Building the Global Information Society - United Nations

Building the Global Information Society

— Bridging the Digital Divide: Trends and Challenges

in the International Community —

No. 142 May 1, 2009

Ikuo OHASHI

Copyright 2009 by Nomura Research Institute, Ltd. 1

NRI Papers No. 142May 1, 2009


— Bridging the Digital Divide: Trends and Challenges

in the International Community —

Ikuo OHASHI

With the progress in information and communications technologies (ICTs), the gap has been

expanding among countries in ICT use, which has created economic disparities. This gap is

called the digital divide. The international community recognized this digital divide as a global

challenge, and started to work together to eliminate this inequality.

At the G8 Summit in 2000, the Okinawa Charter on Global Information Society was adopted to

study specific measures toward bridging the digital divide. The United Nations included ICT sup-

port in the United Nations Millennium Declaration as one of its assistance measures for developing

countries, and set up ICT-related indicators in the Millennium Development Goals. The United

Nations decided to address the elimination of the digital divide as a global challenge in the new

millennium, and held the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) in two phases, with

the initiative taken by the International Telecommunication Union (ITU).

Based on the WSIS outcomes, implementation and follow-up meetings for the eleven items of

Action Lines and other agreed objectives were to be held every year to facilitate reduction of the

digital divide. In 2008, the third meeting took place.

The issues facing the international community to bridge the digital divide are to have deep and

extensive recognition of the usefulness of ICTs and to promote the active utilization of such tech-

nologies. The issues facing international organizations are to increase the priority of the informa-

tion and communications field. The issues facing Japan are to develop a system that enables

strategic assistance and, based on such a system, to implement measures contributing to bridging

the digital divide.

I What is the Digital Divide?

II Trends in the International Community

III Implementation and Follow-Up of the WSIS Outcomes

IV Future Issues and Challenges


I What is the Digital Divide?

As a high-level conference hosted by the UnitedNations, the World Summit on the Information Society(WSIS) was held in two phases. The first phase tookplace in Geneva in December 2003 and the second phasein Tunis in November 2005.

During these conferences, agreement was reached thateach member country and related international organiza-tions would respectively make efforts and cooperatewith each other to turn the digital divide (explainedlater) into digital opportunities and to develop interna-tional society as a global information society principallyby means of information and communication technolo-gies (ICTs).

In the past, United Nations summits have generallybeen held under the initiative of the United NationsHeadquarters to discuss issues that must be dealt with ona global scale such as environmental problems includingclimate change and food issues.

It was quite epoch-making that the issue of bridgingthe digital divide, i.e., gap in ICT utilization, was recog-nized as an issue that must be dealt with on a globalscale, and that the WSIS was held in the form of aUnited Nations summit with the International Telecom-munication Union (ITU), which is an established groupof traditional telecommunications engineers, serving as aleading UN agency for the WSIS. In addition to the ITU,the United Nations Headquarters and many other relatedinternational organizations have participated in WSISconferences.

It is evident that the progress that has been made inrecent years in ICTs is quite remarkable. In the past,telephones could be used only via wired lines and only

between fixed destinations. The introduction of newtechnologies in wireless communications enabled peopleto carry telephones and make calls wherever they were,such as when outside and/or while in transit. Moreover,the use of the Internet enabled people to instantlyacquire information from all over the world, and tofreely exchange information beyond country borderswith people throughout the world who have access to theInternet via electronic mail.

The utilization of ICT in such a wide range of fieldshas been playing a major role in the development of eco-nomic and social activities in most every country.

In the past, a major interest in regions was whether atelephone could be used. Currently, the criterion hasbeen shifted to whether mobile phones can be used andwhether the Internet can be used under a broadbandenvironment. Facilities to use ICTs including mobilephones and the Internet have already been positioned askey infrastructural elements for economic and socialactivities.

According to the ITU, the number of Internet usersthroughout the world has been sharply increasing from489 million in 2001 to 1.467 billion in 2007. Duringthese seven years, the number of Internet users hasincreased at an annual average rate of 17.0 percent1 (Fig-ure 1).

The world’s average Internet penetration rate is 8.2percent. If the rate is viewed by region, we see that thehighest rate of 31.7 percent is in Oceania, followed by20.3 percent in Europe and 11.8 percent in North andSouth America. The rate in Asia is low at 6.6 percentand is also low in Africa at 1.1 percent.

The ratio of the broadband subscriber base to theoverall Internet subscriber base (hereinafter referred toas the “broadband ratio”) is high in North and South

NRI Papers No. 142 May 1, 2009


2001

1,034961

489

1,0831,157

616

02

1,138

1,424

722

03

1,204

1,763

868

04

1,262

2,219

1,005

05

1,287

2,749

1,210

06

1,284

1,467

3,285

07 (Year)

3,500

3,000

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

0

Fixed telephones Mobile phones The Internet

Source: “2008 White Paper on Information and Communications in Japan” published by the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications(http://www.johotsusintokei.soumu.go.jp/whitepaper/eng/WP2008/2008-index.html).

