Having not been in Tunis, it’s hard to see the WSIS as a resounding success. I’m sure that for the people who were there the networking and social factors are very meaningful. But, let’s face it, the Internet governance matters are unchanged and the Digital Solidarity Fund remains unfunded.
The developed countries have defended their position concerning the Digital Solidarity Fund, stating that they prefer to rely on established programmes, like the World Bank’s. Is this rational? In a certain sense one would have to say, “yes”. There are many programmes that are well established, where valuable experience has been gained, and this should not be underestimated. On the other hand, giving the intended beneficiaries and their geographical and social neighbours a more prominent role in the direction of the programmes increases relevance. If the intention with the Digital Solidarity Fund is to promote this type of local responsibility and cooperation than surely it is justified.

Negroponte showed off his laptop, “the green machine”. Looks pretty snappy. What I’m really happy about is the choice of going open source (OS) and the reasoning behind that choice. The idea, as I understand it, is that using OS permits more flexibility to adapt the system and software to the needs of each user. This is certainly in line with my own thinking, as evidenced from this paper.
In other news, the BBC’s WSIS blogger claims that “The answers to bridging the digital divide are already here. The challenge is in their implementation.” My question is, which digital divide is he referring to (developing countries, rural areas, the illiterate, the elderly, the poor in developed countries, this list could go on and on and on), and what is it that these “solutions” acually solve? Claims like this over-simplify the issues and are certainly not helpful.

The WSIS has started and it’s everywhere. Most major news related web sites have stories about some aspect of the digital divide issue and ICTs for development. Imagine if it were always this way…
Luckily, the Internet Governance issue was resolved (for now) before the summit started. The US retains its control. Whew! Don’t want to lose that stability and innovation! I fail to see the logic in these arguments, as do others apparently. Nevertheless, I’m glad they got it out of the way because I do think that there are more pressing issues that need to be addressed and this could have overshadowed the whole summit.
I assume the press coverage will continue over the next few days and I’ll be following it closely. After that… Back to obscurity?

I’ve decided to post part of the draft introduction from my thesis because it illustrates my thinking about globalization and development. It provides a good context for my other postings.

Continue reading →

The second phase of the World Summit on the Information Society is coming up in Tunisia next week. The first phase held in Geneva in 2003 was disappointing to many who felt that the resulting declarations lacked ambition in the context of concrete development goals. So far the second phase doesn’t look like it’s going to be very earth shattering. One of the most talked about issues to be discussed is Internet governance, hardly a decisive matter for developing countries. On the more positive side, Nicholas Negroponte plans to officially announce his sub-$100 laptop, that could prove to be a major development in terms of infrastructure.
What I am personally waiting to see is how point 24 in the Declaration of Principles, “The ability for all to access and contribute information, ideas and knowledge is essential in an inclusive Information Society.” I think it is more important for constructive knowledge development to think in terms of how new users contribute ideas and knowledge, than the access they gain to existing info. To learn more about my views on these issues click here to read or download a PDF of a paper I’ve written on the topic.

After a very lengthy hiatus it’s about time to start adding to this journal of mine. I’ve made a couple of minor changes reflecting my ever changing focus. I’ve changed the title and description of the blog, replacing “information” with ICTs. Although it was never a big thing here on the blog, in my mind I’ve settled the “information” thing for now. Hence, I’m now redirecting my thoughts to the more general question regarding ICTs in leapfrogging development. Look for some exciting input in the near future!