|
On November 18, 2005,
the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) came to an end, in
Tunis. It was the culmination of a long three-year process in which
barriers of various types–geopolitical, political, and technological,
and others–had to be overcome to reach a consensus on the 67 points in
the WSIS “Declaration of Principles,” which then gave rise to the
“Agenda.”
Going back in time, we
see that the countries of Latin America and the Caribbean had
established a specific working group within GRULAC, called “eLac,”
which, in the face of the breadth of topics raised by the Summit, set
out to define priorities for the region. Accordingly, it decided to
address 30 of those points, working to arrive at a consensus on
definitions, functions, and deadlines.
The summits and, in
particular, this final one in the process, were preceded by
preparatory meetings called “PrepComs.” The PrepCom for this recent
phase was held in Geneva from September 19 to 30. It consisted of two
weeks of hard work for all delegations from countries and
participating organizations, in the course of which a consensus was
reached on a plethora of issues, with the exception of . . . “Internet
Governance,” a topic that had been the subject of wide-ranging
discussions in all areas of the information society. In fact, at one
point a working group was set up directly under the United Nations
Secretary-General (Kofi Annan) to address the matter. That group met
and issued a document that was nonbinding in nature and intended
simply to offer recommendations.
For its part, the PrepCom concluded its work,
having agreed on three clear policies: first, placing emphasis on
government participation; second, eliciting the participation of all
sectors without altering the day-to-day handling of technical topics;
and third, maintaining a “quasi status quo.”
As there was no
consensus at the end of the PrepCom, a new one was convened that was
to meet three days prior to the WSIS meeting in Tunis. It too met in
Tunis, from November 13 and 15, and continued the debate on Internet
Governance. Since the details of that debate would fill much more
space than we have available for this topic, we shall simply cite the
most important paragraphs that were included in the final Summit
document. The following link will provide anyone wishing to explore
the topic further with complete information:
http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/tunis/off/6rev1-html.
The paragraphs in
question are the following:
72. We ask the UN Secretary-General, in an open and
inclusive process, to convene, by the second quarter of 2006, a
meeting of the new forum for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue–called
the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). The mandate of the Forum
is to: . . .
73. The Internet Governance Forum, in its working and
function, will be multilateral, multi-stakeholder, democratic and
transparent. T o that end, the proposed IGF could: . . .
77.
The IGF would have no oversight function and would not
replace existing arrangements, mechanisms, institutions or
organisations, but would involve them and take advantage of their
expertise. It would be constituted as a neutral, non-duplicative and
non-binding process. It would have no involvement in day-to-day or
technical operations of the Internet.
As we shall see, the
topic is not closed. Moreover, a new round of negotiations is being
launched among participating governments, the private sector, civil
society, and the academic sector. Given the experience acquired, it is
likely that during this new phase, in which the various participants
will not be so pressured by time constraints, the necessary
accommodations will be made to allow for a transition and the
harmonious participation of all sectors involved. This will doubtless
result in further advances in the Information Society.
Oscar A. Messano
E-mail: omessano@ccat.com.ar
|
World Summit on the
Information Society (WSIS)
