ECA Press Release No. 01/2005; Addis Ababa, 11 January 2004 (ECA) - Approximately 1,000 people from the private sector, civil society, media, government and international institutions will meet in Ghana, next month to discuss an “Action Plan on Africa and the Knowledge Economy” (APAKE), for expanding access to - and use of - information and communications technologies in Africa.

The theme of the African Regional Preparatory Conference for the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), is “Access - Africa’s key to an inclusive Information Society.” The meeting is scheduled for February 2-4 in the Ghanaian capital, Accra.

The three-day forum will be opened by the President of the Republic of Ghana, H.E. John.A. Kufuor and addressed by the Executive Secretary of the UN Economic Commission for Africa, K.Y. Amoako, among others.

According to a statement by President Kufuor, “the conference mirrors the continent’s resolve to totally embrace a common vision and strategy for an information-based society that not only recognizes ICT as a tool for economic innovation, but also as a platform for socio-economic development.”

The conference is intended to prepare African countries for the second stage of WSIS, to be held in Tunisia later in the year. The first phase of the Summit took place in Geneva in December 2003.

“We are aiming for very concrete results, based on critical questions, such as the need for a common GSM card for Africa and the removal of regulatory obstacles to facilitate content provision using different technological platforms and media, including the Internet, digital radio and television services.” said Aida Opoku-Mensah, Officer-in-charge of ECA’s Development Information Services Division (DISD), which is spearheading preparations.

The Action Plan for Africa and the Knowledge Economy will include concrete proposals for facilitating investment in ICTs and recommendations on e-strategies and applications across various sectors, such as education, agriculture and commerce, as well as human resource development.

Government ministers charged with advancing ICTs in Africa will use the forum to take stock of the achievements made since the establishment, in April 2004, of an African Ministerial Committee to act on proposals coming out of the WSIS in Geneva. The Committee has 13 member countries, with the African Union and ECA providing institutional and logistical support.

“We are expecting heated and in-depth discussions and proposals on the global partnerships Africa needs to finance access, particularly in light of the Digital Solidarity Fund proposed at the Geneva Summit by Senegalese President, Abdoulaye Wade and adopted by the AU Summit of Heads of States in July 2004,” said Makane Faye, ECA’s Senior ICT Policy Advisor.

The outcomes from Accra will constitute Africa’s contribution to various WSIS meetings scheduled for Geneva in February 2005, namely the Thematic Meeting on Indicators, the Working Group on Internet Governance and Prepcom2 and later, for Tunis 2005.

Online discussions are in full swing to solicit inputs from a wide range of stakeholders on issues to be addressed by the Conference.

For more information visit the Ghana-WSIS website at http://www.wsisaccra2005.gov.gh/ or contact:
Mercy Wambui
Communication Officer
Development Information Services Division,
UNECA
Tel: +251 1 445423
Email: mwambui@uneca.org


Issued by the ECA Communication Team
P.O. Box 3001
Addis Ababa Ethiopia
Tel: +251-1-44-58-26
Fax: +251-1-51-03-65
Email: ecainfo@uneca.org
Web: www.uneca.org

A Guideline for NGOs for active participation in the WSIS 2005 in Tunis

The diploma thesis available here studies the impact of civil society on
the World Summit on the Information Society. Based on an analysis of the
Youth Caucus’ work it describes which practical steps are necessary to
feed NGO interests into global summit processes.

Produced by: Thomas Biebl

more: http://www.worldsummit2003.de/download_en/Diplomarbeit-Thomas-Biebl.pdf

LETTER FROM THE WSIS PREPCOM: CHASING RED HERRINGS IN ACCRA

The African ICT Gravy Train passed through Accra in January last week with the hosting there of the WSIS Second Phase African Preparatory Meeting. An anonymous observor from the private sector wrote of this account of last week's chaotic proceedings.

Millions of dollars were spent and billions of air miles were clocked up as hundreds of ICT groupies descended on the decaying Accra International Conference Centre (built by the Yugoslavs in 1991) to confer on Africa’s digital future for over a week.

The organization was appalling, the air conditioning hardly worked, the food was terrible and over-priced, the programme was disjointed. But the Ghanaians kept smiling their charming smiles through it all - and we all made useful contacts with each other. No matter how much we may communicate via the Internet, there is nothing to replace personal contact – especially in Accra’s delightful night clubs. But that’s another story……

The conference itself was a waste of the brainpower gathered there.

There was utter chaos as we all tried to work out the timings and venues for the numerous multiple streams spread over two centres. The Ghanaians wanted to show off their spanking new Kofi Annan ICT Centre of Excellence funded by the Indians so some sessions were held there. At least the managers there hadn’t had time to run the air conditioning system into the ground yet, so we could cool down in those sessions. But there was no shuttle service between the two venues so you’d be soaking with perspiration by the time you walked back.

Delegates traded information as they searched for their selected sessions. “Selected” is a strong word because it implies consideration of alternatives, as in scanning a printed, visible programme. Very seldom was a complete programme for the day available in one document or even in one place at the beginning of the day.

And finding the programme for the following day to do some planning? Forget it! We were working on speculation and rumour. Hard facts, like in the conference itself, were very hard to come by.

And when we finally got to the selected sessions, they started late, speakers went off on tangents; new speakers were added just because they wanted to say their piece. The smaller sessions had no translation so much time was wasted as helpful participants did impromptu translations for the linguistically challenged. Nor did they have projectors, so we had to huddle round laptop screens. (Another opportunity to get to know fellow delegates better.)

I attended the stream on private sector input for WSIS most of Monday. We worked hard in a stuffy room with one fan and no translation. We wanted to show the others (gender, civil society, government etc) that we could keep up our end of the social contract we had all entered to find ways to make ICTs reduce poverty in Africa. We had presentations on incubators, building infrastructure, coping with corruption, accepting social responsibility, building capacity, etc. We appointed a working group to formulate a statement while the rest of us went on an extended afternoon tea break. We reassembled; the statement of truisms was read; the one Francophone delegate who had been heard speaking English during the tea break insisted on a full translation. Then he added his bits – in French. We were now all too tired to ask for a translation back into English. Whatever it was, it was passed unanimously.

Next morning a very strong rumour (about force 8 level) circulated that there was another private sector session over at the Kofi Annan Centre, where our conclusions were going to be presented to none other than Ghana’s Minister of Communications himself. Taxis were hailed and we mustered ourselves into the glorious coolness of the Kofi Annan freezer box. The Minister was not there. Some of the same presentations were given again with slight variation; our statement was read out. Would it be passed on somewhere up the WSIS chain of command?

But there was a surprise in store for us. There was a new speaker who had had not been with us foot-soldiers the previous day. He was the Privileged One who had been appointed by the UN Secretary-General to serve on the “WSIS Co-ordinating Committee of Business Interlocutors”. They had already been working on all these problems, no doubt on long trips and generous per diems, and he was able to give us a superb presentation, and even a print-out, on the priorities for the private sector. It made our pathetic attempt of the previous day pale into insignificance. There was a complete disconnect between what we had been fooling about with and what was going on in the upper echelons of WSIS.

We retired lamely for drinks and snacks, our statement soon forgotten as we planned the evening’s social programme.

Back at the main conference centre there was grumbling in the ranks over the controlling influence being exercised from on high. Statements had been appearing in session reports that bore no resemblance to the actual discussions.

Like our politicians, the conference organizers remained aloof, choosing to deal with problems behind closed doors. The lovely young girls behind the registration counter had to bear the brunt of the anger from those delegates who had to wait up to four days to secure name badges – which in the end were not much worth the trouble. Being just slightly larger than postage stamps, they were difficult to read except by getting close and intimate (good fun in some cases).

After five days of practicing these various routines and almost losing interest in the elusive programme, the big day came. The President was going to open the main conference. Traditional dancers ululated and pranced around the entrance, security police in dark glasses did their Men-in-Black impersonations, sirens wailed, outriders swept ahead of the motorcade, the police band struck up and launched into delightful colonial tunes.

It was obviously a very special day because we were actually handed a printed version of the day’s full programme as we walked in; there would be no hunting and begging for programmes today. Hallaluya! This was the real thing.

We were all galvanized into a frenzy of expectation and optimism. Perhaps there was some meaning to all this after all. We listened attentively, with due deference to the line-up of local and international policy-makers. But by lunch over ten politicians had stood up to mouth virtually all the same platitudes about how ICT was going to solve Africa’s problems of economic stagnation and poverty. We were all pretty much back into our regular state of catatonic despondency.

But the organizers had an ace up their sleeves. There was a VIP lunch for the lucky selected hundred or so to attend, with an invitation from the President himself. The invitations were randomly distributed and a black market threatened to emerge as participants tried to secure their places at the high table of privilege.

But the catch was that the lunch was at a hotel on the other side of town. Why do it close by when you can create more logistical mayhem across the entire city? The traffic was terrible; we all got there late – so did the Vice-President who ended up representing the President who, luckily for him, had matters of state to attend to.

Protocol had to be observed, the sponsor had to make a welcome speech and announce that, amazingly, today of all days, they had reached one million subscribers, and we started eating at 2.30. The vital afternoon plenary session starting at 3pm across on the other side of town was soon forgotten as top South African wines and any other alcohol you wanted flowed freely. We needed it. We were all sweltering in the outdoor heat and humidity. The rapper rapped his odd mixture of sponsor commercials and ICT-cure-all messages. This was not a working lunch. We soon lost any sense of urgency that we may have salvaged from the morning.

Back at the Plenary Session the audience was down to a few dozen die-hards, but eventually the VIPs started drifting back, no doubt fully refreshed and ready to tackle Africa’s ICT challenges. Infrastructure, policy, regulation, youth, gender, solidarity funds, Internet governance……. the words were tripping off the tongue even more easily now.

But let me get back to those red herrings before I descend into too much cynicism.

Red Herring No 1: Internet Governance

A huge amount of energy has been wasted on this issue. ICANN is suspect for some activist countries like South Africa because of its origin and base in the US and the fact that its contracts are still governed by US law. The lines have been drawn; the publicity budgets committed; the lobbying goes on and on; and it adds huge amounts of grist to the WSIS mill.

But we don’t have time to waste on this. ICANN may well be as imperfect as the air conditioning system in the Accra International Conference Centre. In which case, let’s fix it. It has the technical experience. Its dedicated staff has a strong commitment to the fair management of the Internet. To take the control of upper level domains from them and hand it to some amorphous international bureaucracy - and get politicians involved - would be just about as foolhardy as organizing a boozy lunch on the other side of town when we need to focus on key policy issues.

Red Herring No 2: The Digital Solidarity Fund

President Wade of Senegal has proposed this to bridge the digital divide and now all his presidential brothers across Africa must support him in promoting it through WSIS. There is much pride at stake and more battle lines have been drawn. Strong words were exchanged on this in the Financing Session.

We were told the Fund had already been launched and was going to be headquartered in Geneva where donors could be assured of financial transparency (I thought that the raison d’etre of Swiss banking was its lack of transparency.) A house had already been given by the Swiss to accommodate the Fund. Top dogs had already been appointed. It was not clear by whom.

But the donors would have none of it. They wanted practical projects to fund – not yet another bureaucracy, no doubt on UN-type packages with nice expenses.

