World Summit to Create “Pay-Per-Use” Society
Human Rights Ignored as Big Business Dominates in Geneva
December 21, 2003
By IP Justice Executive Director Robin D. Gross

I.       Background on World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS)
II.     IP Justice Participation at World Summit
III.    Last Minute Support for Freedom of Expression and Civil Liberties
IV.    Blind Faith Support for Intellectual Property Rights
V.     Developing Nations Question ‘Lack of Balance’ in International IP Standards
VI.    Empty Rhetoric for Public Domain and Weak Endorsement for P2P
VII.   Support Removed for Free and Open Source Software
VIII.  Internet Governance: ICANN v. ITU?
IX.     The Tunisian Question – Disregard for Human Rights Troubles Civil Society
X.       Marginalization of Civil Society in Entire WSIS Process
XI.     Wireless Internet Access Only for the Wealthy at Summit
XII.    WSIS Secretly Tracks Summit Participants
XIII.   Swiss Police Raid Side-Event Critical of Summit Process
XIV.   Conclusion:  WSIS Lacks Democratic Legitimacy to Govern Information Society

I.    Background on World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS)

The United Nations and the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) hosted the first phase of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) in Geneva, Switzerland from December 10-12, 2003.  The summit will conclude at its second phase meeting in Tunisia from November 16-18, 2005.

Over 130 nations, including 60 Heads-of-State participated at the summit to devise a plan for “bridging the digital divide” between the rich and poor nations.  90% of the world’s population has never used the Internet.  There are more telephones in the city of Hong Kong than on the entire continent of Africa.  Technology is both accelerating educational development and widening the knowledge gap between the world’s wealthy and poor.
 

Unfortunately, the summit failed to live up to its potential of promoting an inclusive “people-centered” information society.  Instead, WSIS organizers de-prioritized human rights concerns in order to promote particular business interests that will further perpetuate divisions and inequalities among people.

In the first “Geneva Phase,” WSIS delegates endorsed a Declaration of Principles and a 29-point Plan of Action that stated by 2015, half of the world should be connected to the Internet.  The official WSIS documents skirt many of the thornier issues, including who should pay to connect these people and who should govern the Internet.  Intellectual property rights, freedom of expression, computer security, human rights, Free and Open Source Software models, and privacy were all controversies to which little agreement could ultimately be reached in Geneva.

II.    IP Justice Participation at World Summit

The Geneva summit drew 11,000 participants from governments, international organizations, the business sector, and non-governmental organizations.  IP Justice was accredited to attend the Geneva Phase as a member of the WSIS NGO civil society sector.

On December 11, 2003 IP Justice delivered the keynote address at the WSIS side-event the World Forum on Communication Rights: Communications, Copyright, and Trade: (Resisting) the Enclosure of the Global Knowledge Commons to argue that in an information society, communication rights are human rights and that expanding copyright protections threaten the information commons, a crucial public resource (see slides).

IP Justice was also scheduled to present on December 9, 2003 at the alternative WSIS event organized by the “Geneva 03 Collective” at the Theatre D’Usine on the use of international treaties and trade agreements to impose western standards for intellectual property rights on developing nations.

III.    Last Minute Support for Freedom of Expression and Civil Liberties

The WSIS official documents express only weak support for freedom of expression, freedom of the press, and other civil liberties.  It took endless negotiations just to include endorsement for the language in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that “everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression” including “freedom to hold opinions without interference” and to “seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers” (Article 19).

After much wrangling with civil society, the WSIS declaration at last reaffirmed the international commitments “to the principles of freedom of the press and freedom of information,” and that the “freedom to seek, receive, impart and use information for the creation, accumulation and dissemination of knowledge are important to the Information Society.” (Para. 55 Declaration of Principles).

This tepid late inclusion actually marked a success, since several countries such as China were pushing for even weaker language that would only permit a free and independent media “in accordance with the legal system in each country.”  While many members of civil society were looking forward to an opportunity to broaden this 1948 international law standard for freedom of expression to an Internet age, they were lucky to have any mention at all supporting free expression in the final official WSIS documents.

