geert lovink on Sun, 23 Nov 2003 20:59:40 +0100 (CET) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
<nettime> wsis digest no. 3 |
World Summit on Information Society Nettime Digest, no. 3 November 24, 2003 1. A steep climb to the Information Society Summit 2. Webregulator too American, UN to hear 3. Casper Henderson: What future for global civil society? 4. Mbeki Wants Domain Names Discussed (AllAfrica) 5. US Mediareform Conference Discusses WSIS 6. Rahul Kumar: ICTs need to focus on marginalised groups 7. Media: The step-child of WSIS? (OneWorld) 8. Civil Society Statement, Geneva, November 14, 2003 9. Iran to Participate in Tech-Summit 10. We Seize! Counter Summit Activities 11. recommendation to Brazilian WSIS delegates 12. World Forum on Communication Rights 13. Daily Summit 14. IMC/Indymedia @ WSIS 15. ABOUT YNTERNET.ORG 16. Last Tuesday Zagreb: WSIS?! -- 1. A steep climb to the Information Society Summit >From InterPress News Agency, November 14, 2003 By Gustavo Capdevila http://www.ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=21121 GENEVA, Nov 14 (IPS) - Everyone wants to bridge the information and telecommunications divide - governments, the private sector and civil society - but with less than four weeks to go before the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), agreement on how to tackle the issue remains elusive. The final effort, a special session of the preparatory committee for the United Nations-sponsored summit, ended in failure this week in Geneva. Regardless, heads of state are to gather Dec. 10-12 in this Swiss city to tackle the challenges created by the rapid development and expansion of information and communications technologies (ICTs). But the documents they are to discuss and put their signatures to have yet to be finalised. Dissent afflicts issues that are included throughout the texts of the declaration of principles and the plan of action that the WSIS is to adopt, says Mark Furrer, Switzerland's communications minister. Among the matters of discord are the creation of a fund for reversing the digital divide, a demand of developing countries, and the inclusion of references to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the WSIS final documents, which some governments oppose. The differences grow deeper when it comes to the role of the communications media, Internet governance, limits to intellectual property rights, copyright and free software, says Wolfgang Kleinwaechter, an ICT expert and activist from Denmark's Aarhus University. As for human rights, the Chinese delegation objected to the draft of the summit declaration because it includes binding provisions, beyond the standards of the United Nations Charter, said an observer of the sessions who spoke on condition of anonymity. The WSIS civil society media group issued a statement of regret that the reaffirmation of freedoms of expression and of the press had not been included in the drafts of the declaration and action plan. Nor did the delegates on the preparatory committee agree on including mention of the communications media as acknowledged actors of the information society. Failure to include the media would be like convening a conference on agriculture without farmers, says Tracey Naughton, head of the communications media group. The drafts of the proposals referring to the media included a call to promote pluralism of information and diversity in ownership. Such a policy would prevent the concentration of the news media in the hands of the few, according to Karen Banks, a coordinator of the civil society "content and themes group" in the WSIS process. Civil society wants governmental information services to be able to communicate their messages, but the state-controlled media should be transformed into organisations in the public interest with editorial independence, or they should be privatised, said Banks. Activists say they are frustrated by the difficulties that the governments in the WSIS preparatory process are having in hammering out agreements. There are some that lack political will, commented Kleinwaechter. But the failures of the summit preparatory committee have not cooled the enthusiasm of the civil society representatives involved. For the first time in U.N. history, non-governmental organisations are participating alongside governments and private sector delegates in preparations for a meeting of this type. "We remain totally committed" to the objectives of the summit, Renate Bloem, president of the Conference of Non-Governmental Organisations (CONGO) that hold consultative status with the United Nations, told IPS. Kleinwaechter says that civil society has adopted a two-pronged strategy. The activists will remain involved in the WSIS, but if the governments are not committed to the process, "we are willing to take on the responsibility" with other sectors, he said. A special session of high-level officials from the participating countries will be needed in order to resolve the pending issues, said Pierre Gagne, executive director of the WSIS secretariat, designated by the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), which is sponsoring the summit in representation of the U.N. The meeting is slated for Dec. 7-8, just prior to the summit, he announced. Meanwhile, the Swiss government, as host of the international event, will promote bilateral meetings between the parties that continue to hold opposing views in a bid to reach some agreement, said Adolfo Ogi, former president of Switzerland, designated by Bern as facilitator for the WSIS. Ogi agreed with the activists in identifying human rights, the communications media and Internet governance as being the issues that have triggered greatest disagreement. Another critical matter is financing for ICT infrastructure in developing countries. A proposal from Senegal, calling for creating a fund for that purpose, has the backing of delegations from the developing world. But the United States, European Union, Canada and Japan challenged the initiative. -- 2. Webregulator too American, UN to hear >From National Post, November 19, 2003 By Isabel Vincent http://www.nationalpost.com/world/story.html?id=DC2076BE-9514-4C97-8424-6EA1D0B8D896 A rebellion is growing among developing countries against what they see as the undue influence of the United States on the Internet. The question of who should control the Net will be the major point of discussion at the United Nations' first conference on information technology, which opens in Geneva next month. More than 50 heads of state are expected to attend the World Summit on the Information Society to discuss Internet governance, a contentious subject that has been hotly debated by civic groups, governments and business leaders for the past five years. Many developing countries and non-governmental organizations want the United Nations to manage the Internet, rather than the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), a private regulator in California. The five-year-old company, which works with the U.S. government, oversees how Web sites are named and how e-mail is sent for the world's more than 550-million Internet users. Although the ICANN board of directors is made up of representatives from around the world, many critics worry the organization is too closely linked to the United States. They would prefer the Internet to be managed by a more inclusive intergovernmental body, such as the International Telecommunications Union, the UN agency that is organizing the Geneva summit from Dec. 10-12. "ICANN has no real right to hold the power it has been given over the day-to-day operations of the Net," said Bill Thompson, a British technical consultant who writes a technology column for BBC Online. "Many people have come to the conclusion that ICANN has to go. It has never shown that it is able to represent the majority of interests of Net users." But many Western countries support ICANN because of its commitment to minimal regulation and commercial principles. They believe the Internet should remain decentralized in the interests of promoting free speech and free commerce. Furthermore, U.S. and European Union officials say UN organizations are hopelessly bureaucratic and could never manage the Internet, which moves at lightning speed. Indeed, the European Commission argues putting its management in the hands of the United Nations or individual governments could threaten the flow of information and ideas on the Internet. But many non-governmental organizations worry about the flow of hate speech, child pornography and unwanted advertising, or spam. They argue a new structure needs to be put in place that would address ways of dealing with such issues. The Internet Democracy Project, an umbrella group for non-governmental organizations bankrolled by the international financier and philanthropist George Soros, says it is seeking to "create Internet government structures that preserve and promote the principles of a civil society." It is pushing to make ICANN more accountable to the Internet community. "Increasingly, ICANN has been setting policies on issues that will have a significant impact on the free expression and privacy rights of Internet users, for example, by crafting policies that favour commercial interests over those of non-commercial speakers." Paul Twomey, ICANN's president and CEO, supports the work of the Geneva summit and believes what is needed is a balance between ICANN's management of