Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux helpSpecial Offers
Feature: Open Source
Why UN's information society summit is doomed to fail
Share
Print
Comments
The background
The WSIS was established by the United Nations general assembly in a resolution passed in January 2002. Building upon the goals of its earlier Millennium Declaration, the UN set up the WSIS to "harness the potential of knowledge and technology" and to "find effective and innovative ways to put this potential at the service of development for all."
In spite of the lofty goals articulated in its formative resolutions, by the time the WSIS met in Geneva last December, it had settled for something much closer to home: business as usual. Between January 2002 and December 2003, concern shifted away from the needs of those the WSIS was created to assist to those most responsible for creating the digital divide in the first place.
During the preparatory phase prior to the meetings in Geneva, the focus of the United States team -- at least that evidenced by public comment -- was almost exclusively on the "protection of intellectual property" and an abiding insistence that the WSIS not say or do anything that might prevent profiteering on the needs of the disadvantaged, now or in the future. Nowhere in the WSIS documents was it deemed permissible to state the obvious: that free/open source software is the logical choice in achieving affordable solutions.
The United States position, formed at the behest of the Business Software Alliance, CompTIA, and other organizations dedicated to maintaining the status quo and curtailing the growth of free software, is that no software development methodology -- closed and proprietary versus open source -- be recommended over any other.
The United States position on free/open source software at WSIS is remarkably similar to the United States position on the use of generic AIDS drugs at the World Trade Organization (WTO). In the case of generic AIDS drugs for impoverished nations, our best thinking has concluded that it's better that millions perish from AIDS than the drug companies risk losing a penny on their bottom line. Our position on that issue, by the way, is still a bone of contention around the globe.
A fundamental mistake
At both the WTO and the WSIS, everything about the United States position revolves around concern for the sanctity of intellectual property rights. David Traystmand, the public affairs officer from the United States delegation to the WSIS, tried to explain to me that our position was based on IP rights.
That made no sense to me at the time. I asked to speak to someone else, because I felt Traystmand didn't understand the issues, especially in regards to free/open source software. I ended up speaking to Sally Shipman, a senior policy adviser in the Office of Communications and Information Policy at the State Department, a couple of weeks later.
But I was the one who didn't understand. I thought Traystmand had been saying that using free software to bridge the digital divide would violate the intellectual property rights of someone else, and I knew that was wrong. What he was actually saying was that using free software to achieve the WSIS goals might get in the way of an intellectual property owner's ability to make a profit.
Shipman quickly realized I was in over my head. She walked me through the basics and gave me background information on the WSIS meetings in Geneva. She described the preparatory process the United States team went through in reaching its position. She told me how they solicited and received public input, including letters from the U.S. Chamber of International Business and the Business Software Alliance. She noted that "we had public meetings throughout the preparatory process for the summit, and those were submitted to the Federal Registry, so those were open to the public."
Shipman even pointed me to the United States' own WSIS site, which includes the public records of the preparatory process, including copies of comments received from the public.
The comments, and there are only a handful of them, came primarily from groups like the International AntiCounterfeiting Coalition (IACC), which is "devoted solely to promoting improved standards for the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights."
The Software & Information Industry Association (SIIA) also weighed in, telling the US WSIS team that "We are deeply concerned that the current versions of the documents do not recognize the leadership of the private sector in the information society."
Shipman told me, "The U.S. view is that we don't want to see government, or in this case, the World Summit, advocate one type of software over another."
The end of Phase One
When Phase One of the World Summit on Information Society concluded in Geneva last December, the group released a Declaration of Principles proclaiming its desire to create an inclusive information society "where everyone can create, access, utilize and share information and knowledge, enabling individuals, communities and peoples to achieve their full potential in promoting their sustainable development and improving their quality of life."
Those lofty words are followed by others, such as these: "We are also fully aware that the benefits of the information technology revolution are today unevenly distributed between the developed and developing countries and within societies. We are fully committed to turning this digital divide into a digital opportunity for all, particularly for those who risk being left behind and being further marginalized."