Perhaps most important is the official declaration’s recognition that “communication is a fundamental social process, a basic human need and the foundation of all social organization.  It is central to the Information Society” (Para. 4 Declaration of Principles).   Paragraph 58 of the declaration also provides support for “the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion…”

Unfortunately, there is little meat to back up the few reaffirmations of commitments to civil liberties and freedom of expression in the official WSIS Declaration of Principles and Plan of Action.  Civil Society became so unhappy with the official WSIS Declaration of Principles during negotiations that it had to draft its own Declaration in protest (See "Civil Society Rejects Official WSIS Declaration of Principles: Publishes Own Declaration to Protect Civil Liberties in Information Society").  Rhetoric promising inclusiveness and ubiquitous connectivity remained in stark contrast to the reality of the WSIS document drafting process and the experience of participants at summit events.

IV.    Blind Faith Support for Intellectual Property Rights

One of the most controversial issues at the summit was the appropriate role and scope of intellectual property rights in an information society.  Many developing nations question the value of adopting western-style intellectual property rules that will only benefit the west.  US delegates pushed hard on this issue, and the official WSIS Declaration of Principles includes a section promoting intellectual property rights:

42.  Intellectual Property protection is important to encourage innovation and creativity in the Information Society; 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. (Italics added).

More so in the Information Society than ever before are the costs of creating lower and the tools more accessible, removing the historical economic barriers to creativity upon which this entire theory is premised.

V.    Developing Nations Question ‘Lack of Balance’ in International IP Standards

Acknowledgement that too much intellectual property rights actually stifles creativity and chokeholds innovation would have been more in line with the experience in the Information Society so far.  India and Brazil among other countries unsuccessfully attempted to insert language into the official WSIS documents that called into question the lack of balance in current international standards for intellectual property rights, such as the TRIPS Agreement.   But the US flexed its muscle and calls for balance were ignored, opting instead for blind faith declaration in support of Western-style intellectual property rules.

According to a December 7, 2003 leaked restricted EU document describing the WSIS negotiations over intellectual property rights:

“It is clear, that in analogy to last year’s international discussions on IPR’s for AIDS and other drugs, developing countries agree that the TRIPS Agreement is unbalanced and the rightsholders of the, mostly, industrialized countries do not allow them to put in place public policies whereby innovations are available to the broader community under reasonable conditions.”

Recognition of the public’s rights to use intellectual property in a world where rightsholders employ technological restrictions to control all uses of a creative work would have helped to protect the interests of consumers in an information society, but the official WSIS documents make no such mention.

VI.    Empty Rhetoric for Public Domain and Weak Endorsement for P2P

The official WSIS documents espouse much praise on a rich and accessible public domain, even recognizing that it must be protected and promoted.

However, at the insistence of the US, many countries and international treaties are considering extensions to the term of copyright, copyrighting facts, and banning circumvention tools; all these activities deprive the public of access to the public domain.  Once again, the WSIS rhetoric about promoting the public domain is in stark contrast to the actions of governments throughout the world that are systematically shrinking access to the public domain.

The official WSIS Plan of Action claims to “Promote the use of peer-to-peer technology to share scientific knowledge and pre-prints and reprints written by scientific authors who have waived their right to payment.” (22c Plan of Action).  While recognition of the ability to spread knowledge enabled by peer-to-peer technology is positive, the chosen WSIS phrase seems remarkably limiting in its support.

WSIS’s weak endorsement for the unprecedented possibilities to advance humanity that peer-to-peer enables by spreading knowledge to millions of people on any subject with the click of a button makes little sense if leaders are serious about their desire to use technology to promote education and human development.

VII.    Support Removed for Free and Open Source Software

Another controversial issue in the official WSIS documents was any mention of Free or Open Source Software development models.