the Internet and government regulation. "ICANN brings a lot of expertise to the table," he said. Outright government control of the Internet would be "killing the goose that laid the golden egg." Mr. Twomey, an Australian, takes exception to the idea that ICANN is somehow an American institution, pointing out that it is, in fact, a non-governmental organization with wide international representation. Much of the opposition to ICANN, he believes, is really misplaced anti-Americanism. Many observers expect the summit in Geneva to accomplish little. Andrew McLaughlin, a Harvard University fellow who studies global telecommunications policy called the summit "a blabberfest that is not likely to produce any results." It's a view shared by many ICANN officials. "The Internet moves at amazing speed," said one who did not want to be identified. "How can a bureaucratic organization like the UN manage the Internet? You need a nimble organization that can make quick decisions." Even the organizers of the Geneva summit say they are not expecting much to be resolved at the meeting. "Probably what will happen is more a sketch of what needs to be done," said Nitin Desai, special advisor to the summit for Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary General. For this reason, a second conference has already been set for Tunisia in November, 2005. Internet governance is only one of many issues the summit will tackle. Another is the creation of a "digital solidarity fund" that would address the technology gap between rich and poor countries. The push for the fund is being led by a group of African countries, although many international lending agencies, such as the World Bank, fear much of the money earmarked for the proposed "digital solidarity fund" could end up funding more bureaucracy. "People are not excited by the idea of creating a special fund that entails massive arrangements," said a spokesman for the World Bank. "The bank would never support something that would generate a few million dollars for African countries and cost the same amount to manage." -- 3. Casper Henderson: What future for global civil society? Reports from the Miami Trade Talks. Being Civil at the UN." Open Democracy (20 Nov 2003) http://www.opendemocracy.net/themes/article-6-1596.jsp> Miami Advice A new drama unfolds in the Globolog discussion forums. Phil Bloomer, of Oxfam's fair trade campaign, has been writing regular updates from the trade talks in Miami, where, as this goes online, Phil reckons that "the 1990s neo-liberal model for hemispheric development may be terminally weakened. The danger is what takes its place". Read the latest reports and post your comments, questions and criticisms in the discussion. UN Forgiven Billy Connolly, a comedian, once observed that Scotland's contribution to the 20th century was staggering (in British vernacular, 'staggering' means stupendous; it can also refer to a gait consequent upon the excessive consumption of alcohol). Sometimes, it seems, the same can be said of the UN. In spring 2003, Richard Perle reckoned Saddam Hussein would take the United Nations down with him. But this institution, created by the United States at a time of extraordinary farsightedness ("We all have to recognise, no matter how great our strength, that we must deny ourselves the license to do always as we please" - Harry Truman, 1945), has a way of getting back on its feet. Even George W. Bush, in a speech in London on 19 November, said that the US wanted to promote and strengthen the effectiveness of international institutions. As beasts go, the UN is a starved little number. The total annual budget for the UN family of institutions is around $1.25 billion - about the same amount as the US spends every 32 hours on its military. And its legitimacy and competence are as questionable as its finances. Not least, this club for sovereign nations has what Ian Williams describes as a statistically significant number of states which commit major violations of human rights on its Human Rights Committee. Nevertheless, stepping ever so gingerly, UN secretary-general Kofi Annan is trying to strengthen the UN's own picayune apparatus as a force for good. Earlier this month he set up a panel to review the UN's global role. Less noticed, however, is an initiatve to review relations between UN institutions and the multitude of civil society groups, generally termed non-government organisations. The number of NGOs with consultative status to Ecosoc is huge (it appears to be lower than Globolog's April estimate, but the list still runs to 16 pages, with at least 500 NGOs ranging from the Chemical Manufacturers Association to the Sudanese Environment Conservation Society). Annan wants to make more sense out of what looks close to an unmanageable hodgepodge, to forge an accountability that works. And in February 2003 he appointed a Panel of Eminent Persons on UN-Civil Society Relations to help him do so. The Panel has undertaken what it describes as global consultations with a diversity of constituencies (NGOs, parliamentarians, local authorities, private sector groups, indigenous peoples organisations, trade unions, mayors and others) to inform its report and recommendations to the secretary-general. The six-month consultation period runs to the end of this year (an online response form gives an October deadline, but you can write to civilsocietypanel@un.org until the end of December). Earlier this week, panel members Malini Mehra from India and Mary Racelis from the Philippines met with around sixty UK representatives in London in a consultation organised by the One World Trust and the Centre for Social Markets. And in a note published on 17 November, the Panel listed areas of concern coming up in the consultations. At the time of writing, there is no version of these on the Panel's website so a copy is given in a box here: "1.. Concern that High-Level Panel's Report to the UN Secretary General may not be made public - will be a contradiction of an open and inclusive consultation process if it is not publicly released. 2.. World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), preparatory process seen as deeply unsatisfactory in way in which NGOs are being involved. A step back, not a step forward. 3.. Danger of overload - UN as presently constituted and resourced not able to deal with increasing NGO demands. 4.. At the moment, the new areas of influence open to those who have power and money and influence - need to ensure balanced representation on north/ south issues, and recognise important role of youth. 5.. Challenge of getting smaller groups and citizens groups engaged in UN processes and implementation. Need to ensure pluralism, and avoid vested interests forming, by ensuring diversity in both size and representation. 6.. Consultative and Accreditation rules need to be reviewed - especially in context of de-accreditation/ de-selecting groups. 7.. Global civil society needs to connect much more effectively with national civil society. Mechanisms are needed for this, and both top-down and bottom-up pressure promoting this. 8.. Profound concern about closure of United Nations Information Centre in UK. Criticism that this makes little sense in world where the case for action through the UN increasingly made. 9.. Inadequate learning by the UN internally from best practice on UN-civil society engagement. For example, Habitat II seen as exemplary. 'Why has the UN - having got it right in Istanbul - now going backwards'. This seen as part of the dysfunctionality of the UN." Globolog talked to Panel member Malini Mehra about these concerns. Point one, secrecy. "This is a private panel set up by the secretary-general to advise him personally", said Mehra. "It's akin to a number of other panels he sets up for personal advice. It is not a public panel set up by the UN General Assembly". There were certain things Annan could be show in private so that he could make a judgement as to how much political risk and capital he could put into them. A full version of the Panel's findings would be given to the General Assembly in April 2004. Point two, troubled relations between NGOs and governments at the forthcoming World Summit on the Information Society. WSIS will be reported and analysed by Solana Larsen in next week's edition of openDemocracy. Larsen cites William Drake of Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility: "Basically, you have a bunch of dictatorships sitting around discussing which language on freedom on expression they can agree with", he tells her. But information technology is a long way from being the only concern. The Panel has received hundreds of specific recommendations on every aspect of UN civil society relations, Mehrato Globolog. Ranking them was hard, but one of the most prominent was the deselection of some NGOs from consultative status. The UN, she said, is overloaded with access expectations and unable to respond effectively. "There is also a recognition that engagement with the UN does not always have to be through the secretariats, or through global conferences, but should also be through national country offices, regional commissions and the like". "We're not yet world citizens", said Mehra. And that being the case, NGOs should, wherever possible, put pressure on and work with the governments of their own countries. There were examples of this working in practice, said Mary Marcelis. In the Philippines civil society groups