| 
                            
                              
                                
                                Gustavo Capdevila12 Sept 2005 | 
                                IPS
 
                              GN3 Editorial Comment:
                              
                              
                              We have been regularly 
                              commenting on the emergent qualities of global 
                              civil society as a third social force alongside 
                              States and Markets. Global social phenomena are 
                              reinforcing this new map of the social terrain, 
                              although existing social structures and processes 
                              still have a long way to go. As discussed in the 
                              article below, tensions are evident in the
                              World 
                              
                              
                              Summit for the Information Society (WSIS) as it 
                              tries to address the information gap and internet 
                              governance among others. But it is perhaps more 
                              interesting to note the formal participation of 
                              government, business and civil society--each 
                              bringing a different (though sometimes convergent) 
                              point of view to the process. GENEVA - 
                          The script for the final act of the World Summit for 
                          the Information Society (WSIS) will begin to be 
                          written on Sep. 19 in this Swiss city, with the 
                          participation of a cast that will be made up - for the 
                          first time on the international stage - of a wide 
                          range of actors: governments, business and civil 
                          society. 
 Stemming from its novel makeup 
                          are discrepancies that have stood in the way of the 
                          drafting of a text that everyone can agree on, which 
                          is to be signed by the heads of state and government 
                          at the second phase of the WSIS, to be held Nov. 14-16 
                          in Tunisia.
 
 The WSIS, the first phase of 
                          which took place in Geneva in December 2003, revolves 
                          around the challenges posed by the information society 
                          with respect to the future of the Internet, especially 
                          the gap between rich and poor countries in the use of 
                          computer and telecommunications technologies.
 
 The business community and some 
                          governments, especially the George W. Bush 
                          administration in the United States, want to maintain 
                          the current Internet governance regime, which so far 
                          has been almost exclusively in the hands of the 
                          private sector and the U.S. government.
 
 Industry, which controls - and 
                          profits from - the current system, wants to leave it 
                          as it is, a position shared by the United States, said 
                          Brazilian representative José Marcos Nogueira Viana.
 
 The great majority of developing 
                          countries, on the other hand, are pushing for reforms 
                          of Internet governance, as are civil society 
                          organisations, although they differ with the proposed 
                          models for reform.
 
 The issue of Internet governance 
                          will be the focus of the last Preparatory Committee 
                          Meeting, scheduled for Sep. 19-30 in Geneva.
 
 Since its creation in the 1960s, 
                          the worldwide web has been growing by leaps and 
                          bounds, and currently connects some one billion users 
                          around the globe.
 
 The question of Internet 
                          governance also includes aspects like the mechanisms 
                          to be established to follow up on compliance with the 
                          resolutions reached in the two phases of the WSIS, in 
                          Geneva and Tunis.
 
 The Working Group on Internet 
                          Governance (WGIG) set up by U.N. Secretary General 
                          Kofi Annan noted in its final report in July that 
                          defining Internet governance "has been the subject of 
                          long discussions."
 
 It therefore provided the 
                          following definition: "Internet governance is the 
                          development and application by governments, the 
                          private sector and civil society, in their respective 
                          roles, of shared principles, norms, rules, 
                          decision-making procedures, and programmes that shape 
                          the evolution and use of the Internet."
 
 The report made a significant 
                          clarification by limiting the actions of the three 
                          sectors - governments, business and civil society - to 
                          "their respective roles."
 
 That concept, which is supported 
                          by the great majority of governments, would apparently 
                          place limits on this first experiment in holding a 
                          truly tripartite U.N. conference.
 
 Civil society groups have 
                          protested that the specific roles granted to 
                          non-governmental organisations and the private sector 
                          are ambiguous in relation to the role assigned to 
                          governments.
 
 Referring to civil society and 
                          business, Viana said the governments were not opposed 
                          to "observers," while adding, however, that there are 
                          times when it is governments that must make the 
                          decisions.
 
 He pointed out that Brazil and 
                          the United States hold public hearings, but afterwards 
                          it is the governments that decide by decree or by law.
 
 Viana also noted that the digital 
                          gap has two facets: financial inequalities, which make 
                          it difficult to attain Internet connection and 
                          purchase computers in poor countries; and political 
                          inequalities, arising from the inability of developing 
                          countries to influence decision-making with regard to 
                          the Internet.
 
 In the first phase of the WSIS, 
                          participants decided to study the possibility of 
                          obtaining resources to finance the expansion of 
                          information and communications technologies in 
                          developing countries.
 
 But the U.S. and Japanese 
                          representatives said there were no funds for that, 
                          said Viana.
 
 The only option for financing 
                          emerged from an initiative put forth by the president 
                          of Senegal, Abdoulaye Wade, which was taken up by 
                          municipal authorities in a number of cities, led by 
                          Lyon and Geneva, to create a "digital solidarity 
                          fund".
 
 Viana noted, however, that the 
                          fund is an initiative to help cities, while at a 
                          global level there is nothing, because donor nations 
                          are not interested.
 
 Another aspect of the controversy 
                          focuses on the power exercised by the private sector 
                          and the U.S. government in Internet governance.
 
 The Internet Corporation for 
                          Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), a U.S.-based 
                          private not-for-profit body, is exclusively 
                          responsible for assigning Internet names and 
                          addresses, such as domain names like .net, .edu or 
                          .com.
 
 The WGIG stated that "No single 
                          government should have a pre-eminent role in relation 
                          to international Internet governance."
 
 But Michael Gallagher, assistant 
                          secretary at the U.S. National Telecommunications and 
                          Information Administration, recently indicated that 
                          his government was not ready to give up the control it 
                          exercises.
 
 The bloc of civil society 
                          organisations active in the WSIS expressed concern 
                          over Gallagher's statement, saying it "raised a number 
                          of questions" and implied that unilateral U.S. control 
                          would be maintained indefinitely.
 
 Brazil, one of the countries that 
                          has been most active in calling for the 
                          democratisation of Internet governance, said the 
                          incident involving the creation of a top-level domain 
                          name for pornography websites had demonstrated U.S. 
                          power over the Internet.
 
 Two months ago, ICANN officials 
                          approved the concept of the .xxx domain name.
 
 Vint Cerf, one of the fathers of 
                          the Internet and the chairman of the ICANN board, said 
                          everything was ready for registering the domain name 
                          and that the only concerns were technical ones.
 
 The Brazilian representatives 
                          argued that creating the .xxx domain name would pave 
                          the way for accepting the registration of others like 
                          .nazi, while the delegates from Spain said it would be 
                          like approving a domain name like .odio (.hate).
 
 "ICANN has the tendency to adopt 
                          political decisions under the guise of technical 
                          criteria," said Viana.
 
 ICANN only postponed the creation 
                          of the .xxx domain until Sep. 19 because the U.S. 
                          government sent a letter stating that it had received 
                          protests from church groups in the United States, said 
                          the Brazilian representative.
 
 "That proves that there is a 
                          government that controls the entire system," he 
                          maintained.
 Internet Source:
                          
                          http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=30230 |