, 2005

Just on the eve of the Tunis event (2005, November), the Association for Progressive Communications came out with its stand. APC is an international network of civil society organizations — whose goal is to empower and support groups and individuals working for peace, human rights, development and protection of the environment, through the strategic use of information and communication technologies (ICTs), including the internet.

APC said it had participated extensively in the internet governance process at the World Summit on Information Society. It says: Out of this participation and in collaboration with other partners, including members of the WSIS civil society internet governance caucus, APC has crystallized a set of recommendations with regard to internet governance ahead of the final Summit in Tunis in November 2005.

APC proposed specific actions in each of the following five areas:

  • The transformation of ICANN into a global body with full authority over DNS management, and an appropriate form of accountability to its stakeholders in government, private sector and civil society;
  • The initiation of a multi-stakeholder convention on internet governance and universal human rights that will codify the basic rights applicable to the internet, which will be legally binding in international law with particular emphasis on clauses in the universal declaration of human rights specifically relevant to the internet, such as rights to freedom of expression, freedom of association and privacy.
  • Ensuring internet access is universal and affordable. APC argued: "The internet is a global public space that should be open and accessible to all on a non-discriminatory basis. The internet, therefore, must be seen as a global public infrastructure. In this regard we recognize the internet to be a global public good and access to it is in the public interest, and must be provided as a public provision."
  • Measures to promote capacity building in "developing" countries with regard to increasing "developing" country participation in global public policy forums on internet governance.

[edit] United States priorities

In a document released on 3 December 2003 [8] the United States delegation to the WSIS advocated a strong private sector and rule of law as the critical foundations for development of national information and communication technologies (ICT). Ambassador David Gross, the US coordinator for international communications and information policy, outlined what he called "the three pillars" of the US position in a briefing to reporters 3 December.

  1. As nations attempt to build a sustainable ICT sector, commitment to the private sector and rule of law must be emphasized, Gross said, "so that countries can attract the necessary private investment to create the infrastructure."
  2. A second important pillar of the US position was the need for content creation and intellectual property rights protection in order to inspire ongoing content development.
  3. Insuring security on the internet, in electronic communications and in electronic commerce was the third major priority for the US. "All of this works and is exciting for people as long as people feel that the networks are secure from cyber attacks, secure in terms of their privacy," Gross said.

As the Geneva phase of the meeting drew closer, one proposal that was gaining attention was to create an international fund to provide increased financial resources to help lesser-developed nations expand their ICT sectors. The "voluntary digital solidarity fund" was a proposal put forth by the president of Senegal, but it was not one that the United States could currently endorse, Gross said.

Gross said the United States was also achieving broad consensus on the principle that a "culture of cybersecurity" must develop in national ICT policies to continue growth and expansion in this area. He said the last few years had been marked by considerable progress as nations update their laws to address the galloping criminal threats in cyberspace. "There's capacity-building for countries to be able to criminalize those activities that occur within their borders...and similarly to work internationally to communicate between administrations of law enforcement to track down people who are acting in ways that are unlawful," Gross said.

Many governments are very concerned that various groups use U.S.-based servers to spread anti-semitic, nationalist, or regime critical messages. This controversy is a consequence of the American position on free speech which does not consider speech as criminal without direct appeals to violence. The United States argues that giving the control of Internet domain names to international bureaucrats and governments may lead to massive censorship that could destroy the freedom of the Internet as a public space.

[edit] Some media responses

Brenda Zulu — identified as a journalist specializing in reporting on Information Communication Technologies for Development (ICT4D) issues — has this report on AllAfrica.com that is titled WSIS Set to Begin in Tunis As SADC Lobbies Countries To Diffuse The Dakar Paper.

Zulu explains that the (Dakar) resolution "generated a lot of discussion since it was very different from the Accra resolution, which advocated change from the status quo where Zambia participated in the Africa WSIS in Accra. The Dakar resolutions, in the main, advocated the status quo although it did not refer to internationalization of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)."