had worked closely with elected officials to see that the full implications of meeting the Millennium Development Goals were worked out and costed. There are, of course, deep and complex questions about the degree to which citizens and non-state actors act internationally and independently or in defiance of the nation-state from which they come. Some believe that civil society should create new institutions beyond the reach of the nation-state, even a World Parliament (in Globolog's view a good idea . for the 23rd Century; but if we must have one now then Mary Robinson should be president). How far one should go with such Altermondialism was a lively topic at last week's European Social (ESF) and it's likely to continue to be so at the World Social Forum (WSF) in India in January 2004 (some UN Consultative Panel members will be participating in the WSF. But hefty chunks of the world are not included in this conversation. Among them, as Globolog noted during last year's ESF, is China. There, as both Jeffrey Garten and The Economist describe, there's a long way to go. In some other countries [take Saudi Arabia (see, for example Roula Khalaf in the Financial Times, November 17, subscription only) or Mary Kaldor's recent article for openDemocracy on Iraq], the prospects of a constructive role for civil society may seem even more remote, but are no less crucial. -- 4.Mbeki Wants Domain Names Discussed <http://allafrica.com/stories/200311170902.html> The issue of administering Internet domain names should be discussed at next month's world information summit in Geneva, "otherwise the world continues to be governed by California law", says president Thabo Mbeki. Mbeki addressed a media conference yesterday, after a meeting of the President's International Advisory Council (PIAC) that deals with IT issues relating to this country's and Africa's development. "We need to discuss the possibility of putting in place a multilateral mechanism for Internet governance and the summit is a good place to do it," Mbeki said. "It may be the current way it is governed through ICANN is the best way, but this has to be examined." The World Summit on Information Society (WSIS) is due to be held in Switzerland from 10 to 12 December. The issue of Internet governance has been a major sticking point between government and non-government organisations in the run-up to the event. Many of the poorer nations such as Brazil, South Africa, Saudi Arabia and China would like to see the administration of Internet domain name registrations moved from the public private company ICANN, which is incorporated under California law, to a multinational organisation such as the United Nations. However, the US and the European Union staunchly support the ICANN model. Speculation within some international media is that the poorer countries may try to coordinate joint action, as they did at the recent World Trade Organisation talks in Mexico, to get the more developed countries to agree to their demands. According to Department of Communications minister Ivy Matsepe-Casaburri, at the same news conference, the WSIS will address a number of other issues that have developed into sticking points between the more developed and less developed of the world's economies. These are human rights, the protection of intellectual property, Internet security, the media and the Internet, and financing to get poorer countries up to speed with connecting to the Internet. "Internet governance is just one issue that will have to be discussed," Matsepe-Casaburri said. SA will have three delegations going to the WSIS, although the exact number of people has not been decided yet. There will be government, civil society and business delegations. The government delegation will contain representatives of the other two delegations and from a number of government departments. -- 5. US Mediareform Conference Discusses WSIS http://www.mediareform.net/issue.php?id=wsis Perhaps one of the greatest opportunities to support democratization of media on a global scale is the World Summit on the Information Society and the related conferences that will occur alongside it. Under the auspices of the International Telecommunications Union and the United Nations, this summit is scheduled to take place in two phases, the first in Geneva, Switzerland from December 10-12, 2003. The stated goal is to bring together the key players of the world 'information society' - governments, international organizations, the private sector and non-governmental organizations - to formulate policy regarding new communications technologies and how these relate to socio-economic development and other cultural and ethical concerns. This conference will lay the groundwork for future discussions as to how technological access is obtained, who will have access to the 'information society,' and how such a worldwide 'information society' will be utilized. It is ironic that in the most wired country in the world very little discussion relating to this summit is taking place. In contrast, preparatory meetings are being held or are planned in Asia, South America and Europe, covering such issues as the utilization of new technologies as instruments for the advancement and empowerment of women as well as preserving free speech on the Internet. This summit provides a grand opportunity to bring media issues to the forefront of debate here in the United States and should be leveraged as such. It is vital that we ensure a loud voice for the people that the 'information society' should ultimately serve as this international debate officially commences. -- 6. ICTs need to focus on marginalised groups Rahul Kumar (OneWorld South Asia) http://southasia.oneworld.net/article/view/73382/1/ The founder of Datamation Consultants, Chetan Sharma speaks to OneWorld South Asia about information society and its impact on the developing world. He says that traditional civil society organisations do not yet believe in the potential of information and communication technologies for development. Are you satisfied with the response of the Indian government on the World Summit on Information Society (WSIS)? I am absolutely dissatisfied with the government's response. I understand the IT Secretary has represented India at the PrepCom3. However it has been a keen-jerk reaction given the stakes and implications. It is a pity that the government has not understood the implications of the WSIS. As with earlier UN summits - Rio and Beijing - the outcome of WSIS will have a major influence on the policy and attitudes of governments, multi-lateral organisations and the civil society. The market can also be expected to pick up vital cues and thus be influenced substantially. Is the Indian civil society playing a major role? Unfortunately not. A few members from the civil society have participated in the deliberations at the PrepComs, but have neither created awareness nor sensitised the government about its responsibility regarding WSIS. We have been working on an awareness strategy as part of which we are in contact with the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology and the Department of Administrative Reforms & Personnel Grievances. We, along with a number of civil society members, government officials and the private sector have prepared a draft National Gender and ICT paper for WSIS. We hope our inputs shall constitute a vital constituent in the WSIS declaration in Geneva 2003. What do you want the WSIS to achieve? We want the information society to include the marginalised sections - youth, women, elderly and minority groups. We have also tried to draw the attention of the Planning Commission of India and members of the National Committee on E-Governance so that they understand the enormous impact of the WSIS for the country and become proactive. What is the response of Asian countries to the summit? Better than the Indian response. Most south Asian and Pacific governments along with CSOs have taken the summit seriously. One reason is that they have already established their development gateways, even as we struggle with ours. Had this development portal existed in the country earlier, we would not have been washed out in WSIS awareness, advocacy and sensitisation. How will the summit outcome impact India? WSIS will address the broad range of themes concerning the information society and adopt a Declaration of Principles and plan of action, addressing the whole range of issues related to the information society. India is a country of one billion people. To speak for the Indians is to almost speak for one-ninth of humanity. Surprisingly, there is a rather weak representation for this big section, as we prepare to lay down the vision and guiding principles of a new world. This large part of humanity is distinctive in many ways, generally, as well as in its position with respect to the emerging information age. India is a developing nation, and a strongly tradition-bound society. But it is progressing fast and its social and civil institutions are well developed. India is also a global IT powerhouse. Though most of this power is oriented to fuel growth and development on foreign shores, a positive drag effect on the Indian society is building steadily. Experimental initiatives in the area of Information and Communication Technologies for development are fairly advanced in India and would certainly have a faster impact than many nations similarly placed. Will WSIS help the