The Declaration of Principles even mentions free and open source software, in the paragraph that concludes: "Affordable access to software should be considered as an important component of a truly inclusive Information Society." That may be considered a minor victory by some, since here in Texas, Microsoft's lobbyists have been able to stifle even a mention of free/open source software by government. In fact, the same Robert Kramer of CompTIA who spoke out against open source in Geneva was deeply involved in killing Texas's Senate Bill 1579 simply because it mentioned open source.
The magic phrase, "an important component," marks the start of the transformation of the Principles from a humanitarian plan to improve the lot of the poor into a plan for their continuing exploitation by mercenary forces. "Truly inclusive" sounds a bit like "truly pregnant" -- not quite right for a binary value. It leaves me wondering what the difference is between the inclusive goals of the WSIS and "truly inclusive."
Regardless of what that difference may be, the entire notion of being inclusive got demoted in that phrasing. It's fallen to only "an important component" for the WSIS now, not the reason for its being.
Careful reading of the rest of the Principles reveals there is now something more important to the WSIS than an inclusive information society. The Principles aver that "Facilitating meaningful participation by all in intellectual property issues and knowledge sharing through full awareness and capacity building is a fundamental part of an inclusive Information Society."
Given that an inclusive information society is one in which the poor and the marginalized are able to participate, it follows that access to it must be affordable. But the Principles say being affordable is only "an important component." The real goal of the Principles is now just as the special interest groups in the United States wanted: the protection of intellectual property.
That's a real tragedy. Free software might help put an end to the Petri dish of poverty and ignorance which is the breeding ground for AIDS. But we can't say that. It offends the sensibilities of corporate lobbyists whose moral compass points at nothing but the bottom line.
Comments
on Why UN's information society summit is doomed to failNote: Comments are owned by the poster. We are not responsible for their content.
The term "superhighway" shows how long the road is
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on February 17, 2004 11:50 PMRMS has some very good ideas, and some of them will change the world, but none of them will take over the world. Closed-source, proprietary software is here to stay, regardless of what open-source does. If it turns into open war, don't expect a quick fight/easy victory.
The despite the federal and state level trucking subsidies in the U.S. freight by rail is still cost effective which is why it is still around. Passenger rail, being higher profile, has been under attack there for ideological reasons since the 1930's. There lobbying by less effective (at least for long distance and/or heavy loads) transport industry is harming the overall productivity. Just like in software. Not all closed source will go away, there is a place for high quality software be it open or closed source. But what the article author is objecting to is the interferance through lobbying effort to keep profits running for companies that couldn't otherwise make it on the free market.
If you make poor Free software, no one will use it, no harm no foul.
If you make <A HREF="http://www.google.com/search?as_q=+microsoft+security+problem+&num=100&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&safe=images" TITLE="google.com">shit software</a google.com> or if no one buys it you should be free to go bankrupt and clear the way for those that can do the job, not sit there and gum up the works for those who can.
Hang in there. Microsoft's success has become its own worst enemy. What's the biggest deterrent to Server 2003 upgrades? It's not Linux, but NT 4 Server and 2000 Server. It's the same for Office XP and 2003. Millions of people are happily running Office 97 and 2000.
Unfortunately, Linux is also becoming its own worst enemy in the Windows vs Linux battle. There are dozens of Linux distros out there each specializing in one area or another. Which one do you recommend to a company as a Windows replacement? The answer varies based on the company and the person making the recommendation. This is a big deterrent to commercial Linux application development. Imagine what would happen to Linux if the best of the different distros were pulled into one commercially supported distro. Linux would rapidly outpace Windows in terms of stability, security, and most of all usability.
Apply the same logic to the many office apps being developed and the basic KDE vs Gnome issue. If we could stop the religious wars and concentrate the development efforts on a single desktop and accompanying office applications you could also say goodbye to MS Office.
Unfortunately this approach is inconsistent with history of Linux and is offensive to a large part of the original Linux hacker community. If we Linux developers ever consolidate our efforts we will destroy Microsoft. Until then we can continue to complain about MS and its products while we argue over whose distribution is better, whose GUI is better, whose office package is better, etc.
Bill - keep those checks coming to George W. He especially needs it now since it is an election year.
When can we do away with the electoral college and actually start to count everyone's votes.
No wonder the rest of the world sees us as pigs. We earned that title.
or is it too late?
