Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

["Christian Stalberg" <cpsr_rtp AT internet-lab.com>]

            The WSIS: whose freedom, whose information?
             Solana Larsen
            9 - 12 - 2003


            The UN's World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) in
Geneva is intended to create ways of bridging the global 'digital divide'.
But will its political tensions and complex agenda make it less of an
"internet-Kyoto" and more of an arid talk shop?






            You can't eat a computer. But having access to information and
communication technologies can mean life or death, when it comes to
delivering to people around the world necessities like clean water, medical
help, education and employment.

            Around a third of the world's population has still never made a
phone call. Less than one tenth have experienced the internet. This
disparity is often referred to as the 'digital divide'. It is not only one
of the most important indicators of development today, it has a dynamic link
to the persistence of inequalities.

            This week in Geneva the first phase of the UN World Summit of
the Information Society (WSIS) will gather more than 130 of the world's
governments - plus interested representatives of business and what are
called 'civil society groups' - to discuss how the world should administer
the spread of technology and the internet. The second phase will take place
in Tunisia in November 2005.

            Thorny issues like internet governance, security, intellectual
property, open source software, and not least, who should pay for new
infrastructure and technology in the developing world, are on the programme.

            It is a gargantuan agenda which WSIS will funnel into a
declaration of principles and an action plan for all participants to
undersign at the summit's conclusion. Sadly, it is already clear that both
will contain gaping holes. The summit is in real danger of becoming nothing
but a talk shop.

            Nonetheless, it is already clear that its divisions are
crystallising some of the significant new issues of start of the century, as
divisions between rich and poor governments, between the global north and
south, and between NGOs and state power, criss-cross traditional left-right
differences.

            Not so civil

            The preparatory meetings have gone less than smoothly. A
complete breakdown of negotiations has been close more than once. Countries
disagree radically on so many things that it is hard to come up with
language that can be agreed on by consensus. Nonetheless, for all the hot
air, the evasions, the clichés and the diplomatic subsidies, important
issues are in play and innovation is occurring.

            For the first time at a UN summit, non-governmental participants
have been invited to take part in drafting the documents. But some
governments - among them China, Egypt, Mexico, and Pakistan - refused to
negotiate in their presence.

            Civil society participants, who represent over 940 interest
organisations, universities, think-tanks, and religious groups, were locked
out of meetings on some of the most contentious issues. In frustration over
the failure of government to come to terms, they have formed a body and
created an alternative declaration.

            The only thing everyone can agree on is that there should be
more telephones and computers for everyone. In 2000, the UN's member states
promised to uphold a list of "Millennium Development Goals". One goal
demands there should be a computer with internet access for every 100 people
around the world by 2015.

            With little more than ten years to get online computers within
walking distance of even the poorest of the world's citizens, a meeting of
nations is not happening too soon.

            The issues that divide

            A clear plan is nowhere in sight. China won't hear any mention
of human rights and wants governments to have full control over the
internet. The United States and Europe have helped weaken proposals on open
source software in favour of proprietary software (like Microsoft's). And
many of the wealthiest countries would like all mention of financial support
for the developing world erased from the declaration of principles.

            The reality is that WSIS is not just about bringing computers to
the poor. It is also about making money from selling them equipment and
software; privatisation of national communications industries; investment
and infrastructure. And it is about seizing power over the internet as it
spreads. Many governments want to rein it in and have more direct control.

            There are five major issues that stand out at the summit and
remain irresolvable for the near future.

            Bridging the digital divide

            Who will pay for the development of infrastructure in Africa and
the rest of the developing world? The poorest nations are hoping the summit
might lead to commitments from the rich to cover some of the costs. The
president of Senegal, Abdoulaye Wade, is behind a proposal to create a
"digital solidarity fund" for the poorest countries. He suggests it would be
"painless" for $1 from the purchase of every computer, software package, or
network equipment to go to the fund. Other suggestions include taxing
international telephone calls or commercial use of the radio frequency
spectrum.