Fortunately, none of the major donor countries, apart from France, which is keeping its options open, are going to succumb to the Digital Solidarity Fund (aka Digital Gravy Train). Substantial funds already exist that cannot find worthy projects. Donors have made it clear they are willing to allocate millions more to ICT projects in Africa. But not through a fat-cat fund in Geneva, thank you very much.

Do you remember when African leaders cheered and applauded Robert Mugabe at the World Summit in Johannesburg in 2002? They closed ranks behind him when Tony Blair openly criticized him for his multiple transgressions against human decency.

Exactly the same syndrome is now going to bog down the WSIS process. African pride is at stake and when that happens there will be little room for compromise, rational strategizing, and effective planning to capitalize on the huge goodwill that does exist among donor countries to support ICT for development in Africa.

WSIS Tunis in November is no doubt going to be better organized; attendance will be huge; more millions will be spent. But very little will be achieved if we don’t let go of these two red herrings.

Africa! ...give rural women a voice

02/03/2005 (HANA) -- The African regional preparatory conference for the World Summit on Information Society (WSIS) has called on people to give more consideration and a voice to the rural women of Africa.

African women continue to face uphill battles to get their voices and concerns heard in development matters, the workshop on ICTs and poverty reduction revealed when Salamatu Garba, national coordinator for the Women Farmers Advanced Network (WOFAN) presented a case study of women farmers of Kano in Nigeria.

Her presentation showcased Africa as one of the most important, yet challenging areas for those who aim to achieve gender equality while using information technology as a tool in poverty reduction.

As formal or legislated discrimination against women falls away, the key challenge confronting Africa is how to change mindsets hardened by centuries of socialisation and cemented by custom, culture and religion.

Garba’s presentation on grass roots economic empowerment and ICTs showed that priorities and the potential of women seem grossly undermined and limited in new media, whereas traditional media, such as radio, appear to have improved the status of women in Kano who were previously forced into stereotypical female roles.

Garba said WOFAN operates in rural areas of Kano state in northern Nigeria where girls are often married at 10 or 12 and are, in many cases poor, pregnant and powerless. She said WOFAN has developed the rights of women and children in Islam.

She explained that WOFAN discovered that as most women were illiterate, they were dependent on men to interpret what the Koran had to say about reproductive rights.

Women have since studied and learnt to interpret the Koran for themselves. They now use radio programmes to teach other women about their rights and about how they have been denied access to health, livelihoods, empowerment and functional literacy.

CIPESA LAUNCHES COMMENTARY AND DISCUSSION SERIES ON INTERNATIONAL ICT
POLICY FOR EAST AND SOUTHERN AFRICA

The Collaboration on International ICT Policy in East and Southern
Africa (CIPESA) is launching a commentary and discussion series to spark
thinking and dialogue on important issues in the field.

These short informative pieces will give an overview of an international
ICT policy issue relevant to African stakeholders, and stir discussion
by presenting strong views and provocative questions. Readers will be
encouraged to respond to the points raised, via email or in the
"comments" box under each commentary on the CIPESA website
(www.cipesa.org). Special guest contributors will also be invited to
share views in their area of expertise.

Watch out for upcoming commentaries on institutions and issues including
WSIS, ICANN, WIPO, WTO, intellectual property rights, ICT indicators,
spam, cybercrime, and e-waste. Here are a few of the questions to be
posed in the coming weeks:

* Who are Africa's ICT stakeholders and why should they care about
international policy?

* The World Summit on Information Society: who should represent Africa
and is it worth going?

* ITU or ICANN: Who should represent Africa's interests in Internet
governance?

* Is open knowledge sharing good or bad for Africa?

* Will environmental regulations in Europe lead to dumped computers in
Africa?

* International ICT indicators and the Millennium Development Goals in
Africa: e-ready for what?

With wide readership and media exposure, this is the place to speak your
mind, share ideas and promote change! Please email cipesa@bridges.org
if you are interested in collaborating with us on a commentary.

---------------------------------------------------------------
Contacts:

Joy Olivier
+27 21 465 9313
joy@bridges.org

Anthony Mugeere
+256 77 506015
anthony@bridges.org

CIPESA is a programme of bridges.org. It is dedicated to increasing the
capacity of East and Southern African stakeholders to participate in
international ICT policy-making. It is one of two programmes established
under the Catalysing Access to Information and Communications
Technologies in Africa (CATIA) initiative, funded by the UK Department
for International Development. Its sister programme, CIPACO (serving
West and Central Africa) has been launched by Panos West Africa. Working
together, the programmes will stimulate discussion, undertake research
and policy analysis, and disseminate findings concerning international
ICT issues. The aim is to enable African interests to be more
effectively represented in international policy fora, and international
policy decisions to be more effectively translated into positive
outcomes in Africa. For more information see www.cipesa.org and
www.cipaco.org.

Bridges.org is an international non-profit organisation based in South
Africa with a mission to promote the effective use of ICT in developing
countries to improve people's lives. One area of focus is informing
policy decisions that affect people's access to and use of ICT.
Bridges.org also conducts technology research and provides social
consulting services to ground level projects using ICT, helping with
project planning and evaluation and relaying lessons learned. It brings
an entrepreneurial attitude to its social mission, and is committed to
working with, instead of against, government agencies and the business
community. For more information please see www.bridges.org.

CIPESA and bridges.org:
South Africa: P.O.Box 715, Cape Town 8000 South Africa
Uganda: Makerere University, Department of Sociology,P.O.Box 7062, Kampala

Vision lost or Back to Reality?

PrepCom2 ends with long "to do" list

25 February 2005. The WSIS PrepCom ended this evening after some wrestling over the work between now and PrepCom3 in September. Civil Society groups at their last meeting discussed the state of the whole process and agreed that the vision has been lost somewhere, but that the road to actually changing reality is also very long.
Many activists and lobbyists have been working on input to the official process for the last two weeks, online and in Geneva. Their presence is certainly normal by now, and many governments actually asked to be lobbied, because they themselves do not have clear ideas on some issues like internet governance. Tonight, at the final meeting of civil society’s “Content and Themes” group, they tried to step back a bit and assess the overall WSIS process and its current status.

Political Chapeau: An unwanted document with bad content

The “Political Chapeau” in its current version got heavy critique from a number of groups. A new version was presented today, with all comments by governments and other stakeholders. Online comments can be sent to the ITU in the coming weeks. Nobody is really happy with this document. The consensus at the beginning of the WSIS process was to not have two declarations of principles, as the Geneva and Tunis phase are officially considered the same summit. But the fundamental question why another political statement is needed at all after the Geneva Declaration was never really answered. Now, governments and other stakeholders have started to add many issues and proposals, and they certainly are falling back behind the Geneva Declaration. Remember: Even that one was not accepted by Civil Society that instead produced its own declaration. But nobody really knows a way out of this.

Internet summit or information society summit?

The dominant issues during this last two weeks are surely finance and internet governance. Both incorporate the danger that the WSIS 2005 becomes a pure internet summit. The agreement on the Digital Solidarity Fund (DSF) will probably stay an empty gesture, though the delegation of Ghana this evening announced the official DSF inauguration on 14 March in Geneva. The finance debate mainly centres on the question of who pays for internet and backbone roll-out. So it touches the funding side of internet and ICT infrastructure.

The internet governance discussions naturally focus on the internet. The Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) has not finished its report, which will be delivered on 18 July. The good news on this front is that the WGIG’s work is actually taking the Geneva Declaration with its human rights language etc. as the point of departure. This is not usual. But still, by focusing on this, the WSIS 2005 will be an Internet summit.

The summit in Tunis could therefore as well be a meeting of finance and information technology ministers who discuss the development, management and funding of the internet on a global level. What civil society constantly reminded the governments of in the first phase was the fact that the information society is much broader, and that one has to think in more inclusive and encompassing ways to come up with a true vision for the information society. This is not reflected in the process anymore.

Implementation: Back to Reality?

The Swiss government as the hosts of WSIS I, we could hear, is also very concerned about this developments. They have the feeling that the documents in their current shape even go in a different direction than the Geneva declaration. These kinds of inconsistencies between the Geneva and Tunis summit outcomes would of course be very bad.

Besides internet governance and finance, there always was a third theme to the second phase of the summit: Implementation and follow-up. The Swiss have today suggested drafting another document to show the real implementation of the Geneva decisions, based on the ITU’s stocktaking database. It would be a rolling document and all stakeholders are invited to give contributions. This process would bring the summit more towards reality and implementation and would neatly fit the official title “a summit of solutions”, but it also would be pretty un-political. It also does not include any benchmarking or binding agreements on priorities and next steps for all governments.

The interesting question is also much trickier: How will the follow-up after Tunis be organized and structured? The ITU is clearly interested in putting itself at the centre of gravity, but does not have the resources and expertise to pull together all actors needed in all fields of the information society. The big question is: Will there be time for a true and meaningful discussion on this? As there will probably be no intersessional meeting, the time during PrepCom3 in September will be eaten by negotiations on internet governance and the remaining parts of the finance chapter. There is a clear danger that the follow-up mechanism will have the same fate as the Geneva Plan of Action, which was never really discussed. As Sally Burch, former “Content & Themes” coordinator of civil society stated today, that was where the vision was already lost. But still, the summit organizers will try to sell the WSIS in Tunis as a “summit of successes” – as if there had been any meaningful implementation mechanism in place since December 2003.

Civil Society discussing alternatives

As the current drafts of the political chapeau and the operational part are so bad, civil society groups are now discussing the options at their hands. This discussion is just starting, but around the end of PrepCom3 it will certainly become very lively. The alternatives are multiple: Do groups want to work on a new alternative declaration? Would this be needed at all? Would it not be better to support and revitalize the alternative civil society declaration from Geneva? Many groups are discussing if they still want to stay involved in the development of the official documents or if this is just a waste of time and energy. Some prefer to focus on alternative summit events or even a counter-summit. Many also do not want to participate in the official summit events, because they do not want to lend any legitimacy to the undemocratic regime of Tunisia’s president Ben Ali.

Other groups will certainly stay inside the process. It has already led to its own little NGO bureaucracy that is not focused on content, with a bureau, charters, and criteria for the formation of new groups, rules for meetings, and a specialized working group on working methods. This was necessary mainly because of the high number of Tunisian “governmental NGOs” (GONGOs) that messed up the whole process at PrepCom1. But it does not only take a lot of energy. More important, it disconnects the groups inside from the groups out there in the real world and especially in the broader social movements. There will of course never be a common position on where to focus one’s work, and the diversity is one of the strengths of civil society. But a better discussion on the overall strategy, on the distribution of roles, and sometimes on carefully crafted “good cop – bad cop” role playing is needed. A few groups have done this with significant success this time, especially the financing lobbyists and the Tunisia human rights monitors. Similar strategic discussions are missing in the overall civil society structures in the WSIS at the moment. Let’s see if they re-emerge at PrepCom3.

WSIS update: Internet Governance Caucus statement

GENEVA, Switzerland -- Statement on behalf of the Internet Governance Caucus:

1. The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus would like to express its support for the Working Group on Internet Governance's multi stakeholder approach. We believe that legitimate and successful Internet Governance can only be achieved if all concerned or affected groups have an opportunity to influence the outcome of governance processes. We want to stress that there is a fundamental difference between multilateral and multi stakeholder processes.

