Summery of the Harvard Internet and Society 2004 Conference

Because I was travelling in Asia, I was not able to attend the 2004 Harvard Conference earlier this month. I had a personal interest, given my work in China and other Asian 'democracies', to explore the landscape of individual blogging with regards to issues like freedom of speech, self- or state-censorship and potential for bottom-up reform.  But alas, I was hovering in physical space via the plane rather than chatting about cyberspace via the conference. 

However, I chanced up a few blog posts of personal experiences at the conference. In particular, Jon Garfunkel, a software developer, gave a summary of his personal experience of the Internet and Society 2004 conference. What I found delightfully interesting was the fact that he was not the typical Harvard conference attendee. In fact he claims that media exploration is a 'hobby' and said in his post, "What were people's first impressions of me? Well, I picked the right outfit: a blazer was the choice of academics and businessmen, and this conference was mostly men.  The ... baseball cap was left where it should have been... in New York"

Of his summary, I'm most glad to hear that

• I "digital divide" is slowly fading like a rock band- "The term "digital divide" should be shown the door. No one's happy with it. The problem that I (and perhaps others) always had with "digital divide" is that it simply masked other, more substantial divides."  Ditto. 
• How blogging has exploded, especially in developing countries with autocratic governments, and how, because it is still new, that there is still a lot of room for experimentation before we will see any patterns of impact. 
• That there is a 'bottom-up' movement in almost everything: software, blogging/news reporting ethics, community building and networking, and peer-to-peer reputation management systems. (I'm a proponent for a balanced approach- we need both top-down and bottom-up, but after the many top-down, one-way eGovernance projects I've witnessed recently, as well as the overdose from WSIS last year, it is wonderful to hear about the resistance at the grassroots.)
• That there are new and fresh projects like meetup.com, and Oh My News, and I know, from previous conversations, that there are many new project ideas bubbling into reality.   

I hope, though, that with time, Harvard's conference series will see more women, as well as more men like Jon with their baseball hats. 

Harvard Conference Day 2 Track: “Global Voices Online"

“Global Voices Online: Blogging for Independent Journalists, Concerned Citizens and Activists” - One-day Blogging Conference 

From the announcement page (page has since moved here)

Oct 26 2004 by Rebecca Mackinnon:

“Global Voices Online" is part of a larger conference, Internet & Society 2004: Votes, Bits & Bytes, scheduled for December 10 and 11, 2004 at Harvard Law School. Hosted by the Berkman Center for Internet and Society, I&S2004 will examine the use of information and communications technologies in the transformation of politics. The “Global Voices Online” track is made possible with help from the Open Society Institute Information Program and Spirit of America.

The conference's first day on Friday Dec. 10th will take on a more formal structure, with meetings attended by all participants. (We”ll link to the schedule here as soon as it goes online.) GVO Saturday participants are also invited to attend all I&S Friday events. 

Day two on Saturday will be organized into smaller, more freewheeling workshop and discussion “tracks.” “Global Voices Online” will be one of four tracks. This day-long discussion will focus on the use of weblogs and other new technologies to enhance online global dialogue and political advocacy. Participants will include an international webloggers, journalists and activists with an interest in online communication techniques. A major focus of the meeting will be to develop strategies for spreading the use of online participatory media by civil society, activists, and journalists in places generally ignored by the mainstream international media. We hope that the meeting will lead to more extensive dialogue and mentoring relationships between international political bloggers and journalists/activists who are considering using weblogs and other new technologies for advocacy in their own regions.

Harvard Conference on Internet and Society 2004- December 9-11, Harvard University

Votes, Bit and Bytes- Blogging the Vote: has the web changed politics?  December 9-11, Harvard University (Conference site: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2k4/home)


How are technologies changing politics, both in the U.S. and abroad?  The purpose of this conference is to take a skeptical, results-oriented look at the current state of politics after the 2004 election and from an international perspective in terms of issue-based campaigns, emerging business models, and new tools that affect politics both online and off.


(This is the 5th in a series of conferences called the Harvard Conference on Internet and Society, which are high profile events held every few years at Harvard University. Attendees are leading thinkers, policy makers, prominent IT geeks and businesses that debate freely about key issues about the development of the internet. The first conference was in May 1996- read more here about the early years of the Harvard Conference on Internet and Society series.)

Some interesting topics (for me):



CitizenshipAre information and communications technologies making it possible for new forms of citizenship? Are new technologies drawing new people into the political process? Are we able to engage in politics in more meaningful ways than before? Is the impact greatest on local, state, federal campaigns? Are we able to become global citizens?

BusinessThe most promising Internet business models have a great deal in common with the most promising political movements. They empower the grassroots and serve as platforms upon which greatness can build. What can the politician learn from the businessperson, and vice-versa?

Case Study: South KoreaSouth Korea was the first country on the planet where the Internet had a serious impact on the outcome of electoral politics. What conditions made this possible? To what extent were these conditions unique to South Korea and to what extent are they replicable elsewhere? What are the differences in the way in which web-based political communities do - or do not - form in different countries? How does this compare to the way in which political communities form offline? What factors (other than the obvious issue of connectivity) enable web-based political communities to develop more readily in some countries than in others?

