Inoltrato da: geert lovink > (interesting report of a recent WSIS preparation meeting. i took out some > of the formal stuff. if you want to read the entire report go to: > http://www.germany.fsfeurope.org/projects/wsis/debriefing-paris.html. > /geert) > > Debriefing on World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) > Intersessional Meeting, Paris, July 15-18 > by Georg C. F. Greve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > (representative for WSIS coordination circle of German civil societies in > German delegation & Free Software Foundation Europe, president) > > The main documents for the WSIS, namely the "Declaration of Principles" > and the "Plan of Action" had become very big, sometimes self-contradicting > and almost unreadable due to the many comments and contributions > incorporated. Therefore, the purpose of this intersessional meeting in > Paris was to go through the documents for the WSIS and get them into a > more concise, clear and workable shape; so they would provide a good basis > for further discussion at PrepCom-3 in Geneva, Switzerland from 15 to 26 > September 2003. > > With the WSIS being a UN conference, the countries were invited to send > delegations for the official negotiations, civil societies, business and > international organizations were admitted as mere observers. > > Of most interest for civil societies were the groups on Communication > Rights, Cybersecurity & Privacy and Internet Governance, all of which were > open at least to observers from civil societies, sometimes they were given > permission to speak. > > Also, Switzerland and the USA were asked to come up with a new draft of > the part about Free Software and open standards after the United States > had announced having problems with that particular part. > > There were several topics that dominated the discussions at the > intersessional meeting in Paris -- especially those for which ad-hoc > working groups were formed. > > a. Communication Rights > > Many governments outright refused to consider the effects of information > technology on human rights, a topic often addressed under headings of > "communication rights" or "informational self-determination" by civil > societies. > > After the viewpoint was brought up that this would mean defining new > human rights -- something the WSIS could not do as it was not a human > rights panel -- this view was quickly adopted and put forward by > governments from USA to China. > > So although (thanks to the intransparent drafting process) it is not > clear what exactly the draft Declaration of Principles currently says, > references to human rights and basics of society were apparently > significantly reduced. > > Both Brazil, which argued strongly for a more human rights based vision > in the document, and the EU, which was officially arguing along the lines > of the common position paper worked out before the intersessional meeting, > were unsuccessful at convincing the rest of the delegates. > > Within the EU, the positions seem to be varying quite a bit. Some > countries are more in line with China and the USA, others were suggesting > to take the first paragraph of the civil societies document instead, as > that seemed of much higher quality to them. > > b. Cybersecurity & Privacy > > After some discussions, the proposal of the EU was universally accepted. > > Only Russia made their acceptance dependent on the adoption of two > paragraphs against "cyberterrorism" and for "national sovereignty" -- a > position which they refused to negotiate. So after hours of discussion, it > was agreed to use the EU proposal plus the two Russian paragraphs in > square brackets. > > Also the USA were distributing documents about cybersecurity and > homeland defense, apparently in an attempt to gain support for a more > restrictive regime. > > c. Internet Governance > > There are again to major fractions in the internet governance area. One > group, most prominently China, seeks to establish a pure governmental > organization for internet governance. The other group, mainly the USA and > EU wish to see a reform of ICANN with a strengthened influence for > governments. > > The position of the business sector is to leave it entirely without > governmental influence, while civil societies would like to see > strengthened direct influence of the users in the governance of the > internet. > > d. Digital Solidarity Fund > > Another issue debated is the creation of a Digital Solidarity Fund that > would help developing countries getting up to speed for the information > society. > > Some countries -- especially the developing ones -- are very much in > favor of this fund, while others seem very reluctant. The German > government has for instance a clear position against such a new > instrument. Their reason is that there is already quite a number of > bilateral and multilateral activities in the "ICT and Development" area. > Also creation of such a new instrument wouldn't mean that it would have > sufficient funds. A position that seems to be supported by a significant > amount of other EU countries. > > e. Free Software & industrial control of information (IPR) > > Especially the USA demand to leave the issue of Free Software and related > issues about industrial control of information (IPRs) out of the > discussion. Their strategy is particularly one of marginalizing Free > Software as a pure development model by referring to it under the proposed > marketing term "Open Source" suggested in 1998. > > The position taken by supporters of that viewpoint is to leave these > issues entirely up to the WIPO and WTO, declaring the WSIS the wrong > platform for these discussions. > > f. "Classic" issues > > Although no country would openly ask for removal of statements towards > gender mainstreaming or empowering youth, these sometimes seem to > disappear from the documents (as it happened with the draft circulated on > day three). > > So it remains important to keep reminding the governments of these > issues that are sometimes still far from being understood and need to be > put forward with the adequate weight. > > Political impressions > > Regarding internet governance, a reformed ICANN seems like the most likely > outcome, since the USA are taking a strong position on this and no EU > country seems to be so much in disagreement to actually oppose them on > this matter. > > It seems that for the human rights issues, the situation is very complex, > but