The Jamaica Observer has this column which sees Cyberspace as backyard for the new 'Monroe Doctrine'. [The Monroe Doctrine, expressed in 1823, proclaimed that the Americas should be closed to future European colonization and free from European interference in sovereign countries' affairs. The Doctrine was conceived by its authors, especially John Quincy Adams, as a proclamation by the United States of moral opposition to colonialism, but has subsequently been re-interpreted in a wide variety of ways, including by President Theodore Roosevelt as a license for the U.S. to practice its own form of colonialism.]

From India, The Financial Express interviews Nitin Desai, who is special advisor to the United Nations Secretary General.

Desai is quoted saying, "Our main goal is to find ways for developing countries to gain better access to the Internet and information and communication technologies (ICTs), helping them improve their life standards right from their knowledge base to their work culture, and spread awareness about diseases and other crucial issues. This will aim to bridge the huge communication technology and infrastructure gap existing currently in the world. This will include connecting villages, community access points, schools and universities, research centres, libraries, health centres and hospitals, and local and central government departments. Besides looking at the first two years of implementation of the Plan of Action after the Geneva summit, the Tunis episode will seek to encourage the development of content meant to empower the nations."

He says: "The way India has made use of IT, fetching the country not only profits, but a huge percentage of employed people, it has been really impressive." My view: it's a shame that we in India have so many IT professionals, but these skills get used so much for the export-dollar, and hardly at all (except in a spillover manner) to tackle the huge issues that a billion seeking a better life have to daily deal with.

SABC, the South African Broadcasting Corporation, has this Reuter report titled Rights groups says Tunisia is not right for WSIS, citing the position of the IFEX Tunisia Monitoring Group. It said: "As thousands of delegates and InfoTech experts gathered in Tunisia this weekend for a UN World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), human rights and media freedom groups were asking: Is this meeting in the wrong place?" and points to both the positions critical of the Tunisian government on free speech, and the administration's defense of its record. Finally, when it comes to reporting on the unfair global village, and communication rights we have within it, isn't it ironic that the awareness and ability to keep up with the issue -- of information -- is itself so unfair?

[edit] Conference developments

A dispute over control of the Internet threatened to derail the conference. However, a last-minute decision to leave control in the hands of the United States-based ICANN for the time being avoided a major blow-up. As a compromise there was also an agreement to set up an international Internet Governance Forum, with a purely consultative role.

French reporter Robert Ménard, the president of Reporters sans frontières, was refused admission to Tunisia for phase two of the Summit because of his participation in the occupation of the Tunisian office of tourism in Paris in 2001. The occupation was organized in protest of the arrest in Tunisia of human-rights activist Sihem Bensedrine. Ménard was told that he was not welcome in Tunisia. He is reportedly under judicial instruction and can enter the country only if called by a magistrate.

The summit itself was marred by criticism of Tunisia for allowing attacks on journalists and human rights defenders to occur in the days leading up to the event. A French journalist for "Libération" was stabbed and beaten by unidentified men after he reported on local human rights protesters. A Belgian television crew was harassed and forced to hand over footage of Tunisian dissidents, while local human rights defenders were roughed up and prevented from organizing a meeting with international civil society groups.

[edit] What role for business? What role for government?

Much of the reason that was touted for the calling of the meeting in Tunis this year was based on political clamor over who should control the internet. With control of domain name upper level servers in the hands of ICANN with only minor oversight by the US Department of Commerce there was talk of there being a problem in the area of freedom of information over the World Wide Web. This talk began as insubstantial and ended up, at the conclusion of the conference, as “much ado about nothing”.

If there is any level of society that will ensure that there is freedom of expression and access it is American Big Business. Up until now, and based on the outcome of the Tunis Conference for the foreseeable future, the control of the spread of the Internet and all access to it has been driven by technology advancements and business commitments of the large technology concerns in the United States. With these industries being driven by consumer demand, and with the age old business understanding that the more customers you have the more demand you will have, there was never any real solid reason to be concerned as to whether or not there would be any restrictions imposed upon access to the Web. As a matter of fact, the governments that were screaming the loudest about lack of control of internet resources were those who traditionally have had a pension for censorship and restriction to information. One can easily speculate that their motivation was not based on maintaining the universal access that US technology businesses have ensured to date, but, rather to have access to methods of restricting Internet access within their sphere of sovereignty.

