At this second Preparatory Committee of phase 2 of the World Summit on the Information Society, the central issue for debate among governments is that of Financial Mechanisms for ICT Development, which the organizers are hoping to bring to a conclusion tonight. There is little indication that much new will come out of the document on this issue. Governments seem set to accept a compromise agreement worked out between Ghana and the European Union, that essentially states that they "welcome" the voluntary Digital Solidarity Fund established in Geneva at the first WSIS (December 2003), that was set up, not by states, but by local governments, on the initiative of Geneva and Lyon. Southern governments were highly dissatisfied, at that time, with the refusal of Northern governments to commit money to the implementation of the WSIS Action Plan, or even express support for a voluntary plan. Under pressure, they reluctantly agreed only to set up a task force to "review the adequacy" of funding mechanisms. This multi-stakeholder body operated for two months, under leadership of UNDP. The task force decided to limit its mandate to examining existing funding mechanisms, declining to look into new options. It also pointed to new trends and identified some areas where present mechanisms fail to "meet the challenges of ICT for development". The latter include 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. At this Prepcom, G8 governments have maintained their refusal to commit to any new funding and only acceded to "welcoming" the voluntary DSF. The WSIS Geneva Declaration and Action Plan emphasize that development aid in the area of ICTs should mainly be channelled towards fulfilment of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), since ICTs can be a development enabler, (for example, by generating better ability to access key information and crucial communications needs). The refusal to allocate new financing mechanisms could mean that the onus of ICT development funding will shift to existing MDG funds, in competition with other more urgent development goals such as heath and clean water. Meanwhile, the Grulac group (Latin American and Caribbean governments) has expressed reserves about welcoming the Fund, due to lack of clarity about its mechanisms and how it will benefit their region. Other issues still under debate among governments include recognition of the limits of private investment, particularly in services to rural areas and disadvantaged populations, and the crucial role of public finance in such areas. And there is strong disagreement on the terms in which to refer to public regulation (or its removal) and/or public policy to encourage investment in the telecommunications area. It appears probable that references will be included to supporting community-based initiatives and to promoting awareness (or use of) free and open source software: both civil society priorities. References have also been included to financing needs for developing content and applications, and to including broadcast radio and TV in national development strategies. A weak report Many civil society actors consider the Task Force report could have been much more specific and forceful. 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. Digital Solidarity Fund executive secretary, Alain Clerc, is not so concerned about the lack of a more specific commitment by WSIS itself, however. In an interview, he expresses that while the WSIS support for the Fund will an important aid, the main virtue of the DSF is the novelty of the proposed funding mechanism itself: 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. It is proposed that the Fund, which will be officially launched in March in Geneva, will allocate 60% of its subsidies to less developed countries, 30% to developing countries and 10% to transitional or industrialized states. By recognizing the fund, governments will have the opportunity to be represented on the decision-making mechanism, on which is proposed to include at least three members from each of the five regions of the globe, and from different sectors (government, civil society or local government, and the private sector). According to Clerc, community initiatives with multi-stakeholder participation will be one of the main funding priorities. * Sally Burch, ALAI/CRIS