R-dish
The real issue is that any member of the UN should hold the best interests of its citizens above those of the world at large. If the interests of a country are contrary to the desires of the UN, it would be irresponsible of that country to endorse the UN's plans. Microsoft, and several other companies, make a lot of money from proprietary software and they employ many people. American politicians would be foolish to ignore the pleadings of these multi-billion dollar companies, whether they're true or not. If this all adds up to sinking a UN project because the US doesn't support it, then so be it. There's nothing stopping other member nations from doing what needs to be done outside of the UN. I'd hate to see people in war-torn, poverty-stricken, AIDS-infested, disease-ridden, subsaharan Africa having to face another day without Internet access.
States, which is what countries are, some of them being nation-states, are a modern invention going back to the Treaty of Westphalia. There is nothing natural or real about Germany or France or the US. These are in the words of B. Anderson "imagined communities". Read a little about nationalism and the perils of hypernationalism.
Now, human beings, on the other hand, are very real. They have eyes that see and hearts that beat. You know how they feel and you know how real they are, because presumably you think of yourself as one.
And thanks to globalization and the easyy access it provides for those of us that are fortunate enough to own a computer and to lease an internet connection, we can make bonds with people that transcend the state. And when we do, we aspire to something much higher and much bigger than the state. If you push me, I would say that we aspire to greatness and to kindness.
Thus, it is but the biggest travesty of the human spirit that a man would repudiate helping his fellow human beings and have them be sacrificed at the corporate altar of profit.
I often used to argue that patriotism is a form of racism since it promotes the well being off one's race over the well being of all men. Moreover, the modern state being to large and heterogenous to appeal to kinship to justify this inequality, I am left altogether uneasy by the concept of patriotism, infinitely prefering to see my self as a member of the Earth.
My government (UK) does a great deal to put it's rights above those of everyone else, and naturally I benefit from this whether I choose it or no. Still, I think it is right to desire that we may all live in peace and plenty.
Are you in favor of erasing all national boundaries and creating a world government? The utopian society shown in Star Trek where money no longer exists and people work for the satisfaction of a job well done doesn't exist and likely never will.
As for the corporate altar of profit, corporations are inheritantly greedy. They have to be if they want to continue to exist. I've never gotten a job working for greatness or kindness. I work for a company to pay the bills and provide for my family. Without corporations we wouldn't be talking about globalization. Think of the things required to make a global community possible. Every one of them was invented or developed by people working for corporations. A single doctor may research a cure for cancer or AIDS for altruistic reasons. However, the money funding the reasearch likely comes from a pharmaceutical company looking to profit from the research. Does that make the corporation evil, even considering that the research wouldn't exist without corporate greed? What percentage of the worlds great inventions came from collectivist environments where people aren't allowed to profit from their hard work and inventiveness?
In the end, nationalism is under attack by those that envy the wealth of the "rich nations". In their view, those nations should be forced to share their wealth with the world. What happens when globalism succeds in dragging the wealthy nations down to the level of the global underachievers? Who will feed and clothe the world then? Consider this, people that work hard and strive for success usually find it. People that wallow in their own misery usually stay there.
If they were making more money than what their services are worth, it would indicate that too many citizens are taxed to pay for useless jobs.
The US is to the world what an individual is to a group. If it behaves in a way that it better for itself AND the group, we all win.
I would suggest reviewing John Nash’s bargaining Problem.
Comparing a country in a global community to a single person in the group overly simplistic, but then that's the goal isn't it. A better example would be the US is to the world what your family is to the neighborhood. Are you willing to sacrifice the needs of your family for the greater good of the neighborhood? I think it's in the best interest of the neighborhood if I come over and raid your refirgerator. I'll send you a list of what I like to eat/drink so you can stock your refrigerator accordingly.
orpheus52
Then it won't matter whether the U.N. accomplishes anything or not. They're not set up to address this sort of problem; you are.
While some people should keep on banging away at the walls of such systems, the best approach is to go around it entirely and make the question redundant and the WSIS immaterial.
br3n
"sco's proof one million lines of code is just as believable as the raelians
proof of the cloned baby "
IMHO the WSIS declaration of principles is quite fair in stating that affordable software is an important component of an inclusive information society (declaration 27).