An increasing number of governments have announced plans to switch from proprietary software to Free and/or Open Source Software to save money and improve quality and security.  Already governments in Brazil, Peru, India, Australia, Vietnam, South Korea, China, and South Africa have taken steps to reduce their dependence on Microsoft software products by announcing support for Free or Open Source Software.  The result is billions of dollars that governments would have paid to Microsoft in software licenses that can now be spent on the domestic needs of the people in developing nations.

Since governments are its largest clients, Microsoft has been active in “donating” billions of dollars in software and aid to developing countries that express an interest in removing their dependence on Microsoft through support for Free and Open Source Software development.

Early drafting of the WSIS Principles and Plan of Action included outright support for the promotion of Free and Open Source Software development models.  But Microsoft lobbyists fought hard on this point, and the final WSIS documents only support “increasing awareness… offered by different software models, including proprietary, open-source and free software…” (Para. 27 Declaration of Principles).

Journalists who stopped by the Microsoft booth to ask company officials about Microsoft’s contributions to the United Nations were promptly whisked away by WSIS  “event security.”

VIII.    Internet Governance: ICANN v. ITU?

The key issue of who should govern the Internet was on the table at this summit and little agreement was reached.  Developing countries are pushing for Internet governance under the UN”s International Telecommunication Union (ITU) that is multi-national.  The US continues to support Internet management by the private corporation established in 1998 by the US Commerce Department, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN).

Developing countries are unhappy with ICANN, which is an undemocratic private California corporation that wields enormous power over the governance of the Internet, a part of any nation’s vital infrastructure.  ICANN’s legitimacy has been in doubt since its creation and its tendency to favor large trademark owners at the expense of traditional rights continues to worry developing countries.
 

The WSIS Declaration of Principles states, “international management of the Internet should be multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society and international organizations.” (Para. 48 Declaration of Principles).  Unable to convince the North American delegation of this notion, however, the issue has been put off by asking the UN to create a working group to further study the issue (Para. 50 Declaration of Principles).  The UN working group will “investigate and make proposals on the governance of the Internet by 2005,” Para. 13b of Plan of Action).

But even with the general dissatisfaction with ICANN, there is little reason to believe that ITU would be an improvement and could possibly be worse when it comes to protecting freedom of expression values.

IX.    The Tunisian Question – Disregard for Human Rights Troubles Civil Society

Certainly the issue that raised the most heated debate throughout the WSIS proceedings was the wildly controversial Tunisian question.  The UN’s choice to convene the final phase of WSIS in Tunisia, a nation that openly jails journalists who are critical of the state makes promises of freedom of expression and respect for human rights ring hollow.

The honor of hosting an international summit that intends to build the framework for an Information Society based on democratic values to promote human rights should be held in an environment that both respects and embodies those core fundamental values.

Even more troubling, the Tunisian government has appointed General Habib Ammar to oversee the 2005 WSIS session.  General Ammar has been denounced by the World Organization Against Torture for his repression of the Tunisian people during his reign as the Commander of the Tunisian National Guard (1984-1987) and eventually the Minister of the Interior.  While in office, General Ammar created the Special Services National Directorate, notorious for its torture crimes in Tunis.

On September 19, 2003 a group of 44 human rights organizations (including IP Justice) published a statement denouncing the UN’s choice to hold the 2005 meeting in Tunisia under the auspices of a torturer.  Among others, the President of the European Parliament called upon the UN to intervene in the appointment of General Ammar to serve as President of the National Organizing Committee of WSIS.

The appointment of General Ammar calls into question the legitimacy of the entire WSIS proceedings.  Although perhaps that estimation is exactly what is deserved of these closed hierarchical proceedings which pay only minimal lip service to human rights.