The conference did, however generate discussion on a topic that is of real concern, the so-called “Digital Divide”. It is clear that the majority of the Internet users are within countries with more advanced economic systems and not within those with more wide spread poverty. As such, the wonderful resources that boost business and promote democratic systems that the Internet provides are not made available where they seem to be needed most. This issue was addressed at the conference and stated specifically in paragraph 8 of the “Tunis Agenda for the Information Society” when it stated:

“8. We recognize the scale of the problem in bridging the digital divide, which will require adequate and sustainable investments in ICT infrastructure and services, and capacity building, and transfer of technology over many years to come.”

The Holy See’s Pontifical Council for Social Communications in its document entitled “The Church and the Internet: stated the problem similarly:

“Justice is needed, especially justice in working to close the digital divide—the gap between the information-rich and the information-poor in today's world. This requires a commitment to the international common good, no less than the ‘globalization of solidarity’”.

Here we must also turn to the people who will best be able to serve these needs, technology businesses. However, since these providers are still market driven and these markets are under-developed, they must receive aid from local and international sources in order for them to maintain an interest in bridging this divide. This can be accomplished through communications tariff relief as well as seed funding for corporations who are interested in pursuing these markets. However, regulation, as some proposed at the outset of the Tunis Conference would only have the result of slowing down the already stunted growth of the information superstructures that are needed in these developing countries.

Here we also echo the Pontifical Council for Social Communication when they stated that “Regulation of the Internet is desirable, and in principle industry self-regulation is best.” Private endeavors have always greatly outpaced any governmental efforts. This has been evident in the growth of the Information Society and will continue to be the best place to turn for the future initiatives within the Internet and, in particular, in bridging the Digital Divide.

[edit] The Digital Divide

Kofi Annan, Secretary-General of the United Nations, defined the information society as that through which “human capacity is expanded, built up, nourished and liberated, by giving people access to the tools and technologies they need, with the education and training to use them effectively.” It is this kind of a society that the World Summit on the Information Society set about to create.

Yoshio Utsumi, Secretary General of the International Telecommunication Union, declared that with the emergence of such a society comes the risk of widening the existing digital divide. The Holy See (Vatican) reaffirmed this position in its address to the summit members given by Archbishop John Foley. “This summit,” he said, “is a unique opportunity to connect and assist those living in the poorest and most isolated regions of the world… [I]f this process creates only new opportunities for those who already enjoy a good living standard and excellent communications possibilities, then our work will have been a failure.”

On the issue of narrowing the digital divide, the Holy See and the whole of the United Nations stand hand-in-hand. It was the direct goal of the Summit to create a way to provide information to all people in every nation. A joint-effort needed to be made on behalf of the entire international community to assist in providing access to digital communications to those citizens of less developed regions so that they might also share in the bounty of information available through digital mediums. “For far too many people, the gains remain out of reach,” Annan said. “There is a tremendous yearning, not for technology per se, but for what technology can make possible.” Annan continued by urging the Summit members to respond to that thirst and to make the necessary preparations and take the first steps towards the accomplishment of a society where all people have equal access to information. Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, president of the Republic of Tunisia, also called on the international community to aid in the efforts of helping all peoples, “particularly the least developed ones, to gain access to technological progress and to benefit from the scientific and digital revolution witnessed in the world today." The Vatican also reaffirmed the need for help from the international community.

Secretary General Utsumi said that in order to bring about the changes recommended, and new “pact” will need to be achieved between the information “haves” and the “have-nots.” The development of a new arrangement between developed and under-developed nations would not, he said, “obey the normal rules of negotiation of give and take” but would, instead, be based on mutual self-interest. “The value of information,” Utsumi said, “increases when it is shared. If we are able to create a new generation in the developing world, it will be to the benefit of information-producing countries.”