I do not agree that the use of the word "an" was intended to (or actually does) injure the FOSS cause. The beginning of paragraph 27 actually seems to support FOSS "to enable all users to develop solutions which best meet their requirements" as quoted below.
27. Access to information and knowledge can be promoted by increasing awareness among all stakeholders of the possibilities offered by different software models, including proprietary, open-source and free software, in order to increase competition, access by users, diversity of choice, and to enable all users to develop solutions which best meet their requirements. Affordable access to software should be considered as an important component of a truly inclusive Information Society.
Perhaps some examples of other important components of an information society are:
electricity (or generally power sources), connectivity, literacy, human computer interface, desire to participate (through interesting content, meaningful apps, etc).
To appreciate why affordable software is only 'a' component..., picture a rural African village whose inhabitants only speak a language spoken by very few other people on this earth (a few thousands or less) and are not connected to any electricity grid, have no telephones and no computing devices.
Now picture a blind person in this village to understand 'true' exclusion from the info society.
FOSS can play a big role in including these people into the info society if those other components are also addressed.
The statements on "intellectual property" in the declaration should perhaps have been strengthened to "intellectual property rights" instead.
This would have emphasized that there are a variety of property rights such as access, ownership, control and so forth and that not all rights need to be reserved. Water rights, for instance, are not necessarily about ownership but rather about access and usage. I think there are various OSS licences that provide a fair balance between protection and access of Intellectual Property.
In this regard, the statements in the declaration about Intellectual Property are a step in the right direction because they seem to recognise these variety of rights as expressed in the meaningful intro to the statement which offended Joe Barr (quoted below).
42. Intellectual Property protection is important to encourage innovation and creativity in the Information Society; similarly, the wide dissemination, diffusion, and sharing of knowledge is important to encourage innovation and creativity. Facilitating meaningful participation by all in intellectual property issues and knowledge sharing through full awareness and capacity building is a fundamental part of an inclusive Information Society.
Re:affordable software is ONLY a component
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on February 18, 2004 05:33 AMThe UN is irrelevant to this discussion anyway
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on February 18, 2004 06:39 AMSoftware decisions like these are usually made at the grassroots level. Trying to get the UN to agree on anything is futile, as it is not a true governmental body. It does not have any real power.
LUGs and other local FOSS groups are a more important factor in this kind of thing.
On a related note, I always find the BSA's involvement in this kind of stuff to be quite humorous. By their charter, you think that they would like OSS, because it means that folks aren't infringing on proprietary vendors. They show their true colors: As more of a PAC and strongarm group for the Proprietary vendors. Which is fine, but you just have to understand what they really stand for.
Re:The UN is irrelevant to this discussion anyway
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on February 18, 2004 08:13 AMRe:The UN is irrelevant to this discussion anyway
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on February 18, 2004 09:34 AMRe:The UN is irrelevant to this discussion anyway
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on February 18, 2004 09:52 AMMy suspicions are only heightened by quotes like this: "We are also fully aware that the benefits of the information technology revolution are today unevenly distributed between the developed and developing countries and within societies. We are fully committed to turning this digital divide into a digital opportunity for all, particularly for those who risk being left behind and being further marginalized." They never actually say it, but I have to wonder if the unspoken next statement is "and that's way we are giving developing nations free copies of this proprietary software".
Why do we need the WSIS anyway? Anyone connected to the net can just download Open Source software for minimal costs, unless they are lacking hardware infrastructures or technical knowledge (require training.)
"The only reason it is allowed to happen is because people are dying."
Have you learned nothing from SARS, and super TB? "What goes around, comes around - Eventually."
Free software and Open Source was very strong at the summit, you don't find that in the official documents. Brazil wiped WIPO and TRIPs references out and presented a strong pro-FLOSS position. It preferes FLOSS in state procurement in order to invest its money in the national economy rather than to be dependent on services from abroad.
When US representatives talk publicitely about the "problems" that will only help the case of FLOSS supporters as the United States are relatively weak at WSIS. There were many people that presented FLOSS as a business case, but Governement officials are more conservative to adopt it. As the whole backbone of the net consists of FLOSS its plain diplomatic trash talk.
However the US government may popularize FLOSS by acting against it.
I represented <A HREF="http://www.ffii.org/" TITLE="ffii.org">FFII</a ffii.org>, we are devoted to the vision of a Free Information Infrastructure and try to fix the international Patent system.