It should be remembered at all times that the WSIS declaration of principles states that Internet governance decision making should be pursued on a multi-stakeholder basis reflecting the full participation or civil society. The governments that agreed to this new international norm should now take positive steps to ensure its full implementation.

As a first step, conformity with this norm should be carefully assessed with respect to existing arrangements at intergovernmental level, like the ITU, OECD and WIPO, private sector arrangements like ICANN, and to any new emerging mechanisms.

2. The Internet Governance caucus proposes that the WGIG places greater emphasis on basic principles such as human rights, freedom of expression, openness and innovation. The caucus believes that two outcomes of the WGIG that will add significant value are:

- an understanding of how governance mechanisms can further these basic principles, and,
- an elaboration of the concept of democratic internet governance in the context of the interplay between local and global decision-making.

3. We would like to point out that the extent of participation from the developing parts of the world in the various Internet governance mechanisms is still far from sufficient. This is especially true for civil society actors. We would like to suggest that the WGIG make appropriate recommendation to ensure the effective participation of ALL stakeholder groups from developing countries.

4. We think it is important for WGIG members to recognize the diversity of processes and mechanisms involved in Internet governance, including:

- decisions by individual users
- private agreements
- national policies, and,
- international and transnational bodies.

These correspond to a diversity of perspectives on what issue areas are important in Internet governance. The caucus would recommend that all relevant issues of importance to stakeholder groups should be addressed by the working group. Unresolved controversies should be documented in papers and statements and not used as a basis to omit particular issues.

Source: APCNews
Contact: communications@apc.org

WSIS UPDATE: World Summit on the Information Society - PrepCom 2 --

The World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) is a United Nations
conference, led by the International Telecommunication Union (ITU). Its
objective is to develop a global framework to deal with challenges posed by
the development of new information and communication technologies (ICTs).
The WSIS is a two phase process: the first one took place in Geneva in
December 2003, and the second will take place in Tunisia in November 2005.
The WSIS is unique in UN processes because it is a 'multi-stakeholder
process' - including the voices of governments, the private sector and civil
society in the deliberations.

During the first phase of the summit in Geneva, governments were unable to
find agree on the language included in the official declarations on two
issues - internet governance (who controls) - and financing mechanisms (who
pays), including the creation of a Digital Solidarity Fund for Africa. A
resolution was found only by requesting the UN Secretary General to form two
working groups mandated to discuss various options and bring recommendations
back to stakeholders for further deliberation during Phase II, with the hope
that governments would sign off on agreed language during the Tunis Summit..

From 17 to 25 February 2005, the WSIS second preparatory meeting for the
second phase, known as PrepCom 2, took place in Geneva. The February meeting
focused on three issues: financing mechanisms, internet governance and the
Political Chapeau and operational part (in short, a reaffirmation of the
Geneva Declaration and a plan of implementation of the Geneva Action Plan).

APC has selected some of the key documents and resources on the discussions
around the WSIS process so far. Several APC representatives were in Geneva
for Prepcom 2 and in the next APCNews, we'll be featuring reports and
interviews from that crucial midway meeting in the run-up to Tunis.

APC and other civil society-produced news related to WSIS is collected
online: http://www.apc.org/english/wsis/

UPDATE: World Summit on the Information Society: A very long road

An overview of the WSIS process from 2003 until February's PrepCom 2 from
the APC, summarising the issues at stake. -- APCNews
http://www.apc.org/english/news/index.shtml?x=31093

SURVEY: APC research on developing country participation in WSIS

APC is undertaking a major study on developing country participation in the
second phase of the WSIS. This study builds on the analysis of developing
country involvement in information and communication technologies (ICT)
decision making in the 'Louder Voices' report, published in 2002, and on a
review of African participation in the first phase of WSIS which APC
undertook last year. The survey is taking place in English, Spanish, French
and Portuguese. - APCNews
http://www.apc.org/english/news/index.shtml?x=30749

INTERNET GOVERNANCE--

The term "internet governance", while undefined, rather vague and partly
confusing, stands mainly for the global technical management of the core
resources of the internet: domain names, website addresses, internet
protocols and the server system that keeps the internet running around the
world. The big question at WSIS is who and how should these key resources
for humanity be managed.

The first phase of WSIS agreed to pursue the dialogue on internet governance
in the Declaration of Principles and Action Plan adopted on 12 December
2003, with a view to preparing the ground for a decision at the second phase
of the WSIS in Tunis in November 2005. In this regard, the first phase of
the Summit requested the United Nations Secretary-General to establish a
Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG). The WGIG has been asked to
present the result of its work in a report "for consideration and
appropriate action for the second phase of the WSIS in Tunis 2005."

RESOURCES: Working papers of the Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG)

The issue papers are the first of a series of 'draft working papers'
prepared by WGIG members, reflecting the preliminary findings of various
drafting teams. They have been prepared according to a list of issues, which
was developed at the first meeting of WGIG in November 2004. The purpose of
the drafts is to provide a basis for the ongoing work of the group. They are
therefore not to be seen as chapters of the final WGIG report, but rather as
raw material that will be used when drafting the report. The draft working
papers have been published here for public comment, so they will evolve,
taking into account input from governments and stakeholders. Additional
draft working papers will be made available in this section. -- Working
Group on Internet Governance
http://wgig.org/working-papers.html

REPORT: An opinion report on the UN working group leading the debate

Carlos Afonso, former chair of APC and member of the UN body charged with
coming up with a definition of what 'internet governance' should
encompass -amongst other tasks- wrote an opinionative report on the first
meeting of the UN Working Group on Internet Governance, held in November
2004 in Geneva. The report was published for the first time in English this
February though it is from December. - APCNews
http://www.apc.org/english/news/index.shtml?x=30629

STATEMENT: Internet Governance Caucus statement

The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus presented this statement during
PrepCom 2 of the WSIS in Geneva. The Caucus expresses its support for the
Working Group on Internet Governance's multi stakeholder approach. "We
believe that legitimate and successful Internet Governance can only be
achieved if all concerned or affected groups have an opportunity to
influence the outcome of governance processes." - Internet Governance Caucus
http://www.apc.org/english/news/index.shtml?x=30818

REPORT: Beyond ICANN vs. ITU?: How WSIS tries to enter the new territory of
internet governance

Internet governance has become one of the most controversial issues in the
WSIS process. While the subject was a marginal one at the WSIS start
(PrepCom1, Geneva, June 2002), it has moved step by step from the periphery
of the debate into its centre. By Wolfgang Kleinwächter. - UN ICT Task Force
http://www.unicttaskforce.org/perl/documents.pl?do=download;id=422

PRESENTATION: Internet governance - Issues and concerns for civil society

A presentation made by Alan Alegre, of the Foundation for Media Alternatives
(FMA), APC member in the Philippines, at the South Asia Regional
Consultation on WSIS in January 2005.
http://itforchange.net/WSIS/dhaka/dhaka-internetgov-alegre.pdf

REPORT: Who rules the internet? Understanding ICANN

Who looks after the billions of web addresses that make up the internet? Why
are web addresses only in English? Should countries manage their own country
code names? At the moment it seems that the internet is free, democratic and
unstoppable. But a closer look reveals controversies... These critical
issues will be debated in November 2005 at the World Summit on the
Information Society. Journalists are all too aware of the importance of
being able to freely access and exchange information. That's why the media
has a responsibility to analyse and report on the politics of the
internet. - Panos London
http://www.panos.org.uk/files/wsistoolkit1.pdf

FINANCING THE INFORMATION SOCIETY IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES (FINANCIAL
MECHANISMS)--

The Plan of Action adopted at the WSIS in Geneva 2003 requested the
Secretary General of the United Nations to create a Task Force to study the
issue of financial mechanisms for information and communication technologies
for development (ICTD) and present a report to facilitate discussions in the
second phase of WSIS. One of the key issues debated was the relative weight
of private and public sector finance in financing ICT for development. How
the new balance between public and private and the inclusion of
community-driven roles and financing translates into practice will be of
critical importance to the future of the information society and the role
of ICTs in supporting the achievement of national development goals and the
MDGs.

REPORT: APC involvement in the Task Force on Financial Mechanisms

"There was a view in the Task Force that perhaps the underlying reason that
existing financial mechanisms were not being fully exploited by developing
countries had to do with fundamental information asymmetries regarding how
these financial mechanisms worked as well as a lack of coordination in the
utilisation of the financial mechanisms for ICTD", says Willie Currie, APC
policy programme manager, who attended two Task Force meetings. "What is
required is a new mechanism that can provide developing countries with
disinterested policy advice and unbiased information about how financial
mechanisms work." -- APC
http://www.apc.org/english/news/index.shtml?x=30736

STATEMENT: APC and partners demand public investment in global networks

In a powerful statement which criticised the UNDP-convened task force on
financing the global information society as inadequate, APC Bread for All,
the CRIS Campaign, APC member in Uruguay Instituto del Tercer Mundo (ITeM),
IT for Change, and the Gender Caucus called for the "extension of network
infrastructure to all excluded women and men everywhere" and outlined
recommendations for moving forward. Read the statement:
http://www.apc.org/english/news/index.shtml?x=30761

RESOURCES: Papers for WSIS second phase

The international community has expressed, in several fora, its worries
concerning the effects of access and knowledge gaps in Southern countries
and the need to find additional financial mechanisms, with a solidarity
criteria, that would allow more citizens to benefit from ICTs. The central
aim of this documents, prepared by APC member Instituto del Tercer Mundo
(ITeM), is to present financial strategies for promoting information
societies within a "Global Public Goods" conceptual framework. - ITeM
http://wsispapers.choike.org/documentos/41.html (in English, Spanish and
French)

DEBATE: Financing the information society in the South

APC member Instituto del Tercer Mundo (ITeM) and Third World Network (TWN)
organised a debate on the mechanisms to finance information and
communication technologies for development which took place on February 21
within the context of the second meeting of the PrepCom-2 of the WSIS Tunis
phase.- Choike
http://www.choike.org/nuevo_eng/informes/2697.html

PAPER: Financing the Information Society in the South - A global public
goods perspective

This paper from 2004 -prepared for APC by Pablo Accuosto and Niki Johnson of
the Instituto del Tercer Mundo- sets out to look at the question of
financing the provision of ICT in the South, within the context of the
United Nations' World Summit on the Information Society, and advocates
adopting a "global public goods" perspective on the issue. - APC
http://rights.apc.org/documents/financing.pdf

REPORT: Who pays for the Information Society? Challenges and issues on
financing the Information Society

This booklet is in two parts. The first part is a critique of the debates
and work on financing so far conducted by the WSIS. The second part focuses
more on proposals and aims to give a certain number of inputs to the WSIS
debate, especially on the issue of international public financing or
official development aid. Bread for All, together with APC and other
organisations, presented a powerful statement before the UN demanding public
investment in global networks (see above). - Bread for All
http://www.ppp.ch/cms/IMG/Financing_IS.pdf

REGIONAL AND THEMATIC WSIS MEETINGS--

ACCRA: Second WSIS Africa Regional Preparatory Conference

The Second WSIS Africa Regional Preparatory Conference, whose theme was
"Access - Africa's key to an inclusive Information Society", took place from
28 January to 4 February in Accra, Ghana. The outputs from Accra constitute
Africa's contributions to the WSIS meetings scheduled in Geneva during
PrepCom 2. The results of the Accra meeting also formed the basis for
Africa's negotiations towards WSIS Phase II in Tunis. Participating in the
conference were representatives of African governments, delegates from many
other countries and international organisations, and people representing
African private sector and civil society, including members of the APC
team. -- APCNews
http://www.apc.org/english/news/index.shtml?x=31070