Case Study: Election 2004 in the United States
What happened here in the United States? Did the internet play a key role in the outcome of any aspect of this election year – local, state, Congressional, Presidential – or was it just another bubble? Did new actors come out to vote? And how, if at all, will the way this year’s leaders were elected change the way our leaders govern? Presume that new participants have gotten involved in the political process, and that longtime political activists are now further empowered to communicate with leaders in power. After election day, can ICTs help those elected to govern better? And whereto from here?

Introduction on E-Governance and Developing Countries - Paper By Michiel Backus

This is one of the earlier papers on e-Governance as a concept that extends beyond technology. While it might have a little taste of technology determinism, I feel that its frameworks in the study of e-Governance is pretty concrete, in particularly the few adaptations from the famous Gartner 2000 study. One of these frameworks is illustrated in this 4-stage model, where governments progress through a serious of technology adoption that allows it to use technology more and more as a tran formative force.

 

Looking at country laws as an example, 

• Phase 1 (Information) might be the mere publication of laws and cases- taking into consideration that it is difficult to find the state of laws in many developing countries. 
• 
  
• Phase 2 (Interaction) might be the feedback from the general public about the state of the laws, unfair implementation, or a complaints machanism. 
• 
  
• Phase 3 (Transaction) might include features like automation of court cases so that transactions can be done online, or submission of formal feedback in parliamentary sessions.
• 
  
• Phase 4 (Transformation) is probably the most difficult to predict in terms of  impact on the country, but I can imagine a best case scenario where rampant corruption could be controlled through an comprehensive check and balance system that utilizes a comprehensive system using ICT as a boost. Or, for example in the Philippines during the Estrada demonstration,  where millions of people (using mainly SMS as a mode for rally) massed up at the EDSA Shrine demanding Estrada's immediate resignation. 

Another observation I would like to point out too is that, while I think that the above framework is very useful in thinking about e-Governance, like many other things in life, it is not absolute. 

WSIS "informal discussion" in Tunis about Phase 2 Meeting

An informal meeting discussing the transition phase from WSIS Phase 1 to WSIS Phase 2 that took place from 02-03 March 2004 in Tunis. WSIS Phase 2 will be held in Tunisia in 2005 while Phase 1 concluded in Geneva, Switzerland last December 2003.

This Tunisia-initiated meeting was led by the country's Minister of Transport, Communication and Technology, with assistance from the Secretary of State of Information and Communication Technology. Several government, civil society organisations, representatives from the private sector, other international organisations and the United Nations Regional Commissions participated in the meeting. Civil Society Bureau (CSB) representatives who attended that meeting came up with a comprehensive report on the issues and concerns discussed. However, Tunisia's government representatives made it clear that the conclusions made in that meeting are of a "non-official nature" because the discussion results, once posted in the different WSIS discussion channels, will still be up for further debate. According to the CSB report, the meeting sought to a preliminary Phase 2 discussion around three themes (which were divided into working groups per theme), namely:  1) the implementation of the Geneva Action Plan;  2) the expected results of WSIS Phase 2; and  3) the WSIS Phase 2 process. Many points were considered in the implementation of the Action Plan but concern was how to go about the implementation, process, especially beyond Tunis. Another major concern about the first theme is the identification of the main actors and their respective roles. More at http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-513824/WSIS-transition-from-phase-1.html

Articles questioning and challenging ROL practices

I have been doing development work for long enough to start to ask the hard questions. Starting with HIV/AIDs rights in Thailand, then moving on to China, and Kosovo before settling down in Seattle over the last few years, I've experienced an array of development practices. Especially with my work with the NGO Leaders Conference in recent years that brings together top NGO leaders to talk, I am now seeing the development world for the industry that it is.

Anyway, this prelude is to say that I understand the debates (or at least the necessity of debates) in the field. In particular, with law and development, the revival of the field (if it is in fact one) in the last decade has emphasized the concept of 'Rule of Law' (ROL). This seemed to have resulted in aid agencies focusing on legal reform and governance work, as part of the popular "institutional building"/New Development Economics paradigm.

I recently questioned in this post if ROL programs, as practiced, are really just a resurrection of the Law and Development Movement (which I also blogged about here). My reaction was a pragmatic one: While I am interested in these debates and intend to continue to follow them, my belief is that there will not be one true solution, and I seek solace in the practical differences I make to people. Still, from my humble bottom-up grassroots beginnings in the development world, in recent years I find myself focusing increasingly on strategic and institutional issues, governance and legal/judicial reform work, and high level policy and law. Definitely top-down. And at the 1000 foot level it is sometimes different to see if we do make any impact at all. 

