World Summit On The Internet And IT 323
eegad writes "The Seattle PI reports on the upcoming first phase of the World Summit on the Information Society to be held in Geneva on December 10-12. 192 nations are involved in the effort to set some ground rules for the Internet (a little late, eh?) including ways to deal with spam, a possible "digital solidarity fund" to help developing nations, and discussion of UN regulation. The goal of this phase is to adopt a "Declaration of Principles" and "Plan of Action". Some countries plan on asking for a UN commission to study new ways of running the Internet aimed at the 2005 phase. The official website will provide coverage of the event. How come I wasn't invited?" The Washington Times also has a piece on it, as well. We had covered this a bit before.
NYTimes has an article too... (Score:5, Informative)
Link [nytimes.com] (reigstration req'd, blah blah)
Such a bad idea. (Score:5, Informative)
Lesseg and RMS will be there, and so will I (Score:5, Informative)
Looks like a lot of local linux users (see G.U.L.L [linux-gull.ch]) are planning to attend at least the panel with Larry Lessig and RMS on Wednesday. RMS is also speaking on Thursday.
WSIS has nothing to do with society. (Score:5, Informative)
This summit is a betrayal of it's original ideals, and especially of the World's poor. Various groups are intending to strongly oppose this travesty; there is more information and here. [indymedia.org.uk]
Fight for your freedom (Score:5, Informative)
Quoting the "WSIS? We Seize!" press release:
'While the official agenda of this UN/ITU Summit talks about "free access to information", "the digital divide" and "equality of opportunities", in reality its doors are closed, its discussions exclusive and the agendas of those who attend it concealed. What's more, the right to demonstrate and protest has been suspended in Geneva at this time, as the usual parade of despots and tyrants fly in to Switzerland to define policy for their own citizens, and the rest of the world, based on the agendas of corporate multinationals, media conglomerates and infrastructure owners.
Geneva03 [geneva03.org] is a temporary network of groups and individuals set up to carry out agitational, educational and communications work during both the G8 and the WSIS. Geneva03 considers it critical to show, during such a display of media power and control, that independent groups and people have the ability to create their own media, to share media, self publish, build networks and communicate freely and autonomously. That's why we've titled our events during this time WSIS? WE SEIZE! We do not consider that negotiation and supplication before the altar of the UN will produce information autonomy for all. Instead, we are taking our autonomy now, using the means and technologies at our disposal: the Internet, peer to peer networks, Free and Open Source Software, community wireless infrastructures, pirate television and radio and streamed media. Beyond questions of communications technology, We Seize! seeks to open a wide-ranging discussion on the new social conditions that constitute today's world about which the WSIS has little or nothing to say: media concentration, expansive intellectual property regimes, casualised and immaterial labour and migration.
We insist that this urge to speak, to hear and be heard, is irrepressible. The Geneva03 group returns to Geneva following major attempts at repression during the G8 this year, in which the group were targetted by police whilst running an independent media centre. No charges were brought against the group, because - whatever the establishment would like us to believe - it is still lawful to freely express ourselves. We must, however, continue to exercise this ability, to expand and test it in diverse situations, if we are not to lose the freedom and potential that defines us as people.
Communication, language and information are essential to understanding both control and liberation in this new millenium. They are simultaneously the site of the most repressive and totalitarian suppression and disciplining we have seen since the 1950s and, we believe, the basis of a powerful, growing autonomous movement. Ultimately this movement must cut to the very heart of communication: for what we are able to articulate, we are able to create. We must speak of a new world without fear, and with all the creativity, energy and commitment we can find.'
(end quote)
If you want to know more, here are some useful links:
Good background article on Indymedia Global [indymedia.org]
WSIS? We Seize! [geneva03.org]
The World Forum on Communication Rights [communicationrights.org]
Polimedia Lab [hubproject.org]
Civil Society news centre for the WSIS [prepcom.net]
Indymedia UK WSIS 2003 section [indymedia.org.uk]
Re:just say NO to the UN (Score:3, Informative)
Sorry, but am I the only one who identifies this as flaimbait?