WSIS Gender Caucus: Summary of recommendations to the Accra Conference

The WSIS Gender Caucus places great importance in aligning the WSIS
preparatory process and outcomes with achievements of the Millennium
Development Goals and urges governments and the international community to
acknowledge and treat the integration of gender equality and women's rights
in the information society and ICTs as a fundamental issue. Read the
recommendations:
http://www.choike.org/documentos/recomm_accra.pdf

DHAKA: South Asian Regional Consultation on the WSIS

APC member Bytes for All had an active participation to tThe WSIS
Consultation in Dhaka that was jointly organised by APC, One World South
Asia and Bangladesh Friendship Education Society (BFES) from 5 to 7 January,
2005. The consultation It focused on three major topics: internet
governance, financial issues to ICT for development projects and ICT policy
in South Asia. Resolution of Dhaka WSIS Consultation and the decisions
adopted at ICT policy consultation meeting:
http://www.bytesforall.net/index_html/dhaka_consultation

WSIS and Africa: Running with the Horses or Sleeping with the Dogs

If only this was a tale of thrills and great adventure in the land
formerly known as the Gold Coast. Re-living the pleasures of gold
explorers of the past centuries, or the horrors of Africans in the prime
of their lives dragged in slavery. But alas, this is not the case; the
streets are not paved with gold, but lined with countless hawkers,
selling everything from foodstuffs to fake manufactured goods. A
Ghanaian colleague laments "They are selling dog collars, when we don't
have dogs in Ghana". A hyperbole, but the point is clear. And yet, at
least for some, there is indeed a pot of gold somewhere, if the number
of Benzes, BMWs, Jaguars, Range Rovers and the like, whizzing past the
hawkers, are anything to go by.

I was in Accra to attend the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS)
African Region preparatory committee conference for the second phase of
the WSIS due to be held in Tunis, Tunisia in November 2005. Such
conferences are
always nice to attend, a chance to exercise your intellectual muscle in
the company of the leading minds in the information Society in Africa
and globally, while working for the good of mankind. The A-list of ICT
in Africa was present, and even if you would consider yourself lucky to
be on the F-list in the social and/or economic circles in your home
country, this was your opportunity to be a "somebody". You can go home
and hold you head high and say I contributed to making decisions that
will affect the whole world.

But did we make decisions that improve the lives of ordinary people; my
thoughts are drawn back to the hawkers, risking their lives dodging
traffic in
the scorching heat just to earn a few Cedes (the local currency) for
that night's meal. I'm filled with compassion for them, especially when
one young lady approaches our car as we stop at a traffic light.
Unfortunately for her, we are not buying anything, but we have time to
speak to her as a fellow human being. It is heartbreaking to find out
that she recently finished high school, but was unable to go on to
tertiary level education. No one will even consider her for a "decent"
job with only a high school certificate, but she has used her canning,
self motivation and hard work to make a living, and isn't this what the
potential employers that turned her away were looking for.

As I enter the Accra International Conference Centre for another day of
meetings, the question for me is; how can ICT be used to intervene
positively in her life as well as keep the millions of young girls and
boys in school from ending up with a career in "car-dodging". What are
we doing about it? I sit in a few meetings to find out. On occasion I
venture to make a contribution, but pressed for time, the meeting
chairperson can only give the floor to so many as time will allow, and
by default A-list members get first take. I make a mental note to speak
to one of my friends among the conference organisers about the time
provided for contributions from the house, and I'm even more encouraged
about the organisation of future events, when the chair of one of the
sessions (a cabinet minister from South Africa) notes that the
organisers should have had a smaller panel, with more time for
contributions from the house. But I digress.

What are we doing to improve the lives of ordinary people like the
hawker, Miss Ghana, (I unfortunately, didn't get her name)? I'd imagine
the youth and
gender caucuses would be here specifically to address this young lady's
issues,
so what were their recommendations? From the youth caucus; maximize the
use of ICTs in the creation of employment and 'wealth' opportunities for
youth and governments should commit resources and political will towards
the translation of past recommendations into visible and sustainable
action. The gender caucus suggestions ensure political commitment and
implementation of gender equality and address women's economic
empowerment issues in order for them to effectively participate and
benefit from ICTs. They and other caucuses and groups also make mention
of the Millennium Development Goals or MDGs and WSIS targets on poverty
reduction, health services, access to information, governance etc.

All this is nice and dandy, but what does it really mean. It is my
personal (un-researched) opinion that most of Africa will not meet these
targets. What with armed conflict in more countries on the continent
than I would like to count, including my own - Uganda, constitutional
violations, corruption etc, who are we fooling, but ourselves. I brought
this up with a delegate at the conference, and to say I was disappointed
with the response I got, is putting it diplomatically. The image of Miss
Ghana, sweat running down her beautiful face in free-flow mode, and the
millions of poor taxpayers whose money paid for delegates to attend the
conference to make wise choices for them, flashed across my mind. What
will I tell her the next time I stop at "her" traffic light.

It's great that we have global targets to guide our activities, but if
we know that we won't meet those targets, we should have a contigency
plan in place already. For instance, if we cannot meet all the MDGs
targets by 2015, what plans do we have to meet any missed targets by a
later date, say 2020, or are we waiting for the rest of the world to
meet the 2015 targets, set new targets for 2030, then we shift focus to
those targets irrespective of whether or not we met the 2015 targets.
Among my learned friends in the ICT sector, there is sweet phrase
"leapfrog". New information and communication technologies will help us
leapfrog this, that and the other. But are we forgetting that there is a
process to everything, one must crawl before you can walk, walk before
you can run and run before you can leap. Ask any athlete worth his/her
salt about the value of a good run-up before a jump. The question then
is where is Africa, are we crawling, walking, or running, to take full
advantage of this leap-frogging ICT revolution.

I leave you with what was the most enduring image from the conference –
at least for me. What are we doing in the ICT4D campaign, running with
the horses or sleeping with the dogs?


The developed world will run with us if we get up and run, but will also
let sleeping dogs lay.

About the Author: Milton Aineruhanga, Program Officer - Women of Uganda
Network (WOUGNET) and member of the Uganda WSIS National Taskforce.

Zambia's long march to an information society:
Can a national
information policy catalyse this process?


Introduction and background
Zambia is in a process of formulating a national information policy.
Perhaps a million dollar question is, will Zambia's enactment of a
national information Policy march the country to an information society?
In many instances, Zambia has been in the forefront in the African
continent as a pioneer in significant areas. For example when the wind
of change from socialist to pluralist society was sweeping across
continents, Zambia was one of the earliest country that embraced this
change and become a model of democracy development for other countries
in the sub region. Information and communications technologies (ICTs)
are no exception too. Zambia was one of the first countries in the Sub
Saharan Africa (outside South Africa) to have an Internet Service
Provider (ISP) through Zamnet1. The Internet has revolutionalised and
effectively contributed to both efficient and worldwide access to
information. Yet with all this profile, the country has faced
considerable challenges in implementing or solidifying its achievements.

ICTs as tools for development
The need for embracing ICTs as tools for sustainable development has
been stressed at different fora. Koffi Annan, the United Nations
Secretary General writing a foreword for the E-commerce Development
Report, 2002 stated that ICTs were becoming an essential component that
contributed to economic growth by integration of developing economies into
the global economy2. The UN has set 2015 as a target for attaining
Millennium
Development Goals of halving the number of people in extreme poverty by
building digital
opportunities and putting ICT at their service development. In an
earlier speech focusing specifically on Africa, Annan implored African
leaders to mould their economies to become emphatic participants in the
global economy by adopting ICTs and stated as follows: "Unless
African countries become full actors in the global information
revolution, the gap between the haves and have knots will widen, opening
the possibility of increased marginalisation of the continent. On the
other hand, participating in the information society offers tremendous
opportunities for Africa to leap frog over passed development
deficiencies into the future..." 3(Richardson, 1996)

The above statement signifies the importance of embracing ICTs as a
leverage tool for enhancing and accelerating development. An
information society or economy has been described by Corgburn quoted in
James (2001)4 as referring to "a new global economic infrastructure in
wherein the production of goods and services dominate wealth and job
creation, and is underpinned by the use of information and
Communications technologies (ICTs) and global infrastructure." In other
words, this entails that there is diffusion and use of information
through out the social and economic system of any nation. The above
cement views expressed by Moore 5who has gone further to list down
critical success factors which therefore underpin such societies deemed
to be moving towards an information society as follows:

i. Organisations/ nations are becoming increasingly dependent on
intelligent use of information and information technologies as a
competitive factor
ii. Individuals are becoming more active users of information. They use
ICTs many of their daily activities both at home and at work
iii. A whole new information industry is taking place

The question to pose at this juncture then is, Is Zambia marching
towards the attainment of the 2015 Millennium Development goals or
moving towards being an information society? The attainments of such
goals are enhanced with the formulation of tools such as a national
information policy that is essentially a road map to the attainment of
such envisioned goals. An information policy is simply a set of
initiatives that promotes the use of tools and concepts associated with
the global information society with a view of achieving national, social
and economic development. Information policies are both proactive
(shaping events) and reactive (responding to events). There are three
identified types of information policy frame works and these are:6

a) Infrastructural (apply across society and affect the information
sector both directly and indirectly)
b) Vertical and; (apply to specific part of the information sector for a
particular application)
c) Horizontal (apply across society and affect the information sector
both directly and indirectly)

The emphasis here is that not any one type of policy can adequately
address all the problems within the given context. Certain contexts are
better addressed when viewed from within its sectoral context. Sectoral
information policies are narrow focused looking into a particular sector
such as e-commerce, Science and Technology and education, manufacturing,
health, telecommunications and tourism information policies. What is in
the offing for Zambia addresses components that are both
infrastructural and horizontal in nature?

One clear phenomenon with the current formulation of an information
policy is that it is done in a quit atmosphere with no major political
pronouncements made in reference to the significance of the exercise as
the case is with the current review of the constitution. There is lack
of political involvement in the whole exercise that may render it futile
without the participation of political actors. There is a couple of
evidence world wide to suggest that most examples of successful ICT and
information policies development have been as a consequence of strategic
political leadership involvement.

Value of political leadership in policy formulation and drive
In all cases where ICTs policies have been successfully undertaken,
the presence of a champion either individual or lead institution can be
identified. Leadership and champions are critical success factors in the
successful ICT policy development and implementation. For example,
former United States President Bill Clinton and his Vice Albert Gore7
played a significant role in the campaign for the establishment of the
American Infrastructure Initiative. Closer home in the sub region,
examples abound too. The African National Congress (ANC) of South Africa
in its exile years prior to election prioritised ICTs as a key area and
outlined its importance in national development. This had been
consistently followed by progressive statements by the then Deputy
President Thabo Mbeki 8in 1995 inviting Western countries to partner
with Africa. At the International Union of Telecommunications (ITU)
Conference the then President, Nelson Mandela9 stressed the potential of
ICTs as a tool for development, hence the lobby for support.