X.    Marginalization of Civil Society in Entire WSIS Process

Civil society’s participation at WSIS was purely symbolic.  Civil society was invited only to give the appearance of legitimacy, while not permitted to participate in the official proceedings in a meaningful way.  Key decisions about the WSIS Plan of Action and Declaration of Principles were made by government and business representatives in closed-door meetings without participation from NGO’s.  Civil society was totally banned from participating in the second phase of the Third Preparatory Committee meeting (PrepCom3/b) held in mid-November in Geneva.  And groups such as Reporters Sans Frontiers and Human Rights in China were specifically excluded from the WSIS process.  The WSIS process itself does not live up to its promise of building an inclusive Information Society built to promote human rights and freedom of information.

Priorities of business and military interests were clear and built into the architecture of the WSIS official meetings.  The few representatives of civil society who were allotted 3 minutes to speak during the official proceedings were cut-off prematurely.  Civil society was only permitted to sit in the last several rows in the back of the official plenary room, well behind representatives of the business community.

In protest, civil society published its own Declaration of Principles since the documents drafted by governments and business ignored human rights and only weakly supported freedom of expression rights at the last minute.  (See "Civil Society Rejects Official WSIS Declaration of Principles: Publishes Own Declaration to Protect Civil Liberties in Information Society").

XI.    Wireless Internet Access Only for the Wealthy at Summit

While WSIS advertised that it would provide wireless Internet connectivity to participants, it turned out to provide only an expensive “pay-per-use” wireless connection.

So for participants who could afford US$ 7.15 per half-hour (or US$ 38.11 per day), there was a wireless connection available from the commercial ISP SwissCom at the summit.  While that may be an affordable price for Internet connectivity to many residents of Switzerland, that is a substantial amount of money for the rest of world.  Even at US conferences with wireless connections, participants are not asked to pay an additional fee to have access to the wireless connection.

This seemingly small detail underscores yet another problem about the information society these government and business leaders wish to construct for us – access only for the wealthy with huge fees to business interests.  Particularly because this conference was intended to “bridge the digital divide” by connecting people together, it was ironic how stark the lines between the “digital-haves” and the “digital-have-nots” became by who had a wireless connection at the summit.

XII.    WSIS Secretly Tracks Summit Participants

On the final day of the UN summit, a group of international researchers from the Swedish Royal Institute of Technology revealed that the plastic “security” badges that participants had to wear contained more than just our names and photographs.  WSIS participant badges also contained tiny embedded computer chips known as Radio Frequency ID (RFID) tags that could be read by sensors placed throughout the building. These surveillance devices were able to track the participants’ movements throughout the summit, including monitoring which participants attended which sessions, and with whom participants associated.

This information was collected about participants without their knowledge or consent (and in violation of Swiss federal law, an EU Directive, and the UN’s own guidelines on data protection).  Furthermore, this personal information was stored in a centralized database easily accessible by others, such as the Tunisian government, who hosts the next phase of the summit and regularly jails those who are critical of the state, putting members of civil society at risk.

How can WSIS leaders be trusted to build an information society that respects civil liberties and human rights when they cannot even organize a conference that does not violate their own privacy laws and spies on its participants?

While organizers did mange to invade the privacy of the 11,000 summit participants, the high-tech “security” measures did little to stop any real would-be assassins.   Security professionals report of being able to register and obtain the necessary badge to attend WSIS sessions simply by presenting a fake ID card and a name of a participant, which could be obtained from the WSIS website.

XIII.    Swiss Police Raid Side-Event Critical of Summit Process

Also troubling was the Swiss government’s treatment of a WSIS side-event organized by a collective of Free Software, Debian, and Oekonuk activists, known as the “Geneva 03 Collective”, out of concern for the lack of opportunity for alternative voices to participate in the official WSIS process.

The alternative WSIS event invited WSIS delegates, numerous experts, and members of the general public to discuss many of the important issues that the official WSIS process continues to skirt, such as the current imbalances in intellectual property laws and media ownership.

At 10:00 on the morning that the alternative WSIS conference was to begin, December 9, 2003, a dozen Swiss police dressed in full riot gear raided Geneva’s Polimedia Lab and refused to let the alternative conference participants enter or leave the building.