WSIS was of less substantial talks, pressure and focus from the "development aid industry". It will be important to increase the presensence at WSIS II in Tunis. We don't talk about visions and programms, we act.
André
arebenti@ffii.org
The UN Food program is hugely effective as is the World Labor Organization, as is UNICEF.
Get a life and stop trolling. Jingoism and hate will get you knowhere.
The UN Food program is effective in countries that aren't engaged in civil wars, when the food isn't stolen and used to feed the warring factions.
The World Labor Organization is not a UN project, but the International LAbor Organization is. The ILO has made some strides in reducing child labor in poor countries. And for those families that were only able to feed themselves with the money from that child labor, too bad.
UNICEF has been one of the UN's most successful programs. Demand for its services have increased as a result of the success of the ILO.
The three programs you mentioned lack one important goal. People living in countries that are being served by those programs should stop breeding. It's irresponsible to continue having children when you can't feed them.
Americans, myself included, sometimes forget that there's real suffering in the world. Every day people die of starvation, from drinking filthy water, from a lack of basic health care. In light of that, does it really matter if a child somewhere doesn't have access to OpenOffice and TuxRacer?
It can mean the difference between effective use of resources that jump-start a local community and their waste.
Let me see if I follow your logic.
Because starvation and disease are worse fates than not having access to open source tools, we should continue to look at the whole situation as a business opportunity, which means it would be unfair for a government to give preference to one side or the other, whether that increases the number of fatalities or not.
Do I understand you correctly?
Also, equal numbers of knoppix, knoppix STD, Stux.
I burn over 600 CDs per year, and hand them out, often booting the live CD in stores, fairs, hamfests, and at private homes!
FREEDUC, Knoppix, Stux, all boot from CDrom, load in a RAMdisk, run Astronomy, media, Office, andgame programs, but leave no trace on any x86 system! They can be installed, easily, as a second or third Operating System, on any x86 system.
Grassroots distribution will always be much more powerful than anything the business sector can do!
Business can show enormous economic backing, but, we far outpace that with our own enthusiasm.
Saturday, over 4,000 distro copies went out on my dual 10,000 rpm Cheetah drives to Limewire users, while I helped my LUG, http://leap-cf.org demonstrate, and then distribute over 200 CDs of Knoppix to Hamcation attendees, in Orlando, Florida! Gee, if only a hundred do this, what is the effect? http://linux.bryanconsulting.com/stories/storyRea<nobr>d<wbr></nobr> er$45
I've seen that argument made a few times in relation to the various free software initiatives for local governments.
I'd like the authors of these comments to point out just one example of them eliminating a prejudice against open software.
I think we all know they mean "we don't want to see open software favoured over closed", I'd just like to see someone make them admit it.
A speed bump on the Information Super Highway
Posted by: Variola Cola on February 17, 2004 09:50 PMQuotes like that show just how far out in left field they've wandered. The private sector does move when motivated enough, but it has consistently trailed the cutting edge by 15 to 20 years. I'm not sure the way out of the mess that is being made. Perhaps, pointing out initiatives like <A HREF="http://europa.eu.int/information_society/eeurope/2005/all_about/action_plan/text_en.htm" TITLE="eu.int">eEurope 2005</a eu.int>, which all but prohibits by name M$ cruft. Likewise, there are <A HREF="http://www3.europarl.eu.int/omk/omnsapir.so/pv2?PRG=DOCPV&APP=PV2&LANGUE=EN&SDOCTA=21&TXTLST=1&POS=1&Type_Doc=RESOL&TPV=DEF&DATE=050901&PrgPrev=TYPEF@A5%7CPRG@QUERY%7CAPP@PV2%7CFILE@BIBLIO01%7CNUMERO@264%7CYEAR@01%7CPLAGE@1&TYPEF=A5&NUMB=1&DATEF=010905" TITLE="eu.int">other resolutions</a eu.int> which explicitly point out F/OSS as a prerequisite to national sovereignity / security. (See esp. conclusions 29 - 31)
Just as it is a problem in other sectors, corporate lobbying is a speed bump on the Information Super Highway. With time and effort speed bumps can be dealt with.
#