As such, South Africa, has rightly positioned herself in the global
economy, the country is reaping from its investments in ICTs. The
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) in its 2002
report projected that South Africa had earned US $ 0.5 billion in 2002
and is further projected to increase her earnings to US $6.1bn by 2006.
This increase in e-commerce earnings has been necessitated by a number
of businesses in South Africa that have adopted ICTs and turning their
business into an e-commerce platform selling to customers beyond
geographic boundaries particularly its tourism industry. UNCTAD report
states for example that that the hard reality in the tourism industry
today is that if you are not on line, you are not on sale10." In Uganda
President Yoweri Museveni is also involved in spearheading government's
drive to the use ICT for development particularly in the fight of
HIV/AIDS. The government has since invited Microsoft as partner in
infrastructure and software development.

One clear observation on the Zambian scene is that, major policy
platforms such as the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PSRP) and the
National Indaba held not long ago for example have either underplayed or
completely ignored the significance of ICTs and information policy as a
global tool for wealth creation.

Perhaps this has not much to do with such platforms but could be a
deficiency that is inherent in the political system for not identifying
and correctly interpreting world changes and the long-term impact on the
nation. The general observation seems there is no single party in
Zambia that has articulated its vision and focus on how to address
critically the issue of marching Zambia forward to an information society.

The way forward for Zambia
What is the way forward then for Zambia? Several courses could be opted
for in this march to attaining an information society status. But it
would be important to realise that ICT initiatives should be anchored in
the demonstration of political will need to be cultivated. There is need
to address the following issues then:

i. Political leadership should address the ICT challenge in their
respective manifestos. Policies require political direction and
leadership. It is therefore imperative that the information reforms
agenda needs champions at the highest political and bureaucratic levels.
The political leadership could be demonstrated at two levels, either as
initiators (aware and eager to act) or potential supporters (not aware
but willing)

ii. The draft national information policy should be adequately
circulated to allow for an open debate in order to synthesize ideas from
a cross section of the nation. Further there is need to develop an in
depth ICT sector development policies such as e-commerce, Science and
Technology issues, education, tourism, manufacturing and health.

iii. Government should call for a national indaba to specifically
address issues and challenges posed by the ICT revolution as way of
positioning the country and further avoid the consequences of
marginalisation that may result from the neglect of implementing ICTs at
a later stage.


Conclusion
In conclusion, Zambia's march to an information society may be a long
one, but there is need to attract the participation of political
leadership to show this subject matter. At the next round of
Parliamentary elections, it will be great stride if we can visualize how
ICTs could be utilised as an enabler in attaining the 2015 Millennium
Development Goal by narrowing the digital divide between the urban and
rural areas. However, its evident perhaps that the issue of marching
on to an information society needs much concerted efforts. The time to
act is now; procrastination will result into Zambia being marginalized
and excluded in attaining the status of an information society or economy.

About the Author: Mwala K. Sheba,is an Assistant Librarian at the
Copperbelt University Library, in Kitwe, Zambia.


End Notes
1 Sumaili, Ephraim. 1996. Zambia gets on the net. African Review of
Business and Technology, June pp 21
2 UNCTAD (2002). E-commerce development report. - Geneva: UNCTAD
3 Richardson, Don (1996). The Internet and rural development:
recommendations for a strategy and activity.- Rome: FAO
4 James, Tina (ed.) (2001). An information policy handbook for Southern
Africa: a knowledge base for decision makers. - Ottwa:IDRC
5 Moore, Nick " information policies in Asia." Available at
<http:www.iias.nl/iiasn8/general/informpo.html
6 James, Tina (ed.) (2001). An information policy handbook for Southern
Africa: a knowledge base for decision makers. - Ottwa:IDRC
7 Telecommunications in an information age (n.d) The United States
Information Agency
8 Mbeki,T (24 Feb 1995) South Africa and the information Super high way,
G7conference on the Information Society, Brussels, Belgium cited in
Mbeki, T (ed) (1998) Africa: time has come
9 James, Tina (ed.) (2001). An information policy handbook for Southern
Africa: a knowledge base for decision makers. - Ottwa:IDRC
10 UNCTAD (2001). E-commerce Development report. - Geneva: UNCTADp 45

Internet Governance Debate Moving to Next Stage
WGIG has started to discuss recommendations

20 April 2005. The WSIS Working Group on Internet Governance has had its third meeting on the last three days in Geneva. The discussion is now moving from mapping the internet governance landscape of institutions and stakeholders towards assessments and recommendations. Monday’s session was conducted as an open consultation, yesterday and today the group was meeting in private. Expectedly, a few conflicts surfaced again, which mainly circled around the role of different stakeholders, the question of a new organisational framework, and the Multilateralization of the core Internet resources. But progress can be observed.
What the hell is “Internet Governance”? And what is “Democratic?”

ITU’s secretary Yoshio Utsumi and a number of other participants, mainly from developing countries, in the public consultations urged the group to finally come up with a working definition of “Internet governance”. They clearly do not expect an academic or technical term, but hope for something pragmatic, something that will on one hand be appropriate for heads of state at the summit, and on the other hand can facilitate discussions at PrepCom3 in September. So, the discussion also focused on what to focus on. And the question of what the issues are is not trivial, but rather involves a political decision, as it widens or narrows the agenda.

The working group recently has produced a number of working papers grouped around several clusters:

1a: physical and secured infrastructure of the Internet
1b: logical infrastructure of the Internet (multilingualization, IP numbers, domain names, root servers)
2: use of the Internet
3. wider impact, developmental aspects of the Internet (competition policy, liberalization, privatization, regulations, e-commerce, taxation, trade , intellectual property rights).
Then, existing governance mechanisms were assessed against a list of criteria as the WSIS summit had decided in 2003. The summit’s decision in fact had called for multilateralism, transparency, and democracy. It had also asked that the management of the Internet has to be done with the full involvement of all stakeholders, an equitable distribution of resources and access for all, and should ensure a stable and secure functioning of the Internet, taking into account multilingualism.

The WGIG has sorted it a bit differently:

Transparency (governance and statutory requirements, meetings, translation, documentation)
Accountability (structure and functioning of decision-making powers, participation and comment, appeals)
Democracy (roles, composition, and representation of stakeholders, participation of disadvantaged stakeholders like developing countries and civil society)
The following discussions evolved around the scope of the inquiry as well as the criteria for assessing the current landscape.

American Dominance? Or Multilateralization of the Internet?

Quite a few governments in the beginning made clear that their objective still is to break the U.S. final oversight over some of the core resources of the Internet, namely the root server for the domain space. Some, though, confused the domain name system with the Internet as a whole, which involves much more, like the physical communication layer, IP-based routing and other things. The delegate from Syria even dared to state (contra-factually) that “the Internet today is governed by American Law and managed by an American Business. We all know it, we cannot accept it.” This critique of “American dominance in Internet governance”, though in nicer words, was supported by a number of participants, from South Africa, India and elsewhere.

The delegate from the United States government therefore was very cautious and defensive, and tried to leave the impression that they are not resisting change:

“This may be the situation now because it’s the way the Internet developed in the past. It is a matter of history rather than due to any kind of conspiracy. No conclusion should be drawn as to what will happen.”
The State Department in Washington D.C. today also conducted a public briefing on the WGIG, though, and the officials there were a bit more outspoken on their home turf. Ambassador David Gross made clear that the United States prefers a leadership of the private sector in Internet governance and is willing to resist the current discussion around a multilateralization of the core internet resources.

Transatlantic Concerns

The European Union, in a surprising move, had distanced itself from the United States on Monday during the consultations in Geneva. The EU presidency had stated that the EU prefers a “stronger emphasis on the public policy interests of all governments”. This does not automatically mean a new international organization to run the net or a new task for the ITU. It could also be satisfied by a stronger role of the Governmental Advisory Committee at ICANN, especially as the EU suggested to “build on the existing structures of Internet governance”. The U.S. government now is “concerned” that the European Union position substantially differs from the U.S.

The EU, it seems, is trying to reduce American dominance on the Internet and also to build a bridge to the more outspoken governments from developing countries that only want an intergovernmental mechanism. The EU called for an “internationalization of the management of the Internet’s core resources: The domain name system, IP addresses, the root server system.” But its idea is in fact to have an internationalized oversight or authorization mechanism. The governments clearly should not mess with the technicians: “Governments do have a specific mission (…) excluding any involvement in the day-to-day operations.”

Multistakeholderism or Internationalization?

This led to an interesting discussion about the possible Internet governance framework and its legitimacy. While India insisted that only “governments and governments alone can claim to speak on behalf of the public”, Syria and others mentioned the ITU’s experience with involving the private sector. For civil society, this had been a constant problem, as the ITU sector membership involves heavy fees. The “intergovernmentalization” faction also includes China, South Africa and a couple of other governments. The ITU itself also clearly wants to play a bigger role in Internet governance. The overarching question was the legitimacy of the respective governance mechanisms. Lyndall Shope-Mafole, WGIG member and former South African delegation leader to the WSIS negotiations, made the problem very clear:

“How do you make the mechanism fully accountable when it is multi-stakeholder? The roles or the mandates or the powers or the legitimacy of the different stakeholders is not the same: Governments that are elected that have public accountability in their countries; the private sector that is accountable to its stakeholders; civil society – I’m not sure what the accountability to civil society is. The only legitimate mechanism that we know that represents the will of the peoples of the world is the U.N. system.”
Legitimacy: Who serves the (global) public interest?

On the other side, there is the private sector and parts of civil society. They clearly prefer a loosely regulated process, which is flexible and bottom-up and only has minimal government oversight, if at all. The ICANN representative constantly made clear that ICANN itself is in another reform process and will take into account all the suggestions that have been voiced in the WSIS process. The delegate from the Internet Society (ISOC) also tried to argue against a new international structure:

“We are concerned that many of the WGIG’s premises seem to start with an assumption that the Internet needs a hierarchical top-down governance model implying one organization and thereby ignoring the decentralized structure on which the Internet was so successfully built.”
Marilyn Cade from ITT, one of the more famous ICT industry lobbyists in the U.N. hallways, also urged the group to “look at each of the organizations that is today involved in Internet governance, and to look at how they need to change, to broaden participation, to improve their transparency. If we do that, we will advance the work and performance of each of those organizations, and not necessarily create new organizations.”

Peiman Seadat, a WGIG member from the Iranian government, responded that the corporate sector, which plays an important role in many of the Internet’s bodies, has at least a questionable credibility:

“Governments have not been able to develop the concept of corporate responsibility. We have not been able to bring it to a mature stage because of the impediments and resistance we faced before.”
Bertrand de La Chapelle from WSIS-online, in return, reminded him that even if perfectly legitimate governments come together in the U.N. system, the outcome is not necessarily good. “They cannot suffice to establish or determine what the global public interest is without the contribution of the other stakeholders.”

So, in the end, it was clear that Internet governance has to be done in a smart mix of government, private sector, and civil society in involvement. The challenging question then is: How should the mix look like?

One large organization? Or a governance network?

This “UN vs. private self-regulation” debate has gone on for ages, and the WGIG now has actually helped to shape it in a more constructive way. Bertrand de La Chapelle argued against one single organization, because there is different involvement of stakeholders needed and existing on different levels and in different issue clusters.