The original reason given for the police canceling the alternative WSIS conference was that building owner had not given permission for the event to take place at the Polimedia Lab.  But within a couple of hours it was established that the tenant had given both permission and the key to organizers to hold the event there (and simply not told the landlord).  This meant that the attendees were not trespassers or squatters as the police had originally alleged.  Conference participants were then told by police that they could leave the Polimedia Lab but the doors would be locked and locks changed upon their leaving and they could not return.

In need of a new reason to cancel the event, police next decided that the Polimedia Lab was in violation of the Geneva city building code and therefore the event could not be held there as planned.  Swiss police looked bad to media and conference participants, most of whom were WSIS delegates.

Just in time for the 14:00 press conference held by Geneva 03 organizers in the Polimedia Lab’s parking lot, the Swiss government offered to move the alternative conference to a new location, the Maison de L’associations, a few blocks away.  The Swiss government agreed to pay for both the cost of the facility rental and the installation of a high-speed Internet connection to move the conference to the Maison de L’associations.  It appeared as though the Swiss government was going to be accommodating and tolerant of this dissenting event to the media during the 14:00 press conference.

However, when Geneva 03 organizers and participants marched over to the new location to resume the conference at 16:00 as agreed by the Swiss government, we awaited a big surprise:  the Swiss government had lied and no arrangements had been made to move the conference to the new location.  The building manager of the Maison de L’associations had no idea of the deal brokered by the Swiss government with event organizers before the press conference and did not have any space available to hold the event there in any case.

Only after event organizers next threatened to hold the anti-WSIS event in the streets of Geneva on the following day did the Geneva City Council agree to permit the event to go forward at the Palladium on December 10, 2003.

But much damage had already been done.  Dozens of people had been detained by police in the morning.  And an entire day of lectures and presentations had been cancelled at the Polimedia Lab and the Theatre D’Usine.  Nor was there any opportunity to publicize the event’s re-location to the Palladium for the remaining days.

Swiss Police cancelled a peaceful protest about the treatment of the alternative-WSIS event near the main train station on December 12, 2003 just as it began and arrested nine people for refusing show identification upon demand.

The WSIS official Civil Society Plenary publicly denounced the treatment of alternative WSIS event organizers and participants, stating that it “unanimously condemns the undemocratic actions of the Swiss authorities and the Summit organizers in suppressing dissenting and alternative voices.”  It also charged that WSIS organizers confiscated written material that was critical of the WSIS process and prevented its distribution inside the official WSIS venue on December 10, 2003.

 “We strongly condemn these violations of the right to assemble and freedom of expression that have cast a shadow of hypocrisy over the Summit,” stated the WSIS Civil Society Plenary.

On December 17, 2003 the Special Rapporteur of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights and the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression Ambeyi Ligabo condemned the WSIS process as well, charging that human rights issues, especially the right to freedom of expression and opinion "were largely neglected" at WSIS.

XIV.    Conclusion:  WSIS Lacks Democratic Legitimacy to Govern Information Society

Article 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states “the will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government.”  But WSIS failed to consider the will of the people, marginalized civil society participation, and prevented alternative voices from being heard throughout official documents and proceedings.

WSIS organizers held a summit under the auspices of the UN to endorse a particular agenda for the information society, but made little serious attempt to promote human rights or reduce poverty through information technologies, seeing them instead as a means to extract wealth from people and more control over the daily lives of individuals.

Human rights and civil liberties were given lip service, but then violated by WSIS organizers throughout the proceedings, including secretly tracking participants.   Developing nations who urged calling into question the lack of balance in current international standards for intellectual property rights were ignored.  The US agenda of blindly supporting more expansive intellectual property rights is imposed on the rest of the world through the UN.

The crucial function of the UN as voicing the under-represented views of developing nations on the global stage may be an era of the past.  Today’s UN seems to be captivated by the same business interests to whom members of congress and parliament are regularly beholden.

With their concerns systematically disregarded, both developing nations and western consumers were the Summit’s big losers.  Perhaps the only winner to come out of WSIS was the summit's wireless ISP SwissCom.