In fact, the ROL practice have been increasingly questioned on effectiveness, and as in the post I mentioned above, challenged on not being different than in the 1960s. There seems to be increasingly more voice in academia abut ROL, such as in the following two articles:

• In Mythmaking in the Rule of Law Orthodoxy, by Frank Upham is professor of law at New York University School of Law, the criticism of the ROL practice sounds suspiciously like that of the Law and Development Movement of the 1960s: 

Summary: As governments and donor agencies struggle over questions of aid and international development, a growing consensus is emerging that there is an explicit link between rule of law reform and sustainable growth. However, this new rule of law orthodoxy ignores evidence that the formalist rule of law advocated by the World Bank and other donors does not necessarily exist in the developed world. Moreover, attempting to transplant a common template of institutions and legal rules into developing countries without attention to indigenous contexts harms preexisting mechanisms for dealing with issues such as property ownership and conflict resolution. As governments and donor agencies struggle over questions of aid and international development, a growing consensus is emerging that there is an explicit link between rule of law reform and sustainable growth. However, this new rule of law orthodoxy ignores evidence that the formalist rule of law advocated by the World Bank and other donors does not necessarily exist in the developed world. Moreover, attempting to transplant a common template of institutions and legal rules into developing countries without attention to indigenous contexts harms preexisting mechanisms for dealing with issues such as property ownership and conflict resolution.

• Also, as a follow up to his previous research work which I blogged about earlier this year, my colleague Stephen Golub (officiated with the Asia Foundation) recently published a paper not only challenging the current ROL practice, but proposing a bottom-up alternative focusing on marginal groups, an approach he calls 'Legal Empowerment'. This concept, in the last few years, seems to have made its appearance in many development circles as well. Not that it is a 'new' concept, as Stephen pointed out, because many local NGOs have been practicing it for years. It is a 'new' concept only in relative to the dominant top-down, ROL  reforms practiced today by big aid agencies. In Beyond Rule of Law Orthodoxy: The Legal Empowerment Alternative:

Summary: The international aid field of law and development focuses too much on law, lawyers and state institutions, and too little on development, the poor and civil society. In fact, it is doubtful whether "rule of law orthodoxy," the dominant paradigm pursued by many international agencies, should be the central means for integrating law and development. This working paper examines legal empowerment—the use of legal services and related development activities to increase disadvantaged populations' control over their lives—as an alternative.

Maybe I can hope: Might the big aid agencies go where the smaller grassroots have gone with the 'Rights Based' approach? 

WSIS Geneva PLan of Action

Action Lines

There are 11 Actions Lines in the Geneva Plan of Action, which constitute the implementation framework for the post WSIS phase.

1. The role of public governance authorities and all stakeholders in the promotion of ICTs for development
2. Information and communication infrastructure
3. Access to information and knowledge
4. Capacity building
5. Building confidence and security in the use of ICTs
6. Enabling environment
7. ICT applications: benefits in all aspects of life
   
   • E-government
   • E-business
   • E-learning
   • E-health
   • E-Employment
   • E-environment
   • E-agriculture
   • E-science
8. Cultural diversity and identity, linguistic diversity and local content
9. Media
10. Ethical dimensions of the Information Society
11. International and regional cooperation

Themes

In addition to Action Lines, WSIS outcome documents have also focused on themes including Internet Governance, Financing ICT for Development and Measuring the Information Society.

1. Internet Governance Forum
2. Financing ICT for Development
3. Measuring the Information Society

Click here to view actual official documents. 

WSIS- end of Phase 1 Geneva Meeting 2003

WSIS, as fairly typical of a UN Conference of a relatively non-contentious topic, closed on happy tension. I'm just hoping that, in these early days of ICT in Development, that it is not just tech hype, and that technology is used as a relevant tool (vs an ends) to reach goals that will reduce poverty. 

Brief facts:

• The three-day Summit is the first multi-stakeholder global effort to discuss "the use of information and communications technologies (ICTs) for a better world". 
• 175 countries came together in Geneva 
• Documents: 
• a Declaration of Principles — or a common vision of an information society’s values – and 
• a Plan of Action which sets forth a road map to build on that vision and to bring the benefits of ICTs to underserved economies. The plan sets out an ambitious goal of bringing 50 percent of the world's population online by 2015 but does not spell out any specifics of how this might be achieved. (see next blog post for the summary plan of action)
• Other groups also created "unofficial documents", including a document by NGOs called a document called "Shaping Information Societies for Human Needs" that brought together a wide range of issues under a human rights and communication rights umbrella." 
• Go to:http://www.itu.int/wsis/documents/listing-all-en-s|1.asp for the actual documents. See http://www.worldsummit2003.de/en/web/586.htm for a list of official and 'unofficial' documents). 
• An issue that emerged was Internet governance and the dominant role that the USA in policy making. The most radical ideas about devolving this authority were those supporting a civil society approach to Internet governance.
• The Geneva summit also left unresolved more controversial issues, including the question of Internet governance and funding.

Press Release:

Global Information Society Summit Spurs Solidarity, Alliances But Hard Work, Action Ahead

Geneva, 12 December 2003 — The World Summit on the Information Society closed on an optimistic note of consensus and commitment, but Yoshio Utsumi, Secretary-General of the International Telecommunication Union and Summit cautioned that the meeting was only the start of a long and complex process.