            The United States, European Union, Canada and Japan have all
declared themselves against the idea, and suggest Africa would be better
served by establishing an environment in which the private sector would
develop the needed infrastructure - for instance through deregulation. The
World Bank has also been dismissive of a fund, saying it would cost too much
money to manage it on a daily basis compared with the benefits.

            Open Source versus Microsoft

            One of the most inhibiting barriers to the spread of computers
in the developing world is the cost of software like Microsoft Windows,
which is not only expensive but needs to be updated regularly at a steep
price. Governments can save billions simply by switching to free and open
source software like Linux, which can be updated or modified gratis by
anyone, helped by a global community of programmers. India, Peru, Brazil and
South Africa are among nations who have already started switching over to
viable alternatives to Microsoft.

            In what many suspect is a response to the mounting business
threat from open source software, Bill Gates and Microsoft have been
donating billions of dollars worth of software and aid to the developing
countries where open source is most popular. Accusations abound that United
States and European Union delegates at WSIS are in the pockets of Microsoft
lobbyists. Certainly, in the centre of the negotiations, the draft for the
WSIS declaration of principles has gone from outright "support" of open
source software for the developing world to "promoting awareness" about
"different software models, and the means of their creation, including
proprietary, open source and free software".

            Intellectual property

            The issue of intellectual property has become explosive with the
advent of digital technology, which enables anyone to make a quick and
perfect copy of anything that can be stored on a computer. Since the
original Napster, free file-sharing software has accelerated, hurting the
profits of the music and film industry (and by extension the American
economy). The legal battle between rich copyright holders and regular
computer users in Europe and America has been fierce. But the loaded guns of
the entertainment business are also aimed at developing nations like China
where piracy is both rampant and a significant gain for the economy.

            Hollywood lobbyists are given a lot of credit for new, stringent
international legislation for the protection of copyright. The extension of
copyright periods, and closure of old loopholes like "fair use", impact on
what is allowed to enter the public domain. Developing nations may have less
free access to content from literature and science, to policy statements,
basic statistical data and social and political analysis - all in different
ways important tools of development.

            Freedom and security

            Fear of terrorism fuels the emphasis on "security" at WSIS.
Reliability and integrity of the internet is also required for growth of the
United States's priorities. "Network security" is at the top of their list.

            China and Russia are attempting to switch the emphasis onto
"information security" and "military security", causing alarm among critics
that the declaration of principles could be used by nations to legitimise
censorship and invasions of privacy through surveillance.

            Their alarm may be justified. In the draft declaration, a free
and independent media are currently only promised "in accordance with the
legal system of each country". This is a significant step back from Article
19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that guarantees "freedom to
hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart
information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers".

            Once again, China is stubbornly opposed to such basic rights.
But there are many others with dirty track records, such as Tunisia, the
2005 host of the WSIS. After nearly a year and a half, this country still
holds the editor of satirical website Tunezine, Zouhair Yahyaoui, in jail
for being critical of the country's president, Zine El Abidine Ben Ali.

            Internet governance

            Nobody owns the internet. But one of the most important
organisations involved in its management is the Internet Corporation for
Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). It decides who assigns names to the
number addresses on the net. It's a non-profit organisation with board
members around the world, but it is based in California and answers to the
US department of commerce. The European Union, the United States, and the
Mexican and Canadian governments are all happy with this arrangement.

            Developing countries like Brazil, South Africa, India and
Bangladesh feel that ICANN is too American and corporate-controlled, and
would prefer to see internet governance follow the guidance of the
International Telecommunications Union (ITU), which happens to be the
organiser of WSIS on behalf of the UN. China agrees, and is furthermore
furious with ICANN for allowing Taiwanese representation on their government
advisory board. Which form of internet management will be more democratic: a
complex government bureaucracy that could inhibit the growth of a medium
fuelled by speedy innovation - or a body that answers to US rules?

            If the negotiations at WSIS can be used as a gauge for what
government management of the internet might look like, we should be very
concerned.