The overall intent of the World Summit on the Information Society was to bring about a feasible way to eliminate the ever-gaping digital divide. Members of the international community have recognized that an end to the divide must be sought in order to bring about equal information opportunities to the citizens of the less developed countries. Archbishop Foley ended his statement by stating, “It is our responsibility to fill these gaps of humanity and solidarity for the benefit of millions of people and for the next generation.” It is the responsibility of the countries of the international community to implement plans they made at the Summit to make information more accessible to all nations.

[edit] Digital Divide and Digital Dilemma

Two main concerns seemed to be the issue and talk of the UN World Summit on the Information Society held in Tunis, which were one the digital divide and two the digital dilemma. Not only did several countries comment on one or both of these issues in light of the Holy See's statement by Archbishop John P. Foley the Church seems to agree and furthermore elaborate on these issues.

First the digital divide, which not only is addressed in Archbishop John P. Foley's address before the WSIS but also in a Vatican document, Ethics in the Interent. According to Archbishop Foley the digital divide is the current disparity in the access to digital communications between developed and developing countries and it requires the joint effort of the entire international community. The digital divide is considered a form of discrimination dividing the rich and the poor, both within and among nations, on the basis of access, or lack of access, to the new information technology. It is an updated version of an older gap that has always existed between the information rich and the information poor. The term digital divide underlines the reality that not only individuals and groups but also nations must have access to the new technology in order to share in the promised benefits of globalization and not fall behind other nations.

In a statement delivered by Senator Burchell Whiteman from Jamaica he stressed that Jamaica realizes the importance of bridging the digital divide which he sees as promoting social and economic development for 80% of the countries that are still struggling with this gap and the impact that it has on them. In a statement given by Mr. Ignacio Gonzalez Planas, who is the minister of Informatics and Communications of the Republic of Cuba, he also talked about the concern of only a few countries enjoying these privileges. Mentioning that over half of the world population does not have telephone access, which was invented more than a century ago. With more than 50% of those using cell phones and internet servers are found in developed countries. In a statement by Vice Premier Huang Ju, the State Council of the People's Republic of China, he stated that the information society should be a people centered society in which all peoples and all countries share the benefit to the fullest in greater common development in the information society.

Second the digital dilemma, which the Holy See emphasized as a disadvantage to the information society, because of this one must approach it with concern and caution to avoid taking the wrong steps. Not only what is being considered as digital opportunities could result in digital dilemmas. It is a real and present danger with technology especially the internet. The Holy See strongly supports freedom of expression and the free exchange of ideas but provided that one respects the moral order and common good. One must approach it with sensitivity and respect for other people's values and beliefs and protect the distinctiveness of cultures and the underlying unity of the human family.

Whiteman from Jamaica agreed on the issue of facing digital dilemmas as well. He stated that information resources combined with technology resources are available to the world and they have the power to transform the world for good or ill. In a statement made by Mr. Stjepan Mesic, President of Croatia, it was stated that we are flooded with data and we think that we know and can find everything about everyone but we also must remember that we don't know what so easily accessible is like. He states that although the information society is a blessing one should not ignore the potentiality of it turning into a nightmare.

The Holy See's caution of the information society is being heard and echoed by other countries especially those that were present at the WSIS in Tunis. Echoing the statement made in Ethics in the Internet, "The internet can make an enormously valuable contribution to human life. It can foster prosperity and peace, intellectual and aesthetic growth, mutual understanding among peoples and nations on a global scale."

[edit] Common Ground to Change the World

Before the 1995 Beijing Conference on Women, Gertrude Mongella met with Pope John Paul II in order to discuss issues that would be presented at the conference. Following the meeting, she mentioned how impressed she was at the Holy Father's positive attitude and ability to focus on those desires they had in common in order to build something good together. If the two could come to an agreement on certain issues in such a highly contested area as women's rights, the Catholic Church and the United Nations must have great common ground in the area of information technology and the Internet.

In "The Church and the Internet," it states, "The Church has taken a fundamentally positive approach to the media" (1). Quoting "Communio et Progressio," it adds that the Church sees media as "gifts of God" (1). Obviously the United Nations recognizes the importance of the Internet considering the conference completely devoted to information technology.

