Funding for information and communication technologies - ICTs- and development, and democracy issues in global Internet governance, are the two central themes that the UN will be addressing in phase two of the World Summit on the Information Society, to take place in Tunisia next November 16-18. Beyond the technical aspects, both issues, that were debated during the second Preparatory Committee (Prepcom), in Geneva on February 17-25, have wide political and social implications, that several actors in the process have been trying to bring into the debate. In this Prepcom, the main advancement was the draft agreement governments reached on the issue of funding mechanisms, which helped to break the deadlock reached at the end of the first phase of the Summit (Geneva, December 2003); but the agreement evaded engaging developed countries and multilateral organizations to take on new financial commitments, in support of "digital solidarity". The documents under discussion, to be adopted at the intergovernmental Summit, also include a political statement, (known as the "political chapeau") and operational chapters, where the mechanisms and organisational responsibilities for follow-up and implementation of the agreement of the first phase of the Summit will be spelled out. Meanwhile, the principle of an information society based on human rights is once again in question. On the one hand, during the Prepcom IFEX launched its report on a recent fact-finding expedition to Tunisia, that documented systematic violations of freedom of expression. On the other hand, at the end of the Prepcom, in a civil society exchange on the outcomes, a number of people expressed concern at the loss of the vision: that of a more equitable and inclusive information society, with human rights at its centre, as set out in the Geneva WSIS Declaration adopted in December 2003 and the civil society Declaration. Financial Mechanisms: no new commitments The agreement, now almost finalized, on funding mechanisms lists a series of challenges and options destined to closing the so-called digital divide. These remain, however, at the level of recommendations, with no obligation attached. The negotiated solution on the Digital Solidarity Fund (DSF), on which Southern governments had hoped to get a firm commitment, only states that the Summit participants “welcome” the voluntary Digital Solidarity Fund. For major telecommunications infrastructure projects, the favoured strategy continues to be deregulation to encourage private investment. However, the agreement does encourage allocation of multilateral and bilateral funding for infrastructure projects, and recognises the necessary role of public finance in certain areas where it is hard to attract private investment (but without clarifying where these funds will come from). Echoing the WSIS I Geneva Declaration and Action Plan, there is recognition of the contribution ICTs can make towards fulfilment of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). ICTs can be an important development enabler, for example, through better ability to access key information and to answer crucial communications needs, in areas such as health, education or production. The refusal to consider new financing mechanisms could mean that the onus of ICT development funding will shift to existing MDG funds, in competition with other more immediate life-saving development needs such as vaccination and clean water. From civil society, there was criticism of the multi- stakeholder task force on this issue, set up following the Geneva Summit, that operated for two months under UNDP leadership. This task force decided to limit its mandate to reviewing the adequacy of existing funding mechanisms, but declined to explore new options. Civil society was not consulted on its representation and was allowed few delegates on the force. The task force report did point to new trends and identified some areas where present mechanisms fail to “meet the challenges of ICT for development”. The latter include, among others, capacity- building programs, communications access in remote areas, regional backbone infrastructure, affordable broadband access, coordinated assistance for small islands and countries, and integration of ICT (information and communications technology) into the development sector in areas such as health, education and poverty reduction, issues that are echoed in the intergovernmental document. A proposal put forward by the CRIS campaign, jointly with other organizations, stated that information and communications and networks should be considered a global public good; it emphasized the centrality of the role of public finance in the area of Information and Communications for Development; and underlined the role of community driven and owned initiatives, in contributing to sustainable development and social empowerment. Many civil society actors consider the Task Force report could have been much more specific and forceful, which might have strengthened arguments for greater commitment of governments. Task force member William Currie, of the Association for Progressive Communications (APC), in an interview with ALAI, expressed particular disappointment in the slack attitude of the Brazilian and Senegalese governments, which failed to bring in to the task force any sustained arguments or supporting data, to bolster up the original proposal of a fully fledged international development fund, despite Senegal being one of its main proponents at the 1st WSIS. Both Africa and Latin America have the expertise within civil society, yet these governments failed to tap this expertise, lamented Currie. The Digital Solidarity Fund is thus the only concrete new funding mechanism to come out of WSIS, and this was on the initiative of local, rather than national governments. Geneva and Lyon announced it at the first WSIS (December 2003), and contributed seed funding. The novelty is the funding mechanism. Already some 120 local governments have voluntarily committed to including a 1% levy on all public bids for electronic infrastructure or service projects, to be paid by the vendor out of its profit margin. Other local and national governments, as well as private companies, are being invited to join, but there is no obligation attached. The Fund is intended to support mainly community ICT initiatives, including training, content and other aspects; but it is not intended to solve the major telecommunications infrastructure projects. Internet governance Probably the most complex issue at this Summit will be Internet governance. It is complex because it is a new and rapidly evolving area, because there is not yet agreement on the scope of the issues it covers, and because of the powerful interests involved. Unravelling what Internet governance is or might be, what it should and should not address, who should make decisions and who should