marginalised or increase existing inequities? I am certain the WSIS will help the poor provided we succeed in re-orienting our decision-makers and then the international lobbies. Traditional civil society organisations have a good influence in policy formulation, apart from having a good impact in other areas of the society. But the problem is that much of the 'traditional' development sector still does not share the vision of an emerging information society or its relevance to ground level issues of development. Agencies which are so strong in representing and fighting for these issues do not believe that a new society is being built at all. And if it is, they find no reason to believe that this new society holds a promise for a better accomplishment of the very goals that they have set for themselves. And it is this disassociation that we have to bridge in India. ICTs will have to rely on community-centered strategies and ensure the inclusion of the marginalised sections. The right to equal opportunities, to information and to communicate freely may today have to be mediated by a right of equitable access to the new technologies. Can the meet go the way of the World Trade Organisation, in that it benefits the rich only? Certainly not. The African and Latin American civil society has been active for the past several years; consequently WSIS draft declarations are far more "inclusionary" and "realistic." I don't envision the summit to go the same way as the WTO. -- 7. Media: The step-child of WSIS? Nalaka Gunawardene OneWorld South Asia 13 November 2003 In his 1992 book, How the World Was One, Sir Arthur C Clarke described a bizarre vision of the near future: Ted Turner is offered the post of World President, but he rejects it - because he didn't want to give up power! Well, the founder of CNN no longer runs the network and spends time popularising bison burghers and supporting the United Nations. But Clarke was once again uncannily perceptive when he prophesied the emergence of media moguls whose power far exceeds that of nation states or political leaders. The media has always been a manipulator of power, in both politics and commerce. But it is only in the past two decades that this power has been amplified by new information and communications technologies - ICTs for short. These, and deregulation policies that opened by many national markets, enabled a handful of trans-national corporations to build truly global electronic empires that press barons of the past could only dream about. Ted Turner and Rupert Murdoch are only the best known faces of this industry that runs wide and deep. And it is no longer a western monopoly either: countries like India, Thailand and Mexico have produced their own mini-Murdochs. The implications of this have been slow to sink in, and not surprisingly, these issues are hardly discussed in the media itself. We in the media love to turn the spotlight on everyone else - except ourselves. Take television, for example. Viewers across developing Asia were euphoric when, in the early 1990s, trans-boundary satellite television ended the monopoly of dull and propagandistic state owned television. Not even the Great Wall of China could stop satellite television transmissions from 36,000 kilometres above the Earth, cooed one advertisement for STAR which ushered in this change. (China found ways of coercing STAR, but that's another story.) Shortly afterwards, many of our countries allowed private sector participation in the media - which transformed the entire mass media landscape in a very short time. Most parts of Asia moved rapidly from an average of 2.4 television channels in 1990 to several dozen by the decade's end. A similar proliferation has happened in radio, where a cacophony of FM channels now crowds the airwaves. Good news and bad news A decade on, there is good news and bad news. As the 2002 Global Civil Society Yearbook, published by the London School of Economics and Political Science, noted: "Liberalisation and diversification, particularly in Africa and Asia, have transformed both print and broadcast media from a largely government-owned, monopolistic and uncreative media environment to a more dynamic, popular, democratic, creative, commercial and complex one." That good news is also bad news - for some. Media liberalisation has not been matched by a corresponding increase in the public sphere - the area that accommodates and nurtures wide ranging discussion and debate on matters of public interest. Commercial media tend to ignore both poor people and those living in rural areas. Broadcasting has become a market-based activity where profits are being made - mostly in cities, attracting advertisers and audiences with a mixture of music and light entertainment catering to lifestyle needs of the middle class. Even in South Asian countries with widespread malnutrition, such channels would much rather talk about how to lose weight. News has taken a particular beating in the business plans of media empires run at a profit. "Infotainment is a commodity and today's news coverage reflects market forces and the desire of media moguls to rule the airwaves," says Kunda Dixit, editor of the Nepali Times and leading media commentator. "The public service role of media is being usurped by businesses for whom the definition of news is very simple: news has to sell, otherwise it is not news." Meanwhile, the former monopolies have fallen on hard times and completely lost their way. State-run broadcasting systems have found their audiences migrating to newer channels and government subsidies reduced or withdrawn. Struggling to survive, they have abandoned their earlier remit for public interest broadcasting, and are trying to outdo private competitors in their own game. If they have to reduce transmission capacity in rural areas or cut down on programmes on health, education, environment or agricultural topics, so be it. Media ignored by WSIS? For many who are poor or living away from cities, there is now less information, fewer programmes on their concerns, and less chance to make their voices heard. As the Panos Institute has warned, without the capacity to seek information, to debate issues, and to make their voices heard, poor and rural people risk becoming more and more marginalised from their nation's and the world's economies. The 'dot com' has not come to them - and is unlikely to arrive anytime soon either. The World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) provides an important opportunity to raise these critical issues about North-South and rich-poor gaps in media ownership, content and access. Unfortunately, the official preparatory processes - and even civil society consultations - have focused too much on computers and Internet, ignoring the fact that the mass media have far greater outreach and power over people's lives and choices. In fact, the widely accepted definition of ICTs - also used by the United Nations - covers the conventional communications technologies of telephone, radio and television as well as the newer ones - personal computers, mobile phones, satellite and wireless technologies and the Internet. The reality is that we have far more radio and television sets on the planet than computers. The electronic media still provide the most effective - and often the only way - that people can access information to make sense of their lives, livelihoods and the choices they have to make in the complex and globalised society. The crux of the matter is not technology but information itself - how much of information is available, in what relevant and timely manner to how many people at any given time. Immersed in digital hype, governmental and civil society participants at WSIS risk missing this crucial point. They cannot afford to do so. The media are likely to remain the principal source of outside information for a majority of humanity for years to come. Media are also a critical way through which the people can, in turn, express their views and concerns in national discussion and debate. Consequently, the current status and on-going changes in the structure, content, ownership and access within these media is of equal, if not greater, importance in any discussion on how the Information Society affects the majority world. Media pluralism in the globalised world A key concern of the 'Information Society' is media pluralism - a situation where all people in society have access to information on issues that affect their lives and have a way of making their voices heard in national public debate. Genuine media pluralism implies: diversity of ownership, including media which explicitly serve a public or community interest; media that are accessible and intelligible to all citizens, particularly in relation to literacy and language; and media that reflect diversity of public opinion, particularly of the marginalised in society. When these criteria are applied, the global trend is that we are moving away from, not towards, real media pluralism. Media freedom is necessary, but not sufficient, for media pluralism. While the past decade has witnessed many advances in media freedom and a growth in the number of radio and television outlets, they have not necessarily enhanced media pluralism. This is because media ownership - at the global, regional and national levels - has been concentrating in fewer hands, squeezing out independent players. This now threatens to replace the earlier governmentally