Both the Church and the United Nations agree that all people must be trained in how to use the media. If information is to be effectively used to communicate, unify and build solidarity, then it must be useable by all people. Age, poverty and lack of education must be overcome in order to offer the opportunity of sharing in the global online community with all members of the earth. In "The Church and the Internet," it states, "Today everybody needs some form of continuing media education, whether by personal study or participation in an organized program or both. More than just teaching about techniques, media education helps people form standards of good taste and truthful moral judgment, an aspect of conscience formation. Through her schools and formation programs the Church should provide media education of this kind" (7).

In the Tunis Commitment, the United Nation's perspective is described in paragraph 9: "We reaffirm our resolution in the quest to ensure that everyone can benefit from the opportunities that ICTs can offer, by recalling that governments, as well as private sector, civil society and the United Nations and other international organisations (sic), should work together to: improve access to information and communication infrastructure and technologies as well as to information and knowledge; build capacity; increase confidence and security in the use of ICTS; create an enabling environment at all levels; develop and widen ICT applications; foster and respect cultural diversity; recognise (sic) the role of the media; address the ethical dimensions of the Information Society; and encourage international and regional cooperation."

Finally, the Church's goal in its use of the Internet is primarily evangelization. Pope John Paul II said in "Internet: A New Forum for Proclaiming the Gospel," "For the Church the new world of cyberspace is a summons to the great adventure of using its potential to proclaim the Gospel message" (2). In the Tunis Commitment, the United Nations lists several reasons for the use of the Internet, including for sustainable development, "strengthening economic, social and cultural development" (10), transformation of "people's activities, interaction and lives and thus, increas(ing) confidence in the future" (5), as well as other issues.

In sum, it is obvious that both the Church and the United Nations forsee great potential for good in the Internet. Although their motives and goals may not be exactly the same, they both see information technology as an opportunity for greater solidarity and a better condition in which men should live. It will be important for both to work toward these goods. Based on the enthusiasm expressed by both Pope John Paul II and Kofi Annan in their statements, it appears that action will be taken by both the Church and the United Nations in order to use the Internet for the good of man.

[edit] Study on civil society

APC, the Association for Progressive Communications, announced in February 2006 that it is undertaking a study of the participation of 'developing' countries and non-government actors -- including civil society -- in the recent World Summit on the Information Society and its associated fora, such as the Task Force on Financing Mechanisms and the Working Group on Internet Governance.

This follows on from the Louder Voices report, which was undertaken by Panos and the Communications Telecommunications Organisation (CTO) for the United Kingdom's DFID (Department for International Development) and the G8 DOT Force in 2002.

[Development organisations argue that international decisions about Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) have far-reaching implications for 'developing' countries. Yet, these countries are poorly represented when agendas are set and decisions made in international bodies. A report from a study on this theme, called Louder Voices, was published in June 2002. It has been described by some quarters as a "landmark study" and is now a major working document of the United Nations ICT Task Force.]

Panos Institutes, headquartered in the UK, encourages and facilitates public discourse and debate on a wide range of issues, "particularly those that have a direct impact on the least privileged and most marginalised sections of society. Panos works through the media to bring neglected subjects to the forefront of developmental and environmental discussions so that voices which are often not heard can find a forum."

The Louder Voices report looked at the 'developing' country participation in international ICT decision-making, particularly the International Telecommunications Union (ITU), World Trade Organization (WTO) and Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN).

It identified weaknesses in both international institutional arrangements and national policymaking processes.

The present study is being coordinated by Professor David Souter, of ict Development Associates ltd and University of Strathclyde. As part of this, Prof Souter has conducted interviews with leading participants in the WSIS process. Seven country case studies are being undertaken -- of Ethiopia, Kenya and Nigeria in Africa; Ecuador and Brazil in South America; and Bangladesh and India in Asia. Questionnaires and analysis of WSIS documentation etc. also form part of the research.

The country case studies are expected to be completed in mid-March 2006 and the report should be published by mid-April, Prof Souter.

[edit] External links

[edit] Official Sites & Organizations

[edit] WSIS News & Blogs

[edit] Articles & Reports

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/o/r/World_Summit_on_the_Information_Society_4ac4.html"