with the exception of single countries like Brazil, no country is > willing to risk going beyond what was known in 1948. > > So we are currently facing the risk that the only occurence of human > rights in the knowledge society will be references to the Universal > Declaration of Human Rights and the Millennium Declaration but no explicit > statement. > > With respect to the cybersecurity & privacy issue, it seems that the EU > proposal -- which is substantially not very far from what the civil > societies are proposing -- currently has found strong support. > > Russia is pressing hard for a more restrictive regime, though, and it does > not seem unlikely the USA will join forces with them. So given that the EU > is currently very careful about alienating the USA, this situation should > probably not be considered stable. > > Regarding the Digital Solidarity Fund, it seems unlikely that in the event > it will be created there will be resonable funds made available for it. > Also its creation seems unlikely given the amount of resistance > particularly among the wealthier nations. > > >From a civil societies viewpoint, it would seem more useful to > concentrate on the systematic approach. > > So focussing on making the system more just instead of pushing for a > (probably insignificant) fund -- that would then have to push money > against the slope created by a more inequal system -- seems like a sane > strategy. > > Closely related to issues of human rights, cybersecurity, industrial > control of information and privacy is the Free Software question. Free > Software as a paradigm provides each human being equal access to the > cultural technique that software has become. It empowers the individual > regardless of origin, belief or nationality and provides one seminal > pillar on which informational self-determination is based. > > >From an economic point of view, the Free Software paradigm allows > sustainable development and a system without the strong monopolizing > tendencies of the proprietary software system. Freedom of markets is one > of the freedoms that Free Software can help uphold. > > Unfortunately, the USA were quite successful in their attempt at > marginalizing Free Software as the "Open Source development model." > > They were in fact so successful that even some civil society members were > accepting that marginalization, equally using the "Open Source" > terminology to refer to Free Software. > > Particularly the question of industrial control of information -- usually > summarized under the acronym IPR, suitably expanded as "Intellectual > Poverty Rights" -- will become crucial for the information and knowledge > society. > > Governments around the world seem under immense pressure by the industry > to leave these issues to the WIPO and WTO, which are both strongly > influenced by the industry. Although the WSIS cannot ignore these > organizations, leaving the issue of industrial control of information out > of the WSIS would make it useless. > > Instead the WSIS would provide an excellent possibility to -- in dialog > and cooperation with WIPO and WTO -- reexamine some of the established > policies in the light of the information age, allowing to get rid of those > that prove unsuitable for this new era. > > Future options > > Germany was -- to the authors knowledge -- one of three countries taking a > civil society representative into their official governmental delegation > (the other two were Switzerland and Denmark). > > This was a visible sign of a general undercurrent which seemed to permeate > a lot of the WSIS intersessional meeting. A new understanding by the > governments that civil societies have substantial contributions to make to > the WSIS process. > > So it seems settled that the German government will hold more meetings > with the governmental, business and civil society sector involved to come > to a German position to the WSIS. > > Something similar might be possible on a European Union scale and was > raised during the intersessional meeting in Paris. Getting the European > civil societies together and finding political support for that kind of > interface would provide an excellent opportunity to help the WSIS do what > it set out to do. > > Personal remarks > > While from the civil society side it is sometimes easy to overestimate the > power of governmental delegates or get the impression everything was much > more transparent to them, governmental representatives sometimes seem > encouraged to feel civil societies don't understand the political process > or make unrealistic demands. > > For these reasons, participation inside the German governmental delegation > was an important step as it helped building trust, understanding and > confidence from both sides. > > Inside the German delegation, the governmental representatives were very > open, helpful and cooperative. They were always willing to answer > questions about the processes, the background and the issues. > > Also, once enough trust had grown to know that no unwarranted statements > would be made on behalf of Germany, they encouraged to raise some of the > issues with the other governmental delegates directly. This may not become > immediately visible, but it did allow at times to raise the right point at > the right time, which sometimes can make a big difference. > > Overall, the combined and coordinated approach with one representative > inside the governmental delegation and some people in the civil society > coordination process worked very well and is a model worth building upon > for the future. > > Regarding the WSIS > > >From the viewpoint of civil societies, we have to make sure that human > rights, privacy, industrial control of information and Free Software are > put into right perspective and not left out of the WSIS. > > The biggest lack that seemed to permeate the whole intersessional meeting > was lack of vision for the knowledge society and lack of courage trying to > create a truly visionary Declaration of Principles for it. > > So it seems that the governments of this planet are currently on the brink > of missing one very important and possibly groundbreaking opportunity. > > More information > Official WSIS website > http://www.wsis.org > > Web sites by civil societies about the WSIS > http://www.worldsummit2003.de > http://www.wsis-cs.org > http://www.prepcom.net
___________________________________________ http://rekombinant.org http://rekombinant.org/media-activism