controlled concentration of media with an increasingly narrow commercial and political one. This has serious implications for the diversity and accountability in the media. WSIS is not going to resolve these major concerns, but it can draw attention to them. Media globalisation is not just fodder for academics to churn out papers - it affects us all, every minute of the day. We ignore these issues at our peril. One day soon we might wake up to find - on the morning news, where else? - that we do have a World President whose arrival we never noticed. Nalaka Gunawardene worked in print and broadcast media in his native Sri Lanka before pursuing a career in non-profit media organisations in the region. He is a director of Panos South Asia and heads TVE Asia Pacific. -- 8. Civil Society Statement at the End of the Preparatory Process for the World Summit on the Information Society Geneva, November 14, 2003 I. Where do we stand now? We have come to the last day of PrepCom 3a. This extra week of preparatory work was neccesary after governments failed to reach agreement during the supposed final preparatory conference in September 2003. In spite of the extra expenditure of time and money, the deadlock continues - and sets in already on the very first article of the declaration, where governments are not able to agree on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948, as the common foundation of the summit declaration. Through our observation of the process we have identified two main problem areas that impede progress in the WSIS: 1. How to correct imbalances in riches, imbalances of rights, imbalances of power, or imbalances of access. In particular, governments do not agree on even the principle of a financial effort to overcome the so-called Digital Divide; this is all the mor difficult to accept given that the summit process was started two years ago with precisely that objective. 2. The struggle over human rights. Not even the basis of human life in dignity and equality, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights finds support as the basis for the Information Society. Governments are not able to agree on a comittment to basic human right standards as the basis for the Information Society, most prominent in this case being the freedom of expression. These are the essential conflicts among governments, as we see them now. There is also ongoing fight over issues such as media, internet governance, limited intellectual monopolies such as copyright, Free Software, security and so on. This underlines our assessment that there is a lack of a common vision. II. Realpolitik or New Vision? The underlying struggle we see here is the old world of governments and traditional diplomacy confronting challenges and realities of the 21st century. We recognize the problems governments face in trying to address a range of difficult, complex and politically divisive issues in the two summit documents. But this situation just reflects power struggles that we are seeing around the world. A number of governments realize that much is at stake, and they are responding defensively and nervously. They have noticed that they can not control media content or transborder information flows anymore, nor can they lock the knowledge of the world in the legal system of so-called "intellectual property". Some governments are not prepared. They fear the power of new technologies and the way people are using them to network, to create new forms of partnerships and collaboration, to share experiences and knowledge locally and globally. This, combined with the fear and security paranoia of the past two years, compounds political uncertainty and is also played out in the WSIS process. But: Do we want to base our vision of the information society on fear and uncertainty or on curiosity, compassion and the spirit of looking forward? The WSIS process has slowly but constantly been moving from "information" to "society". It was started with a technocratic infrastracture-oriented perspective in the ITU. We are proud to say that we were crucial in bringing home the idea that in the end, the information society is about people, the communication society is about social processes, and the knowledge society is about society's values. In the end, it is not digital - it is dignity that counts. The whole process has shown a lack of interest among some governments in forming a common vision for the information society. It is not clear if this was ever the agenda. Probably governments are just not prepared to draft a vision anyway. They are not good at that. III. The limits of good faith This is the first time that civil society has participated in such a way in a summit preparation process. We have worked very hard to include issues that some did not expect to be included. We have had some successes, while in a number of areas we were not heard or even listened to. If the governments want to agree, they can agree in 5 minutes. We now have the feeling that there is no political will to agree on a common vision. Therefore we will now stop giving input to the intergovernmental documents. Our position is that we do not want to endorse documents that represent the lowest common denominator among governments - if there will be anything like that. We have produced essential benchmarks - our ethical framework - of which we present the latest version today. The governments risk overlooking these key issues in the hairsplitting and compromise of negotiations if they do not take into account our input more seriously. The current stalemate deepens our belief in the need for the inclusion of all stakeholders in decision-making processes. Where rulers cannot reach consensus, the voices of civil society, communities and citizens can and should provide guidance. IV. Bringing back vision into the process We don't need governments's permission. We take our own responsibility. Someone has to take the lead, if governments won't do it, civil society will do it. We have now started to draft our own vision document as the result of a two-year, bottom-up, transparent and inclusive online and offline discussion process among civil society groups from all over the world. We will present our vision at the summit in Geneva in December 2003. We invite all interested parties, from all sectors of society, to join us in open discussion and debate in a true multi-stakeholder process. New mechanisms and structures are possible and can resolve these impasses and enable people to work together globally and inclusively. V. Looking beyond Geneva Without funding and real political commitment from governments, there is no real Action Plan today. But the present draft provides an agenda, a list of issues of common concern. Governments know they cannot address these issues alone. Any mechanism for the period following Geneva that does not closely associate civil society and other stakeholders is not only unacceptable in principle, it is also doomed to fail. Like many other actors, including some governments, we do not want the opportunities offered by the unique gathering in Geneva to be wasted. We hope to find substantial improvement for the phase leading us to the second phase of the summit in 2005. This process is going so badly, someone has to take the initiative to save it from destruction. If governments don't - we today declare ourselves ready to assume this important responsibility with all actors sharing our concerns. Irrespective of the outcomes of the World Summit on the Information Society in December 2003, civil society will continue what we have been doing all the time: Doing our work, implementing and renewing our vision, working together in local and global bottom-up processes - and thereby shaping a shared and inclusive knowledge society. -- 9. Iran is to participate in tech-summit www.iranmania.com, November 12, 2003 TEHRAN, Nov 15, IRAN NEWS -- Iran is to take part in the first phase of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) in Geneva, Switzerland December 10-12, Gary Fowlie the Geneva-based WSIS Chief of Media and Public Information told IRAN NEWS in a telephone interview. Over 50 heads of state or government have so far committed to participate in the first phase of the WSIS in Geneva along with more than 6000 delegates from governmental and intergovernmental organizations, civil society, the private sector and the media. Tunisia is to host the second phase in November, 2005. Media accreditations have been issued for over 400 media representatives "mostly from developing counties" in Africa and Asia, Fowlie said maintaining that the WSIS expects to accommodate a throughput of 1000 from the media yet. The Iranian mission will be presumably headed by President Mohammad Khatami, a director general in the Iranian Post, Telegraph and Telephone Ministry, who preferred to remain anonymous, told IRAN NEWS. Though discussions are still underway about the mission members representing the Iranian administration in Geneva, he added. The Summit will endorse a Declaration of Principles for the Information Society and a plan of action to bring the benefits of information and communications technologies for social and economic development to the global community. The WSIS is being held under the auspices of the UN Secretary General Kofi Annan and organized by the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), the UN specialized agency for telecommunications. "The commitment of so many