WGIG member Wolfgang Kleinwächter from the Internet Governance Caucus suggested to have a distributed governance network for the different functions, but at the same time to have a single oversight body with no or very limited decision-making powers:

“I could imagine that at the end of the day, we have something like a broad multi-stakeholder body, I personally call it the United Nations Internet Governance Communications Group. This group could get the mandate to write an annual world internet report so that in this report we have an annual inventory of issues which are important. It’s like the human rights annual report, which goes out on some problematic areas and rings the alarm bell that something has to be done. But this committee has no decision-making power.”

An outlook to the WGIG report and beyond
WGIG Chairman Nitin Desai reminded the group members that they have quite some work ahead of them. He even threatened that

“in June, we will go away in almost a retreat mode, where members of the working group will not be permitted to enjoy the Geneva summer until they complete their work.”
The discussion this week has shown that the old “ICANN vs. ITU” debate is over, and the issues are looked at in several dimensions now. The result of the WGIG’s work will probably be a broad definition of “Internet governance” (Australia, India, and the Francophonie insisted in also dealing with topics like multilingual domain names, peering costs and capacity-building), a series of recommendations on how to improve transparency and accountability of the existing structures on the different levels, and a proposal for some coordinating or oversight mechanism on the political level.

The interesting conflicts will then again arise at PrepCom3 in September, when the governments will have to decide where to locate this new structure and which mandate to give to it. It does not have to be the ITU model, it can also be the existing ICANN-plus arrangement that then gets based on an international framework convention or even a treaty. If, well, if the United States can agree to that. The momentum is clearly pushing into a more internationalized structure now, since the EU has made clear it is not satisfied with the current United States dominance. The Internet community – which still prefers the existing structure – will also have to face this, as Nitin Desai reminded them:

“The distinction between the Internet community and citizens as a whole is becoming less and less. It is increasingly the case that large parts of the population are, in fact, netizens, so the distinction that, in fact, this is the interest of the internet community, whereas, this is the interest of the public interest as articulated by governments is becoming more and more tenuous because the two sets are overlapping so much now.”
Civil society groups again will have to discuss how much and which kind of multi-stakerholderism they want to accept. A more formal inclusion based on the WSIS process and the WGIG composition would be along the lines of the general United Nations reform debate that last summer led to the Cardoso report “We the peoples: civil society, the United Nations and global governance“. But, as we have recently discussed elsewhere, multi-stakeholder structures also give more weight to the private sector. And the problem of corporate responsibility is not an easy one.

The WGIG can leave its footprint in history if it comes up with innovative models that somehow incorporate NGOs and the private sector into international law and at the same time hold them responsible. This is the whole idea of the democratization of global governance: To politically catch up with global markets and developments by the will of the global public though accountable and democratic political structures. These new structures will not be based on the old model of intergovernmental diplomacy, in either case. If the more technically-oriented membership of WGIG can live up to these high expectations, remains to be seen.

ICTs and the MDGs: On the Wrong Track?

05/26/2005 (IDPM, University of Manchester ) -- The purpose of this article is to prompt some questioning of current "e-development" priorities. We have too readily assumed the Millennium Development Goals must be the priority for application of ICTs. Yet the MDGs themselves can be challenged, as can the relevance of applying ICTs to those goals. This article will argue that we ought at least to be considering some different priorities if we want to make most effective use of the opportunities that new technology affords.

more: http://africa.rights.apc.org/index.shtml?apc=ie_1&x=33345

SANGONET THETHA ON THE WSIS

SANGONeT will host a Thetha forum on 29 June 2005 to provide South
African civil society organisations (CSOs) with an opportunity to
reflect on the focus and objectives of WSIS and related processes. It
will also provide a platform to discuss the position of the South
African government and civil society in this regard. A similar
meeting will be held in Cape Town during July 2005.
Further details: http://www.pambazuka.org/index.php?id=28466

World Information Technology Forum (WITFOR) in Gaborone, Botswana

The Government of the Republic of Botswana, in collaboration with the International Federation for Information Processing (IFIP), will host the second World Information Technology Forum (WITFOR) in Gaborone, Botswana from August 31 to September 2, 2005.

WITFOR is a state-of-the-art, high-level international forum, aimed at ICT policy-makers and practitioners.

The purpose of the conference is to help implement information development strategies and projects in developing countries.

Significantly, it will take the World Summit on the Information Society's (WSIS) Plan of Action a step forward, by converting policy statements to actual, implementable projects that should help developing countries to achieve the UN Millennium Development Goals.

more: http://www.witfor.org.bw/press/001_intro.htm

World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

WSIS Online Forum: Paving the Way to Tunis, July 11 - 29, 2005

1. INTRODUCTION

Women of Uganda Network (WOUGNET) invites you to participate in an online
forum on key issues for the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS)
to share your views, experiences, knowledge and concerns. In particular,
the forum will focus on ICT policy priorities for Uganda as well as the two
outstanding issues for the WSIS - internet governance and financing
mechanisms.


1.1 THEMES AND SCHEDULE

11 - 17 July 2005: ICT Policy Priorities for Uganda
http://www.wougnet.org/WSIS/ug/WSIS2005/policypriorities.html

18 - 24 July 2005: Internet Governance - What are the issues?
http://www.wougnet.org/WSIS/ug/WSIS2005/internetgovernance.html

25 - 31 July 2005: Financing ICT4D in Uganda - What strategies?
http://www.wougnet.org/WSIS/ug/WSIS2005/financingmechanisms.html


The outcome of the discussions will be summarised thematically, and posted
on the forum webpage,
http://www.wougnet.org/WSIS/ug/WSIS2005/wsis2005forum.html


1.2 HOW TO PARTICIPATE

To participate in the email discussion, please send an email to
ictpolicy@wougnet.org indicating your interest to participate in the WSIS
online forum.

We would be grateful if you could help us disseminate this call for
participation to your network, organisations or individuals that may be
interested to engage in this issue.


2. BACKGROUND INFORMATION

This discussion will be moderated by Women of Uganda Network (WOUGNET),
http://www.wougnet.org, and will be for a period of three weeks, starting
from July 11 - 29, 2005. The objective of the forum is to create awareness
of the two outstanding issues, Internet Governance and Financing, as well
as to gather input on Uganda's position and identify gender concerns. The
outcome of the online forum will be submitted to the National WSIS
Taskforce to feed into their preparations and activities towards WSIS II.

ICANN ASKS FOR MORE AFRICAN INPUT IN GENERIC NAMES SUPPORTING ORGANISATION

Africans are missing an important opportunity to participate in the policy
making process of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
(ICANN), says Glen van Oudenhove de Saint Géry.

There are no Africans, she says, on the Generic Names Supporting
Organisation (GNSO) - a support organisation within ICANN, tasked with
developing policy for generic domain names.

A generic top level domain name is an internet address that is not directly
linked to a specific country. For example, the well known .com and .org
domain names are generic names, while .ke or .za are country code top level
domain (ccTLD) names.

The GNSO responds to six constituencies that represent all stakeholder
groups on the internet: registrars, Generic Top Level Domain (gTLD)
registries that maintain directories of domain names, the business and
commercial community, non-commercial users, international service and
connectivity providers, and intellectual property companies concerned with
the protection of copyright and trademarks.

Lack of African input As it has no representatives on the GNSO, it is very
difficult for Africa to influence policy decisions affecting the way gTLDs
are managed. This absence is ironic, because African governments are
campaigning to move control of the internet from ICANN to an international
organisation so they can exert greater influence over the current system.

There is widespread dissatisfaction among Africans with the considerable US
domination of ICANN and all its functions, but when there is an open forum,
such as the GNSO, Africans do not appear to be interested in the policy
making process.

Van Oudenhove de Saint Géry believes Africa is missing out by not
participating in the activities of the GNSO. In turn, ICANN is also missing
the opportunities to understand the requirements of African users.

High cost of participation Part of this perceived apathy could be attributed
to the high cost of participating in the GNSO. Many meetings are held in
North America or Europe - expensive destinations for most African
businesses.

However, Van Oudenhove de Saint Géry points out that the GNSO council holds
regular teleconferences and uses the internet to contain costs. While
effective use of technology can certainly keep expenses down, it is also
true that the costs of teleconferencing in Africa are far higher than in
most other parts of the world.

In an effort to address the lack of communication between ICANN and the vast
majority of African internet users and potential users, the GNSO is about to
hire a liaison officer. This post will be used to forge greater links with
Africa and to find out what Africans want in terms of internet policies.

http://www.sabcnews.com/sci_tech/internet/0,2172,108420,00.html

Also the the WGIG report has finally been released and is available on the
WGIG website in the 6 UN languages: www.wgig.org

WSIS follow-up: Role of civil society contested, activists locked out of next meetings

Discussions on how to proceed after the second WSIS summit in November are getting more urgent. There is a danger of this question to be lost due to the dominance of financing and internet governance negotiations in the second phase of WSIS. A recent meeting of the “Group of the Friends of the Chair” (GFC) in Geneva tried to bring some clarity, but a consensus is still far away. Meanwhile, civil society groups are lamenting the fact that they will be locked out of the next GFC meetings.

After WSIS: Integrated approach or separation of forums?

The president of the WSIS preparatory committee for the second phase, Ambassador Janis Karklins, at the GFC meeting on 13 June, suggested splitting the discussions and the processes between “implementation” and “follow-up”. “Implementation” according to him refers to actions on the ground that are taken in making the WSIS action plan a reality. “Follow-up” instead is more related to policy debates and politically contested issues that need further consideration after the WSIS is over. It should be divided between Internet Governance and other issues.

The discussion was further complicated by the link between the WSIS and the overall follow-up to the Millennium Development Goals and the Millennium+5 summit in September this year. Sarbuland Khan, the representative of the UN Secretary-General, said that WSIS has to be included in a larger framework taking into account the multi-stakeholder approach, also required in the broader development agenda. Ambassador Karklins also emphasized that the political chapeau makes reference to the Millennium Summit and reiterates the need to keep the ICT into the international agenda until 2015. El Salvador proposed that the follow-up documents to be drafted by the envisaged WSIS implementation teams should be incorporated into the Millennium report for more coherence, Switzerland, the EU and others made similar proposals. The tricky question then is: How to really integrate the two processes beyond the document level?

Follow-up: The Policy Side

The discussion on follow-up to the WSIS mainly circled around the question if the Internet governance aspects of WSIS should be dealt with in a separate forum. The discussion showed that there is no consensus yet on a separation or linkage of these two tracks. Argentina, El Salvador, the Holy See and Turkey spoke up in favour of a separation, while Canada and the USA supported an integrated approach. Luxemburg on behalf of the EU also argued against separating the follow-up tracks for Internet Governance and other issues. The strategies are clear: If Internet governance is part of the general WSIS follow-up mechanism, it will be part of the official UN process that is still dominated by national governments. If, on the other hand, it is separated, then the follow-up mechanism will be much more in line with the integrated multi-stakeholder approach that was already practiced in the WSIS Working Group on Internet Governance, probably with some authority given to it by the UN Secretary-General or the WSIS summit itself.