            Old and new divides

            The fact that these five major issues are being discussed on a
global scale at the WSIS is great. Yet even as it starts, many observers
disdain the summit and dismiss its chances of success. The challenge of
creating an "internet-Kyoto" which could secure a more democratic, global
information society is in the balance.

            The quarrels between governments move along the axis of rich and
poor, north and south. These divisions predate digital technology. "Anyone
who has been paying attention to issues of the so-called digital divide will
tell you that it is simply a symptom of the injustices that already exist
between rich and poor countries," says Sasha Costanza-Chock from
Communication Rights in the Information Society (CRIS), a campaign to ensure
communication rights are central to WSIS.

            Negotiations between civil society groups have not been marred
by the same problems as those of governments. Instead, most of the groups
share a vision for development. But is this because they are genuinely
representative, or mainly self-selected?

            Who is right and who wrong?

            One of the interesting developments that seems to be emerging
from WSIS is the shared identity between its civil society participants. The
evolving reality called 'information society' is so encompassing that groups
as different as Rotary International and the Global Alliance for Women's
Health have found themselves on the same side of the picket line.

            In plenary sessions at preparatory meetings, the non-government
group organised a communications network, whose email lists and numerous
working groups have finished an alternative declaration of principles. This
seeks to promote freedom, justice and equality. "I'll bet you if you put the
two declarations next to each other, the civil society declaration will give
you a much better, more coherent and progressive picture of what governments
should be doing," says William Drake, a board director at Computer
Professionals for Social Responsibility.

            But will it be so clear-cut? No doubt governments need to set
their differences aside, get their priorities straight, and listen to the
unofficial groups from an emerging global civil society that is working to
bring information and communications technologies to the whole world,
developing as well as developed.

            But on the eve of the WSIS summit, the divisions are more
apparent than the unities and what is fascinating and acutely necessary to
understand, is that these divisions are cross-cutting and not simply
polarising.

            The two familiar oppositions in the discussion of information
society issues - that between governments and non-governmental, or 'civil
society', groups on the one hand, and that between the rich north and the
poor south on the other - intersect, but do not neatly overlap.

            It is often the governments of the global south, ostensibly
representing millions of the world's poor (like China) which most vigorously
seek to deny a proper voice to NGOs in discussion and decision-making,
whereas it is often the governments of rich countries (like the European
Union member states) which are ready to accommodate them. If campaigning
NGOs truly represent a broader, democratic constituency of interest and are
accountable for their views (propositions that need to be argued for and not
assumed as fact) then it cannot be said that their natural 'allies' in their
progressive project are the governments of predominantly poor countries.

            The lack of overlap between different sorts of division is also
reflected in the arguments over which body - ICANN or the ITU - should take
the lead in the future governance of the internet. The defence of ICANN may
appear to symbolise conformity to a US-defined authority over the internet.
But it could also preserve its space from governance from state diktat. The
apparently 'multilateral' and variegated system implied by granting
authority to the ITU (as advocated by many governments from the global
south) might prove to be an attempt by states to carve up power among
themselves in a way that limits the space of freedom granted to their own
citizens.

            In this mosaic of arguments at the WSIS summit, who is the
champion of freedom in the information society? The responsibility of those
who seek to expand open, democratic space and discussion about new
technologies is to argue the case in terms of practicality as well as
principle, utility as well as ideology, and citizens' rights as well as
ownership or control of institutions.





      Copyright ©Solana Larsen 2003. Published by openDemocracy Ltd. You may
download and print extracts from this article for your own personal and
non-commercial use only. If you are a library, university, teaching
institution, business or media organisation, you must acquire an Academic
License or Organisational License from openDemocracy, or seek permission
directly from the author, before making copies, circulating or reproducing
this article for teaching or commercial.

Attachment: clsd_3399cc.gif
Description: GIF image

Attachment: blank.gif
Description: GIF image

Attachment: 3399cc.gif
Description: GIF image