heads of state to participate in the Summit is very important as it will be the first opportunity to address in a global forum and at the highest political level the challenges that lie ahead in the Information Society," Yoshio Utsumi, ITU Secretary General was quoted as saying in a press release from the WSIS Media service on Tuesday. "There have been many benefits in the explosive development of information and communication technologies, especially in terms of creating jobs and wealth creation, but it is also creating legitimate concerns, such as ensuring access to information and communication technology, while preserving fundamental freedoms and human rights, security and privacy," Utsumi said. The participants are brought together to foster a clear statement of political will and concrete plan of action to shape the future of the global information society and to promote the urgently needed access of all countries to information, knowledge and communication technologies for development. -- 10. WSIS - We Seize! News Call: http://www.geneva03.org/display/item_fresh.php?id=1&lang=en Website: http://www.geneva03.org/ Wiki: http://www.geneva03.net Mailing List: http://lists.emdash.org/mailman/listinfo/prep-l a. Polimedia Lab b. High Noon c. Strategic Conference a. POLIMEDIA LAB As an intervention into the reorganisation of power, communication and information, we propose a media and communication laboratory during the World Summit on the Information Society as part of the Geneva03 initiatives and as a counter-event to the WSIS. We propose a media and communication laboratory as a counter-event to the WSIS. Based on the experiences of the Hub in Florence in November 2002, the Polymedia Lab will be a temporary space of experimentation and confrontation for alternative and grassroots communication projects. It will serve as a platform to develop and experiment with horizontal communication, to share experiences and knowledge, to create networks of alternative communication projects,and present an alternative vision of information society. Polymedia Lab will focus on horizontality, emancipation, openness, creativity and freedom, where WSIS will be about hierarchy, exclusion, and control. It will present practical projects by those who actually develop information society on a grassroots level. While WSIS will be busy presenting dry documents by those who use, exploit and repress the work of others, we will engage in an act of communications insurgency. What would we envision? What could take place at Polymedia Lab? - Indymedia Centre with public access terminals -pirate TV and pirate radio - video and radio streams (global, multidirectional, and in interaction with streams being produced elsewhere) - presentations on issues around the information society : media concentration, intellectual property rights, infowar, ISP and media laws, etc. - skill sharing workshops on technological aspects of communication: Linux, pgp, WiFi, satellite transmission, hacking, streaming, etc. - permanent workshops on non-technical aspects of communication : horizontal, non-hierarchical ways of communicating- network meetings of groups and individuals involved with free TV, free radio, Indymedia, video, etc. to develop and facilitate cooperation The Polimedia Lab aims to counteract the summit agenda, and show the value of information and communication systems based on freedom, horizontality and cooperation.. organize yourself! Post your Proposals and join the mailing list: https://lists.nadir.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/wsis. Also check the hub-list: https://www.inventati.org/mailman/listinfo/hub Please don't forget to include in the form: What equipment are you bringing? What else do you need as technical equipment? -- b. HIGH NOON A World revolution in form of a netcast for three days. Spin round independent media activism and community media projects across the globe The idea of HIGH NOON is to seek the direct confrontation with the official summit program on a virtual level. Instead of or in addition to local protests and activities in Geneva during the days of the actual summit we are trying find out about new ways of protest that are in fact based on the autonomy of the struggles all around the world, and not just quoting them as something that happens remotely. The aim is to find images and narratives that run through the local and therefor may constitute a notion of the global, that is no longer a synonym for overexploitation and hypermisery, but a social potential, as the experience of enormous creativity of the multiplicity and diversity of all creative and productive practices. The idea of HIGH NOON is to cast a net around the globe that explores and presents, researches and provides access to a thousands of independent and community media activities all over the world. HIGH NOON consists of a grid of parallels and meridians that are based on timezones. Each mesh opens up a new time-window which subscribes to a global netcast. This netcast then moves hour by hour from region to region. It is fed with the reports, interventions and contributions by local activists, where ever they might stay in that moment, either in geneva at home or on the way. HIGH NOON depends on an as strict as equal conceptual framework, which is driven by a database with an interactive interface that allows the upload and download of all sorts of material: live footage, videostreams, audioprograms, text messages, and even objects. The database should be filled starting in october. During the WSIS from december 10 to 12, we will create an output of what has been collected so far in form of a 24-hours, three-day continuous live stream that is mixed from the up to that date uploaded material. But the project will make sense beyond this and may easily turn out as a syndicated archive of new media activism. HIGH NOON can be projected and picked up in many contexts in Geneva but also in various other places and at different occassions. -- c. STRATEGIC CONFERENCE Taking place as part of the WSIS? WE SEIZE! events and actions in Geneva, the WE SEIZE! Strategic Conference (S-CONF) will take the form of two days of open discussion and short presentations. S-CONF welcomes local Genevans, WSIS delegates, NGO members and info-activists alike to join the debate. The conference is intended to provide allow everyone involved to explore the key issues involved in information politics today and to gain a better understanding of this fledgling movement. Facilities at the sconf will include a wireless network and a local IRC channel for a second, parallel layer of discussion- bring a laptop if you have one, but some open machines will also be available, and the IRC channel will be projected. The discussions will be streamed and viewers will be able to use the IRC channel to intervene and take part. There will also be a temporary library of texts, videos etc at the s-conf for people to inform themselves and get a grip on the things being talked about. There is a plan to document these two days of discusssion and publish the result, perhaps during the WSIS or later. For the two days of the s-conf at Usine, we will try to create a pleasant surroundings in which people can discuss and formulate ideas with each otherAt regular intervals, for those physically present, there will be meals and refreshments. S-CONF will take place at Le Theatre de l'Usine, Places des Volontaires 4, CH-1204 Geneva on the 9th and 10th of December, from 10 am until 6pm and with coffee and lunch breaks. Please check <http://geneva03.net/moin.cgi/StrategicConference> for the latest details on location and time. There will be two days of preparation meetings for S-CONF, held in the Usine on in the studio on the fourth floor (see the address above.) These open meetings will be used to discuss the main topics (see below) and identify key areas for discussion. All those taking an active interest in the shaping of the discussions should be present at these preparatory meetings. The fluid structure of S-CONF allows for involvement by those who have not yet heard of this alternative forum or found time to involve themselves, so expect ad-hoc presentations and discussions as people present in Geneva get involved. The S-CONF team will be making contact with interesting members of the Civil Society and WSIS delegates. If you would like to get involved, please send mail to the organisational list: prep-l@geneva03.org. The S-CONF working group welcomes suggestions for short presentations on project, issues and ideas. December 7th & 8th: Preparatory days, open to all, to discuss the topics and sub-topics that should be tabled for debate within the following s-conf. Studio, fourth floor, Usine. December 9: The following debates will be scheduled throughout the day. Check later versions of this document for exact times. a.. INFORMATION POLITICS 101: What are the major issues in the emerging information politics movement? Catch-up time for those who want to get up to date with the issues with a variety of 'expert' speakers and a good long question and answer session. No controversy: just for people to inform themselves. b.. IP & IP LAW: USE, REFUSE, ABUSE. While developing our understanding of the inequities of IP policymaking and law, should we also develop a strategy and attitude for dealing with it? Are other circuits 'outside' the jurisdiction of the lawmakers developing in, for example, peer to peer and wireless