It is very much unclear so far if any of the other contested issues that dominated WSIS mainly in the first, but also in the second phase are part of further negotiations and discussions at all in the future. It might be the case that they are taken to other forums and dealt with there, as has already been the case with intellectual property issues. They are part of a struggle at the WIPO right now, where Brazil and Argentina have successfully introduced a “development agenda”. The development aspects of WSIS will be part of the ITU work, but will also be mainstreamed into the projects of UNDP and other organizations in the foreseeable future.

The danger here is that some WSIS outcomes do not have such a “natural” home in the United Nations system – think of gender issues or privacy. The WSIS process with all its limitations and shortcomings has so far been a good venue for bringing all of the information society-related aspects together for a discussion on a coherent vision. Civil society activists will also face a strategic challenge if they want to integrate and link all the different groups that are active in the different fields, if the process loses its coherence and fragments into small discussions and struggles here and there. It is far from clear if the solidarity that the organizations have build so far in the WSIS process can be maintained under these conditions.

Implementation: The Action Side

Implementation somewhat is the other side of the same coin. Here, it is not about political discussions and decisions on priorities, on values and on how the information society should look like. It is instead about taking agreed positions and transforming them into concrete actions, in order to ensure implementation of the WSIS decisions. Here, the struggle is more about who gets what part of the cake.

This struggle has begun pretty openly at the GFC consultations. Yoshio Utsumi, Secretary General of the ITU, presented a joint UNESCO-ITU proposal on implementation mechanisms. It was along the lines of many previous proposals, where for each action line, a multi-stakeholder team would be created , and the coordinators of the teams would coordinate their activities and report to the UN secretary general. But this specific proposal also suggested that ITU (as the “infrastructure agency”) and UNESCO (as the “content agency”) would provide the secretariat to support the work.

Others very much challenged this open attempt to take over the WSIS process. The ILO stressed that all UN agencies have to play a role here. Canada openly wondered whether other UN agencies support the ITU/UNESCO proposal. The EU made an alternative proposal, suggesting that the UN Chief Executive Board for Coordination (CEB) could coordinate the implementation process. This was also in line with a later suggestion by Sarbuland Khan on how to link the WSIS with the process around the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).

El Salvador and others underlined the important role of regional bodies, while Canada stated that the UN have only have a small role to play at the regional level, since implementation mostly take place at the national level. Finland also made clear that only action at the national level is key for implementation of WSIS outcomes, as was stated in the WSIS Geneva Action Plan.

Finland also made a very important suggestion. Since follow-up does not only refer to policy dialogue, but also to evaluation, the Finnish government asked for establishing clear criteria and benchmarks to measure the achievement of the WSIS goals identified in the Action Plan. This has long been a demand of civil society groups, as without clear benchmarks all implementation will look like a nice “best practices” show. What is important here is to make sure that benchmarks not only relate to agreed WSIS goals like linking every school and village to the Internet by 2015. What will be much more important for a real human-centred information society will be the development of benchmarks that measure qualitative goals of the WSIS, like freedom of expression or privacy. Without these, the information society of the future will very much look like infrastructure and technology-oriented vision of the beginning of WSIS – a vision many civil society groups spent a great deal of energy on fighting and replacing it with a human-centred vision.

Multi-Stakeholder Approach: Contested Reality

Another debate developed around the multi-stakeholder approach of WSIS. Chairman Karklins said that it should be deepened in the policy debates and the implementation projects. Others were not so happy with this suggestion. El Salvador again stressed that
WSIS remains an intergovernmental process, and civil society should not participate in the decision of public policies, only in recommendation making. Australia also said that civil society and the private sector are needed for implementation, but their role should be limited in the decision-making stages.


The problem here is that a clear definition of multi-stakeholderism is still lacking, and that some governments are trying more or less openly to push back the progress made during the WSIS process. But it also had its defenders here. Renate Bloem from the Conference of NGOs (CONGO) reminded the group that, although the General Assembly draft MDG outcome document includes an excellent reference on ICTs and WSIS, any language on multi-stakeholder approach and on civil society inclusion is still missing. The WSIS process on the other side has done a lot for a more open participation. Divina Frau-Meigs from the civil society education family mentioned that NGOs still face problems related to financial resources, access and procedures to participate in UN meetings, and that it is important not to limit this participation at the local level, but to develop it at the global level as well. Bertrand de la Chapelle from WSIS-online.org called for streamlining the multi-stakeholder approach into all mechanisms at all levels. Canada also asked for more assurances for the strong involvement of civil society and private sector in the follow-up process. Greece mentioned that, even though NGOs can participate in ECOSOC High-Level Segment and roundtables, negotiations come within the ECOSOC Committees, in which NGO participation is more strictly limited by their rules of procedures.

It seems that the WSIS process has brought some progress in terms of openness and participation, but that this is still contested and not yet established practice. There clearly is a need for translating the WSIS achievements into written policies that also apply to other UN and international forums. Otherwise they could get lost, as the UN system has a short institutional memory because of constant re-assignment of staffers and diplomats.

This is already developing in the second phase of WSIS. In spite of what was proposed by President Karklins during the GFC consultation, the WSIS intergovernmental bureau recently decided not to invite civil society observers to attend the next GFC meetings (27 June, 4 July and 11 July 2005). These meetings will be open to representatives of GFC Members and observers from governments only. Civil society groups quickly started a discussion on the reasons and implications of this decision. It is clear that the Group of Friends of the Chair was the only WSIS body not in line with the multi-stake holder approach, and this has been a matter of constant concern for NGO representatives like CONGO and others. But is has been practice so far to include written input from NGOs and the private sector in these meetings and also to have open consultations with all stakeholders. The fact that governments now decided to lock out civil society is pretty disturbing to some.

One explanation from Ambassador Karklins was that some governments apparently reacted that civil society representatives took too much speaking time and were not focused enough on the agenda. This also might be a cheap excuse for those governments that never really accepted the open multi-stakeholder process of WSIS. And on top of it, it is a bit ironic to lock out the societal actors from discussions that are explicitly focused around implementation. The WSIS in all its official documents has always made clear that there will be no working implementation of the summit outcomes if civil society and the private sector are not involved.

Originally published on: http://www.worldsummit2005.org/

WSIS-Gender Caucus e-discussion: Gender issues in the Tunis phase

This discussion, organized and moderated under the Electronic Networking Project component of the WSIS Gender Caucus, will be for a period of three weeks, from July 25th to August 13th 2005.

This online discussion is aimed at furthering the efforts of the Gender Caucus to integrate gender perspectives and concerns into the WSIS deliberations, and to further explore the concrete measures that will enable us to achieve this integration.

As we move towards Tunis 2005, we call for your participation to help create a collective understanding of gender perspectives in four critical areas:

1.. Internet Governance:
There is a general agreement that we need to adopt a multi-stakeholder approach to Internet Governance. The recently released WGIG report also underscores the importance of gender balanced representation in all aspects of Internet Governance, if we are to have a system that is equitable and democratic. In addition, the gendered construction of all technology makes it imperative that we embed gender concerns in the evolution of the Internet. Hence it is vital that we engage in the current debates on a multi-lateral vs.
multi-stakeholder approach, and public versus private leadership in Internet Governance. These issues are raised in the WGIG report and will form the backdrop of our discussions as the report raises many questions - How does Internet Governance concern the interests of women? What do gender equality advocates think about these issues? What are the important issues related to Internet Governance with which gender equality advocates and women's rights activists must be engaged?


2.. Millennium Development Goals (MDG) and WSIS:
Many argue that the WSIS process reflects a strong technologically deterministic approach to development.
In this scenario we have to bring development agenda back into WSIS. Some suggest that an MDG focus, for which the WSIS was in fact mandated by the UN General Assembly, is a good peg to achieve this. However, there are others who feel that such a focus on MDGs is limiting and constraining on ICTD opportunities presented by WSIS. Such debates raise interesting questions - Do investments in technology and structural changes implied in ICTD frameworks provide a new way to look at global debates on development priorities and development assistance? Can MDGs be achieved without such investments in enabling technologies and consequent structural changes? Are such opportunities for structural and institutional change the best time to get gender perspectives and concerns considered?


3.. Funding and Financing Mechanisms for ICTD:
Markets and the private sector have rightly taken much of the credit for the IT revolution. The question however, is - Are market mechanisms adequate to take the benefit of the new ICTs to everyone, especially disadvantaged groups, such as women? Is it enough for the role of public institutions to be restricted to providing a regulatory environment that enables private investment in meeting goals of social equity? What is the role of public and community finance in providing for not just cheap/free connectivity but also appropriate technology (telecom, software, hardware) and capacity? Does the basic technology infrastructure and capabilities represent a global public good, like education, that needs to be provided to all as a public responsibility? Or will such efforts of extensive public investments undercut the innovation-incentive system represented by market-based strategies, and thus be counter productive? How are issues of costs and coverage of rural/far flung areas o!
f special significance for women? How critical are interoperability and interconnection of infrastructure at regional, sub regional and national levels for reducing cost of access?


4.. Implementation and Follow-up of WSIS:
For gender equality advocates it has been easy to adopt a gender sensitive approach at the level of ideals and principles. But it seems that there is a difficulty in pushing for this approach into specific plans of action.
In the WSIS documents as one moves on from the preambles and opening statements through plans of actions and to actual implementation, the references to 'lofty ideals'
of gender equality rapidly diminish. It is therefore important for us to discuss which organizations should play a pivotal role in the implementation stage, and which other organizations should play necessary supplementing roles? Which ones are poised to take up the responsibility, and what is their record on gender issues? Which ones can be expected to represent the interests of women better/ what should be the role of specialized agencies representing women's interests like the UNIFEM? What principles should be laid down to ensure a gender-equal representation in any multi-stakeholder body, which will have an implementation/ follow up role?


WHAT DO WE WANT TO ACHIEVE
=============================


Our discussions have a two-fold objective:

1.. We hope that this discussion will enable us to identify, discuss and integrate gender perspectives into the upcoming WSIS deliberations in Geneva (prepcom 3) and Tunis.

2.. We would like to create a space for wider participation of women in the WSIS process.
We hope that our discussions will provide us with deep and significant insights that will enable the Gender Caucus to develop well-articulated position papers on crucial issues at stake at WSIS which can be used for advocacy-based activities at WSIS.


HOW TO PARTICIPATE
===================


Joining this discussion list is very easy!

Just send a blank email to mailadmin@genderwsis.org

You will automatically be subscribed to the 4 discussion lists running concurrently (one for each theme namely, Internet governance; Millennium Development Goals and WSIS; Funding and Financing Mechanisms for ICTD; Implementation and Follow-up of WSIS).

CONTACT US
===================


The discussion list is being moderated by Anu Mundkur from IT for Change. Email: anu@ITforChange.net

If you face any subscription problem, please contact the WSIS Gender Caucus Electronic Consultant Taran Rampersad at cnd@knowprose.com or the WSIS Gender Caucus Manager Susana Fernandez at sfernandez@genderwsis.org

Gender Caucus website: www.genderwsis.org

Africa Civil Society and WSIS

With regard the WSIS process, the outcome of a recent event has been a
report addressing issues and challenges of the African information
society with a special emphasis on the role of Civil Society. This was
from a meeting that took place in

in Nigeria at the beginning of this month where Africa civil society
organizations came together in a pre-event to the African Regional
Preparatory Meeting (ARPM) of the World Telecommunications Development
Committee (WTDC).