implement them, are some of the questions to be addressed. For civil society organizations, the issue has fundamental human rights implications and must be addressed within a framework that incorporates human rights, development and democracy as basic principles. Governments have very differing positions on this issue, and it is not at all clear what level of consensus, if any, could emerge from the Summit. However, there is almost unanimous disagreement (the US excepted) with the status quo, in which most countries have no say in how the Internet is managed, and where a company registered under US law (ICANN), manages the administration of Internet (IP) names and numbers. Under the present system, organizations from certain countries can effectively be denied web domain names, as a result of US foreign policy or under the dictates of its antiterrorist legislation. In fact unilateral control of the system in theory gives the US the power to cut off a whole country from Internet access. However unlikely this may be in practice, many consider unacceptable a system that makes it possible. Brazil’s representative to the Prepcom denounced that in the current situation, there is an undemocratic decision- making process on how the Net is being administered, a lack of transparency in who is making decisions, and insufficient participation of the international community. The range of positions among governments varies from those that are concerned mainly with development and digital divide issues, relating, for example, to lower interconnection costs to ensure better access for all; to those that are keen to get a bigger share in the business interests of running the networks, at present largely monopolized by US companies. Other governments, meanwhile, hope to increase their possibilities of monitoring or blocking content through technical means, or to be able to introduce regulations -something similar to the present regime in the fields of broadcast media or telecommunications-, by means such as national control of registration of Internet addresses and IP numbers. A multi-stakeholder working group on Internet Governance (WGIG), set up as a result of the 2003 Summit, is developing a report to be presented next July, intended to frame discussions at the third Summit Preparatory Committee (Prepcom), to take place in Geneva next September. Civil society has been working actively in and around the WGIG. The Internet Governance Caucus, set up during phase I of the Summit, went through an extensive consultation and nomination process to propose civil society members for the WGIG (most of whom were accepted), with a careful distribution by region, gender and areas of expertise. Despite the difficulties of working in a multi-stakeholder environment, the WGIG members are convinced that is has so far been a positive and necessary experience of dialogue, and allows civil society a unique opportunity to express and detail the positions they developed at the Summit, in an open exchange with state and private sector actors. There is nonetheless concern among some civil society actors that the heated nature of debate around the control and regulatory aspects of Internet governance, such as those mentioned above and issues such as cybercrime and Spam, are tending to overshadow the broader but very necessary discussions on the more enabling aspects and social implications of Internet governance. The IG caucus statement presented at this Prepcom, and endorsed by the civil society Content and Themes Working Group, addresses a number of these issues. “The WGIG should ground its work within a human rights and development framework. The rights to freedom of expression and privacy are of special importance in this context as is the need for a greater emphasis on the principles of openness and transparency. “The caucus believes that two outcomes of the WGIG that will add significant value are: 1. An understanding of how governance mechanisms can further these basic rights and principles, 2. An elaboration of the concept of democratic internet governance which fosters the goals of creativity, innovation and cultural and linguistic diversity.” And the caucus enumerates among other key issues that the WGIG will need to address: • Unilateral control of the root zone file and its effects for the name space • The crucial role of technical standards in the preservation of an interoperable global Internet • The impact of Internet Governance on freedom of expression and privacy • The different implications of Internet Governance for women and men • The impact of Internet Governance on consumer protection • International Intellectual property and trade rules where they intersect with Internet Governance • Access to knowledge as global commons. The statement also underlines the importance, in this debate, of giving opportunities for all concerned or affected groups to participate and influence outcomes, including those social groups that do not yet have Internet access, from all regions of the world, both men and women. Tunisia under observation: On February 23, the worldwide freedom of expression network, IFEX, presented a report on its recent fact- finding mission to Tunisia. The results contained in a report of almost 60 pages can be found on the IFEX website (www.ifex.org) The main findings of the mission include: - Imprisonment of individuals related to their opinions or media activities. - Blocking of websites and police surveillance of e-mails and Internet cafes. - Restrictions on distribution of books and publications. - Restrictions on the freedom of association. - Restricted movement of human rights defenders and political dissidents. - Lack of pluralism in broadcast ownership. - Press censorship and lack of diversity of content in newspapers. - Regular use of torture by the security services. The mission has made several recommendations to the Tunisian authorities. The paradox of holding a Summit on the Information Society in a country where several young people are serving 13-year prison sentences, under anti- terrorist measures, for simply surfing the Internet, was underlined. Tunisian human rights defenders nonetheless welcome the Summit being held in Tunisia, as an opportunity to bring these issues to international attention. The Summit organizers, however, have declined to recognize that systematic violations of the basic right to freedom of expression in the host country is a problem for the Summit. The Summit secretariat deemed that neither the report, nor the Tunisian response to it, were appropriate for dissemination on the official website or to delegates in Geneva, as they are not directly related to the themes of the Summit. Yet if freedom of expression is not relevant to the Information Society, then there is certainly cause for concern. * Sally Burch, ALAI/CRIS More information: http://movimientos.org/foro_comunicacion/