network communities? c.. WORKING WITH OPENNESS. How can openness help us in research, organisation and practice? Are there problems associated with open organisation? What are the major benefits? Can truly open practice still be radical? How does open practice work with secret or closed organisation? December 10: The following debates will be scheduled throughout the day. Check later versions of this document for exact times. HACK_IT! Hacklabs & intervening in information/media regimes with tools, technologies and skills. What are hacklabs, and what are their possibilities for redistributing information power? See: http://info.interactivist.net/article.pl?sid=02/07/23/1218226&mode=nested&tid=12 IN/OUT? What approach should we take to confronting issues like media concentration, patent and copyright inequities and the role of labour? Should we be working autonomously or within existing 'policy' structures? You can SMS or call the S-CONF working group on 00 44 7931 537717. -- 11. From: "Graham Seaman" <graham@seul.org> To: <list-en@oekonux.org> Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2003 1:00 AM Subject: [ox-en] recommendation to Brazilian WSIS delegates The participants of the 1ST INTERNATIONAL FREE SOFTWARE CONFERENCE - CONISLI, meeting in the city of Sao Paulo, Brazil rom the 8th-9th November, declare: That the initiatives of the Brazilian Federal Government, co-ordinated by the 'Technical Committee for Free Software Implementation' for the e-government have our full support. These initiatives, endorsed by the decree of President Lula of the 29th October 2003, consolidate the e-government policy launched by the Minister for Home Affairs ['Casa Civil'], Jose Dirceu, and constitute a milestone in the development of a new, inclusive information society based on free knowledge. That we give broad support to the initiative of the Brazilian National Congress led by the President of the National Congress, Senator Jose Sarney, and by the President of the House of Deputies, João Paulo Cunha, who organized the 'Week of Free Software in the Legislature'. We also support the creation of the 'Joint Parliamentary Front for Free Software' (FRENSOFT), which includes, to date, 135 deputies and 26 senators. The width and scale of FRENSOFT, headed by Senator Serys Slhessarenko, is shown by the fact that it is the only parliamentary front which has as honorary president the President of the National Congress. This also reflects the feeling of national unity in support of a new model which fights the digital divide and allows the development of a national industry, free from the restrictive barriers imposed by obscure proprietary licenses. That we support the initiative creating the 'Free Software Brazil Project' and the projects at state level as necessary intermediaries between the diverse actors in the Brazilian free software community: governments, universities, private initiatives, user groups, and free software developers. That free software is an integral part of the creation of a free, just, ethical, and inclusive society, in which people have the possibility of mutually helping one another in solidarity. That free software respects the need to preserve multilingualism and cultural and sexual identities in cyberspace. That the freedoms granted to the users of free software allow the possibility of them escaping from the simple role of consumers of technology to become active participants in a knowledge society. That the license policy of proprietary software is unsustainable for the economies of developing countries. That the model of free licenses represents an opportunity to reach an equality of rights in the technological field, shrinking the digital divide, and favouring users with fewer economic resources. That the development achieved by free software and the potential that it represents are a clear proof of its strategic function on the way to a knowledge and information society. That the training of people with free, just, ethical, and inclusive thought is fundamental for society, and free software is a great catalyst for such values. THEREFORE, we propose to the Brazilian Government, to civil society, to the organizations of the third sector, and in particular, to our delegation which will represent Brazil at the World Summit on the Information Society, to take place in Geneva from 10-12 December, the following: 1. The composition of the delegation, as well as the position they take, must necessarily reflect the undertakings which the Federal Ececutive Power, National Congress, and Brazilian free software community have defended publicly, in favour of freedom of knowledge and of free software; 2. That the Ministry of Foregin Affairs and the organizations of the Third Sector seek to articulate and form a block of countries aligned with our positions; 3. That Brazil, through its delegation, takes on the role of protagonist and leader of this block, satisfying the expectations of the international free software community; 4. To recognize, support and promote the advantages of development and use of free software as an integral part of the building of a knowledge and information society; 5. To create within the states the political conditions for research and development which allow the appearance and adoption of measures favourable to the free sharing of software, algorithms, formats, protocols and other requirements of an information society which is sustainable and egalitarian; 6. To promote legislative norms which tend to create a new international juridical paradigm which favours the development and use of free software. In the building of this new context, there must not exist barriers to the development of programs which respect the four constituent principles of free software; 7. To give priority to free software in Education and Health to win scientific training which has values which are ethical and show solidarity; 8. That free software guarantees a collaborative space, creating effective action for the digital inclusion of women in the information society while preserving respect for gender differences; 9. To guarantee the adoption of frameworks of public use which can be implemented by free software in the network and public service infrastructures; 10. To make use of the advantages of free software in guaranteeing the security, privacy, and permanence of information, in particular with respect to critical infrastructure; 11. To guarantee the training of professionals for the support and development of the information society, and in particular of free software; 12. To develop innovative mechanisms for the egalitarian inclusion of poor and developing countries in the information society. Treaties of economic cooperation and integration should be updated with this perspective. 13. That the Admininstrative Council for Economic Defense (CADE) should be aware of practices of unfair competition and 'dumping' carried out by companies interested in maintaining the market share held until recently by proprietary software in the Brazilian public sector; 14.To consider that the change of paradigm which includes the free software movement is essentially cultural. Unnofficial translation by Graham Seaman (graham@seul.org) -- WORLD FORUM ON COMMUNICATION RIGHTS PLEASE FEEL FREE TO DISTRIBUTE WIDELY- REGISTER NOW Registration for the World Forum on Communication Rights is now open. The Forum is a one-day event taking place in Geneva on 11th December at Palexpo alongside the World Summit on the Information Society. Its goal is to explore some key issues ignored by the World Summit on the Information Society, and to open the agenda on what "communication rights" really mean on the ground. A multimedia and multilingual event, the Forum aims to set the tone of the debate on issues that are real to the majority, from poverty in the media, to Human Rights, to knowledge, to peace and conflict. You are invited to join us in this celebration of promoting the concept, recognition and realisation of such rights. The level of interest in the event is high, so we advise you to register early to avoid disappointment. Registration forms are available in English, French and Spanish on the World Forum Communication Rights website. To access the forms, simply go to: <http://www.communicationrights.org/form_en.html> For more information on the Forum, please visit the Forum website: www.communicationrights.org and download our online brochure. Why not also register to our information list so as to keep updated with the latest on the Forum? To do so, simply go to: <http://comunica.org/mailman/listinfo/wfcr_comunica.org> -- 13. The blog The Daily Summit will be at http://www.dailysummit.net/ "unlocking WSIS for the world". Last year, they reported from the World Summit on Sustainable Development from Johannesburg. Their WSIS linklist is impressive. -- 14. IMC/Indymedia @ WSIS This mail is a call to all imcistas with an interest in WSIS: - to browse the email archives, websites and wikis listed below - to spread the info to friends, comrades and collectives who might make good use of it - to subscribe to this mailing list for further discussion: https://lists.nadir.