Among some of the highlights from the meeting was some three projects
that will be under consideration to be undertaken by civil society
organizations, among these are; an Africa based Virtual Library and a
community radio including the development of rural multimedia community
centres.

See a detailed report here:
http://africa.rights.apc.org/index.shtml?apc=he_1&x=338264


For more news articles and information resources, visit the Africa ICT
Policy Monitor Website. http://africa.rights.apc.org

UPCOMING ICT RELATED EVENTS

11/08/2005, Tanzania
World Youth Development and ICT (WYDI 2005) Conference (Aug 11-12 2005)
http://africa.rights.apc.org/index.shtml?apc=ee_1&x=34214
This conference is being organised with a theme of "Young People
Creating Global Culture". The conference aims to bring together more
than 250 young professionals, community leaders, non-governmental
organisation (NGO) leaders, university students, information and
communication technology (ICT) professionals, among others.

22/08/2005, South Africa
Building Partnerships for the Information Society (Aug 22-27 2005)
http://africa.rights.apc.org/index.shtml?apc=ee_1&x=34216
The Cape Peninsula University of Technology, with the support of the
Cape Town City, the Centre for e-Innovation in the Provincial Government
of the Western Cape and the South African Department of Communications,
will be organising and hosting the "Information Society" event.

24/08/2005, South Africa
Community Informatics Research Network (CIRN) 2005
http://africa.rights.apc.org/index.shtml?apc=ee_1&x=29325
The Community Informatics Research Network (CIRN) 2005 Conference is
open to receive research, policy and praxis based papers around the
major theme of ‘partnerships’.

31/08/2005, Botswana
World Information Technology Forum (Witfor) 2005
http://africa.rights.apc.org/index.shtml?apc=ee_1&x=31388
The Government of the Republic of Botswana, in collaboration with the
International Federation for Information Processing (IFIP) will host the
second World Information Technology Forum (WITFOR) in Gaborone from
August 31 to September 2, 2005. WITFOR is a state-of-the-art, high-level
international forum, aimed at ICT policy-makers and practitioners.

05/09/2005, Cameroon
CTO Forum 2005 - Yaounde, Cameroon, 5 - 6 September 2005
http://africa.rights.apc.org/index.shtml?apc=ee_1&x=136150
Organised in partnership with the Government of Cameroon, the CTO will
host this unique gathering of opinion leaders and decision-makers in
response to the growing need for access to ICT in emerging markets in
the Commonwealth and beyond.

12/09/2005, South Africa
Highway Africa Conference 2005 'Reinforcing journalism in the
information society'
http://africa.rights.apc.org/index.shtml?apc=ee_1&x=33696
The Highway Africa 2005 will explore the above issues and seek to assist
in overcoming the challenges. Highway Africa’s programme includes a
unique mix of plenary and keynote presentations, panel discussions and
hands-on workshops where delegates acquire practical skills and expertise.

thin.c abstract:

while the united nations organise a so-called "world summit on information society" in tunis, we will gather in a virtual space to discuss aspects of information exchange, tools for free communication and how to make physical and virtual borders history for a free movement of people.

a virtual conference on freedom of information and free movement everywhere
Location: The Net | Date: 16th-18th November 2005

read more: http://thinc.plentyfact.net/

South African civil society reflect on coming November's sumit

BRAAMFONTEIN, South Africa -- When the world meets up at Tunisia, in coming November, during the World Summit on the Information Society, this meet signals global recognition that information and communication technologies can play a major role in social and economic development and contribute significantly towards poverty alleviation. South Africa's civil society takes a look at the focus and objectives of the WSIS.

In the run-up to the important second phase of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) -- to take place in Tunis, Tunisia, in mid-November 2005 -- SANGONeT hosted a Thetha forum on June 29, 2005 in Braamfontein, South Africa.

This event provided local civil society organisations (CSOs) with an opportunity to reflect on the focus and objectives of WSIS, as well as to discuss the first draft of a South African WSIS Civil Society document.

Over 40 people attended the event.

Specific issues which received attention include international civil society processes related to WSIS, Internet governance, community broadcasting, freedom of expression and the need for a new evaluation paradigm.

Speakers included David Barnard, Executive Director, SANGONeT; Anriette Esterhuysen, Executive Director, Association for Progressive Communications (APC); Calvin Browne, Uniforum; Rene Smith, MISA SA; Raymond Louw, Southern Africa Report; Danny Moalosi, National Community Radio Forum and Prof Wal Taylor, Cape Peninsula University of Technology.

The programme, presentations and Draft Civil Society Document are available on the SANGONeT website at http://www.sangonet.org.za A similar meeting will be held in Cape Town on August 22, 2005.


SANGONeT
World Summit on the Information Society


Originator: ---
Date: 07/03/2005
Location: BRAAMFONTEIN, South Africa
Contact: communications@apc.org
Category: Mobilising Participation
Source: SANGONeT

WSIS Online Forum: Paving the Way to Tunis, July 11 - 29, 2005
ref.: World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS)

In July 2005, WOUGNET hosted an online forum on
key issues for the World Summit on the
Information Society (WSIS) to share views,
experiences, knowledge and concerns. In
particular, the forum focused on ICT policy
priorities for Uganda as well as the two
outstanding issues for the WSIS - internet
governance and financing mechanisms. A report on
the forum will be available shortly and will be
posted to the forum web page at:
http://www.wougnet.org/WSIS/ug/WSIS2005/wsis2005forum.html

Consultative Workshop: The WGIG Report ­ Issues for Uganda

In collaboration with the Uganda Communications
Commission, and as a follow-up to the WSIS 2005
Online Forum, a consultative workshop is being
organised to discuss the WGIG Report and the
issues for Uganda. Tentatively scheduled for 24
August 2005, the output from this workshop will
feed into Uganda's preparation for the WSIS
PrepCom III, September 19-30, 2005, in Geneva.
The first WSIS Summit established a Working Group
on Internet Governance (WGIG) to address the following issues:
- Develop a working definition of Internet governance;
- Identify the public policy issues that are
relevant to Internet governance;
- Develop a common understanding of the
respective roles and responsibilities
of governments, existing international
organisations and other forums as well as the
private sector and civil society from both
developing and developed countries.
The WGIG report is available online at
http://wgig.org/docs/WGIGREPORT.pdf. For more
information or to indicate your interest in
participating in the workshop, send email to ictpolicy@wougnet.org

South African Civil Society learn about WSIS

08/22/2005 (HAHA) -- The biggest SANGONeT information communication technology (ICT) discussion forum with Civil Society Organisations of South Africa has started in Cape Town with an opportunity for the general public to learn about the World Summit on Information Society (WSIS).

David Barnard, Executive Director of SANGONet, called on the participants to raise questions and make an input as the recommendations will be presented to the second phase of the WSIS in Tunisia. “This is the final opportunity for the South African Civil society to come up with a statement,” said Barnard. He called on all those who are not aware of ICT issues to learn and those who are aware to share their experiences.

This discussion is part of the annual Community Informatics Research Networks (CIRN) conference as well as the WSIS Civil Society colloquium which will be held from 22 to 26 August 2005 in Cape Town. These conferences will form part of the core activities planned for the Information Society Week (ISW), an initiative of Provincial Government of the Western Cape (Centre for e-Innovation), in partnership with the City of Cape Town, Cape Peninsula University of Technology and the South African Government Department of Communications.

The theme “Building partnerships for the information society” is focused on ensuring that the pervasiveness of technology in society does not breed further inequality but addresses issues such as community engagement, successful service delivery, e government and governance and conflict resolution through the use of appropriate and affordable information and telecommunication technologies.

ISW will be the first in a series of annual events to show citizens what the information society, e-services and e- products are all about, and why it is important for the socio-economic transformation, says Dr Harold Wesso, Head: Centre for e- innovation, Provincial Government Western Cape. He called on the participants to apply their knowledge and become innovative with a passion to apply it.

“The information society is not about knowledge it is about doing things differently with the knowledge that one has. We have to understand the issues and have to be out their in the community to apply what we know,” said Dr Wesso. He however observed that to build an information society was hard work.

Date: 08/22/2005
Location: South Africa
Theme: WSIS
Source: HAHA

SOUTH AFRICAN CIVIL SOCIETY PREPARES STATEMENT FOR WSIS PHASE II IN TUNIS

As the world starts preparing for the second phase of the ground breaking United Nations World Summit on Information Society (WSIS) to be held from 16-18 November 2005, South African Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) are completing a “WSIS statement” which they will present to the Department of Communications to include in the South African WSIS submission. WSIS is an UN Conference aimed to develop a global framework to tackle the challenges posed by the Information Society.

SANGONeT hosted a Thetha forum (a siSwati word meaning to talk) on 22 August 2005 in Cape Town to provide CSOs with an opportunity to reflect on the focus and objectives of WSIS and related processes, as well as to discuss the position of the South African government and civil society in this regard. The Cape Town Thetha was the culmination of a policy development process that civil society ICT organisations began in March this year. Approximately 50 delegates attended a similar Thetha on 29 June 2005 in Johannesburg, and 120 delegates from the Western Cape participated in the Cape event.

“For the first time in history we have the opportunity to work towards multi-lateral partnership-based new world governance, including all stakeholders, governments, civil society, the private sector as well as international organisations. Civil Society now even has an International Civil Society Bureau at the UN where civil society has gone from input to impact and have an important role to play in this new spirit of co-operation,” said Mr. Adama Samessekou, president of the Geneva WSIS Phase in his opening statements to the Thetha.

“The WSIS implementation phase will definitely impact on South Africa. The question is, will South African civil society have an influence on this impact?” says SANGONeT Executive Director, David Barnard, who has been fundamental in co-ordinating this process.

Key thoughts that were raised during the WSIS Thetha:

-> Training and awareness will be fundamental to the success of implementing an Information Society that works for all;

-> A forum for multi-stakeholder participation, government, civil society and the private sector, which develops a national and regional strategy with regards to content, capability and the right to connect, is needed. South Africa could be an example to the rest of the world with regard to these new partnerships and presenting a consolidated view, which should then be adapted at a local level;

-> Communication is a right, but civil society should take responsibility too. A balance between government and community initiatives should be found, where civil society does not just expect government handouts but devises innovative ideas and strategies of their own. This includes ownership of ICT projects where civil society takes responsibility for looking after equipment and making the content relevant to their specific communities;

-> Local government should play an increasingly important role in the provision of ICT e.g. the SmartCape project, as they are closer to the people on the ground;

-> Language and content needs to be prioritised, English is acceptable for international websites, but local language is what really brings ICT to communities;

-> Community media has a key role to play in voicing community needs, but also raising awareness and education regarding ICT as a tool.

The South African WSIS Civil Society statement was presented at the conclusion of the CIRN conference, being held in Cape Town from 24-26 August 2005.

Future of WSIS Civil Society Participation in Doubt

http://www.globalpolicy.org/ngos/advocacy/conf /2005/0921wsis.htm

By the end of the second phase of the World Summit on the Information Society this November in Tunis, the role to be played by civil society in bridging the digital gap and democratising communications will be clearly defined. But many activists are less than optimistic about the eventual outcome, reports Inter Press Service. Until now, governments have included civil society and the private sector in discussions on all of the themes addressed, including the most controversial ones, like the issue of Internet governance. Nevertheless, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) have doubts about whether this cooperation will be maintained in the future.