What gives occidental countries a greater right to speech over other cultures? The West may have the power to impose their views upon others, but does this power legitimize imposing their views?
Consider the example of the WIPO, which is controlled by western countries. Western ideas of "intellectual property" are forced upon African and Asian countries, meaning they cannot produce medications for their own people, but have to buy medication from Western corporations at artificially-inflated prices. Had these smaller nations not been strong-armed into signing agreements on intellectual property, they would have been able to afford medication for their people.
This phrase strikes me as particularly frightening:
It would advance anti-Jewish attitudes, probably going as far as to restrict Israel!
Have you not considered that perhaps Israel should be restricted, as with all other governments of the world? Israel (one of the world's worst human-rights violators [un.org]), is subject to the same international laws as other countries. These laws are agreed upon at international conferences such as the one proposed, and these conferences should receive participants from all manner of nations, even those that believe Israel illegitimate.
It is, of course, easier to sign an agreement than to enforce it, so these agreements are regularly disregarded by the most powerful nations (Israel declaring that the Geneva convention does not apply to suspected terrorists, the US inventing the term "illegal combattant" to circumvent international law regarding prisoners of war), but the first step to ensuring that all nations are held responsible for their actions is unilateraly agreeing upon standards to uphold.
At first, I agreed that no useful regulation can come of this summit and that the Internet should remain absolutely unregulated. However, while formulating this post, I begin to see what "restrictions" against Israel you may fear. Whereas in the US computer crime is performed mostly by harmless vandals and warez groups, in the Middle East network attacks are often motivated by politics. What international law stops the Mossad from attacking the network infrastructure of an opposing political group or funding vandals to deface opposition websites? At the moment, no such agreement exists.
If this conference forces powerful nations to listen to the viewpoints of the rest of the world, some good may come of it.
Re:Such a bad idea. (Score:2, Informative)
Nah, what you talk about is not "changing position when it suits you", it's called having the intelligence to judge a situation, and not blindly say "I'm ok with UN, whatever they say, because that's my camp". That's what all those pesky politicians do all the time you know, they'd never agree that the other camp has a point. That's childish.
I was for UN control of the Iraq situation, and I think it ws a very very bad move for the US to do what they did. But this time it was about a war you know with real people that dies and all that. Whatever the final move would have been for the US, it could have been wise to listen to what the rest of the world thought about it.
Here, we're speaking about the frigging internet ! Nobody will die from receiving one more spam or whatever, and we all know that UN (or whatever) control could only make the internet more restrictive.
Internetacces at the conference (Score:4, Informative)
Nils
Re:Such a bad idea. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Let me respond (Score:3, Informative)
The exemption is made because of a) the costs of reducing pollution; developing nations simply can't afford it as long as they're in their developing stages; and b) fairness; the polluters should pay to get their mess cleaned up.
It doesn't matter why the exemptions were made, the fact remains that they were, and some people think that makes it stupid and decidedly unfair, despite your claim that it is in the interest of fairness.
So since when is (offensively) invading a sovereign nation defence?
Since September 11, 2001. Welcome to the next phase. The sleeping giant was awakened again, and as the former emperor of Japan said (I'm paraphrasing): "Are you nuts!? Boy are you in biiiig trouble now
Re:Such a bad idea. (Score:3, Informative)
President Reagan threatened to veto it, so it didn't pass in the House.
I find this hypocrisy rather disgusting.
leaving out the important part of the story (Score:2, Informative)
http://hubproject.org/en/?l=en
http://geneva03.net
Re:The Marxist Solution (Score:2, Informative)
Since when is Amway a hate site?
Re:Digital solidarity fund? (Score:2, Informative)
Ummm no, the Bushmen live in South Africa and neighbouring countries. The natives of australia are referred to collectively as Aboriginals while individual tribal groups retain their own names such as the Koori. As for Internet access, most of the Aboriginal groups who live in the deep bush are more worried about health and employment.