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/wsis - to think about ways to report/get involved greetings from the ad-hoc imc-uk-wsis-group :-) WSIS - AN IMC ISSUE? WSIS is an UN summit about the global commons. Big Network Providers and government representatives are meeting to map out the future landscape of information and communication. The WSIS debates affect the core of the indymedia project. Today, the internet still holds the promise of forever multiplied shared knowledge. A space where you don't own, sell or buy knowledge, but share it. At indy, we are running about 130 indymedia websites, about 800 email lists and a twiki with more than 800 topics with a minimum of money. The coding doesn't cost us anything, and many tech volunteers are constantly working on it. We control our own servers. This could change. If software is declared "intellectual property", and software patents are introduced, Free Software Development will become very difficult, if not impossible. According to Richard Stallman, developers will constantly run the risk of illegally including a patented bit of code. The claim for internet privacy in combination with new tracking methods gives raise to repressive cyber-security regimes. The definition of "safe" and "unsafe" communication would be up to the state. The dream of the internet as an anarchic place where everybody gives and takes is long gone anyway - most websites are for commercial purposes. Newspapers have started to charge for access to their online archives. Many companies are starting to set up their own, private networks instead of participating in the internet. Privatisation and liberalisation of the communications infrastructure leads to corporate control of the information channels. The internet as we know it might shrink. The right to communicate and access to a global communications network, so crucial for imc, might see serious restrictions. WSIS is a major forum for governments and big business to come together and invent ways to control the global commons - of course for the best of the consumer. Civil Society in the form of NGOs is invited to watch the process, but excluded from the decision making. We have yet to find appropriate forms of political articulation to make our voice heard in such an abstract issue. Few protests have been held under the banner of communication rights. Let's use WSIS as an experimental ground to explore creative use of our day-to-day IT-knowledge! IMC-REPORTING IN CYBERSPACE 1. The event. WSIS is an unusual event for indymedia reporting. So far, not many street-actions are expected. Other than the usual summits, the WSIS organisers included big business and "civil society" in the preparations. Soon it became clear that participation of "civil society" was very restricted. As a result, a variety of "half-official" events was set up. 2. reporting what? Reporting about WSIS could cover the debates themselves, especially those that happen outside the official event. Reporting can be an action in itself. And it is a chance to raise awareness within the indymedia community and beyond. 3. reporting where? in the local imc middle columns as usual. How about dispatch? In the UK, we are thinking of setting up a WSIS topic, i.e. a dedicated WSIS mid column, which could be used collaboratively. See http://docs.indymedia.org/view/Global/WsisImc 4. coordination To coordinate reporting, imc would need to establish the communication channels as they have been used for previous reporting (dispatch etc). As usual, we'd need irc-ers, translators, writers, updaters... The Polymedia lab could be the meeting point on the ground. # wsis on irc.indymedia.org is well frequented. A wsis twiki was started: http://docs.indymedia.org/view/Global/WsisImc. Please subscribe to https://lists.nadir.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/wsis. 5. decentralised WSIS presence imcistas don't need to fly to Geneva to participate. organise local screenings of the video stream (see High Noon) or even just the newswires. Keep in touch and advertise many local events in different places together - the old global movement trick of synchronisation. -- 15. ABOUT YNTERNET.ORG From: "Théo Bondolfi" <move@cooperation.net> Hello netizens :-) First let me present Ynternet.org network, as there is only information in French about us currently. We contribute to definition, promotion and project management in _Libre Communication_ Our vision is based on 4 pilars of communication (used in each communication project ) : technologies, methodologies, profiles and knowledges. More details, download the ViCo report http://www.cooperation.net/inforesearch/info/105860 Ynternet.org is composed of members who's philosophy is to try always to be inside the head of the neoliberal monsters, as well as radically outside. Outside for WSIS, we proposed a conference and a videodocumentary projection (see hubproject.net). Inside for WSIS, we are organizing 2 conferences the 11 afternoon (13h30-16h30). ABOUT YOU & WSEIZE INSIDE THE WSIS MONSTER There any openspace (60m2) reserved by Wolf from www.comunica-ch.net for Ynternet.org network, for the 11 december all day (thanks again Wolf). We'll use it as a meeting place for netizens, simply for sharing information and stocking our documentation material, also maybe for improvised debates in the morning time 'cause afternoon. We know that a lot of participants of the WSIS feel right about WSIS imposture, but are not able to link it to "Libre Communication" Culture (GNU & other participative project management ecosystems). In that sense, we propose to netizens & hacktisvists to contribute in extracting from WSIS Monster civil society participants one by one, by spreading WSIS-WSEIZE vision and programme within the Palexpo building where (palexpo is the confernece center where official WSIS will tkae place mostly). Let us know if you're interested to be physically (you or somebody of your team) in this "openspace within the Monster" the 11th of december. Who (your personal profile and the profile of your org) What (your project, even simple ones such as stocking flyers of WSEIZE during that day) freely yours théo Théo Bondolfi - profile at www.ynternet.org/move Ethical, visual & electronic free Communication UN consultant & CEO Ynternet.org Pl. Tunnel 18 - CP 584 - 1000 Lausanne 17 - Switzerland - Mobile phone + 41 76 3769776 -- 16. Last Tuesday Zagreb: WSIS?! From: "Zeljko Blace" <zblace@mi2.hr> Yesterday @ net.culture club "mama" in Zagreb, we organised a round table on the WSIS topic (http://www.mi2.hr/lasttuesday/). We had 3 guests that are taking part in official WSIS in Geneva: person from Ministry of Science and technology (participated in 2 pre-conf meetings and most likely part of Croatian delegation), person from Culturlink Network + CIRCLE (bigest cultural research network in Europe) and a guy from ZamirNET (fairly well known ICT NGO in Balkans). We managed to get 10-15 people interested to come to a meeting and started presentations/discussions with only 30minutes delay (Bravo for us ;)... At the begining it was interesting how all 3 had different positions within summit. The woman from Ministry was involved and was well informed of all "official" information... very sure that she will be in official delegation (on previous events she was very distant when presenting this topic), on the other hand also coming from the academic background was guy from Culturelink (very talkative profesore) that was less informed and shocked that he didnt got his accreditation still since his 2 culturel networks dont exist as leagal entithies at all... and third guy was coming from NGO who is more less pasive member of APC and therefore CHRIS initiative (kept away from discussion) was least informed. After my critical intro to the events preparation proces and fake participatory structure in which NGOs are separated and only State representatives get to vote at the end, to my very suprrise representative of the Ministry was very supportive and continued in same tone. Obviously friustrated with the whole (de)organisation of WSIS preparation (comming from the field of Mathematics do you can imagine the level of frustration with all the administration and political talk), she mentioned few interesting informations and remarks. Continuation of preconf 3 is happaning 10-14 December as naither of 2 documents have been writen to the level that declaration or action plan can be voted on (actually she said that thay spent ours on commas and synonims with doesnts of non-native english speakers, only to decide that Irish represntative should re-do it :). She also mentioned that few obvious blocks have been created (Canada-US, South American countries, EU+/-UK, some pan-African coalition...) with a few minor deviations on specific issues. A number of people like Stallman were already speaking to the state representatives... but very few countries have really "sane" and "brave" representatives who would support such strong opinions (I think she mentioned Moldova had official representative who was profesor working in NGO field who was really for FLOSS issues). After discussing topics like: What is possible and how? Does it make sense to be proactive in such framework?, joint conclussion (from all 3 "representatives") was that we should focus on local issues and reasing awearness + globall networking with people of similar interests/focuses ... which sounds really "funny" when someone from state body says that. Hearing all this made me appreciate our choice to ignore official program even more than before ;) ... that is all from Croatia from now. Best, Zeljko -- # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: majordomo@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net