Figure 1. Subscriber Base of Fixed Telephones and Mobile Phones, and Number of Internet Users

(Tel

epho

nes:

mill

ion

lines

; the

Inte

rnet

: mill

ion

user

s)


America at 82.5 percent and in Europe at 68.3 percent(Figure 2).

On the other hand, the broadband ratio in Oceaniawhere the Internet penetration rate is high is 52.3 per-cent; the broadband ratio in Asia where the Internet pen-etration rate is low is 51.0 percent. In 2007, the numberof fixed telephone lines throughout the world was 1.284billion (the annual average growth rate between 2001and 2007 was 3.1%), and the number of mobile phonesubscribers was 3.285 billion (the annual average growthrate between 2001 and 2007 was 19.2%).

If the telephone subscriber base for both fixed andmobile phones is viewed by region, we find the largestsubscriber base in Asia with 2.05 billion subscribers,which accounts for 45.8 percent of the total, followed by1.19 billion (26.5%) in Europe, 920 million (20.5%) inNorth and South America, 280 million (6.3%) in Africaand 40 million (0.8%) in Oceania.

A comparison was made in the penetration rate ofinformation and communications services by classify-ing countries into high-income countries (per-capitagross national income (GNI) of $11,116 or more; 35countries), middle-income countries (upper-middleincome countries, per-capita GNI of $3,596 – $11,115;lower-middle income countries, per-capita GNI of $906– $3,595; 87 countries in total) and low-income coun-tries (per-capita GNI of $905 or less; 48 countries). Theresults indicate major gaps in the use of such servicesbetween high-income countries and low-income coun-tries, creating considerable gaps in ICT utilization inter-nationally (Figure 3).

In 2007, the penetration rates of all these three ser-vices in high-income countries were at high levels with45.6 percent for fixed telephones, 113.1 percent formobile phones and 57.6 percent for use of the Internet.In contrast, those in low-income countries were at low



High-income countries

Upper-middle income countries

Lower-middle income countries

Low-income countries

Figure 3. Penetration Rates of Fixed Telephones, Mobile Phones and Use of the Internet by Income Group (2007)

Notes: The definitions of income groups and the number of countries in each group are as follows:High-income countries: Per-capita gross national income (GNI) of $11,116 or more; 35 countries)Upper-middle income countries: Per-capita GNI of $3,596 - $11,115; 36 countriesLower-middle income countries: Per-capita GNI of $906 - $3,595; 51 countries Low-income countries: Per-capita GNI of $905 or less; 48 countriesTotal: 170 countriesSource: “2008 White Paper on Information and Communications in Japan” published by the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications(http://www.johotsusintokei.soumu.go.jp/whitepaper/eng/WP2008/2008-index.html).

Use of the Internet

Mobile phones

Fixed telephones

200 40 60 80 100 120 (%)

57.6

45.6

27.982.1

23.5

14.349.2

13.6

4.017.2

2.5

113.1

35

25

30

20

15

10

5

0

90

50

60

70

80

40

30

20

10

0Entire world (average)

Asia Oceania North and South America

Europe Africa

Figure 2. Internet Penetration Rate and Broadband Ratio by Region

(%) (%)

8.2

63.4

51.0

31.7 82.5

68.3

Broadband ratio (right)

Internet penetration rate (left)

6.6

52.3

11.8

20.3

1.1

15.8

Source: “2008 White Paper on Information and Communications in Japan” published by the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications (http://www.johotsusintokei.soumu.go.jp/whitepaper/eng/WP2008/2008-index.html).


levels with 2.5 percent for fixed telephones, 17.2 percentfor mobile phones and 4.9 percent for use of the Internet.The gaps in penetration between high- and low-incomecountries were 43.1 points (49.8 points in 2006) forfixed telephones, 95.9 points (75.2 points in 2006) formobile phones and 53.6 points (49.0 points in 2006) foruse of the Internet. In comparison with the rates in 2006,while the gaps narrowed somewhat for fixed telephones,the gaps have expanded for mobile phones and use ofthe Internet2.

As such, the gaps between the ICT “haves” and“have-nots” are referred to as the digital divide, whichwas mentioned at the beginning of this chapter. The dif-ferences in living environments and regional gaps leaddirectly to the gaps in the opportunities to use mobilephones and access the Internet through PCs. Becausemobile phones and the Internet have become essential toeconomic and social activities, gaps in the opportunitiesto use such technologies lead directly to disparities inincome and economic power.

While such gaps also exist as domestic problemswithin high-income countries, this issue is more promi-nent between high-income and low-income countries.Accordingly, the need to bridge such a digital divide hascome to be treated as a priority issue that must beaddressed on a global scale.

Such intention to give priority to the issue of the digi-tal divide was reflected in the fact that bridging the digi-tal divide was one of the themes at the Kyushu-OkinawaG8 Summit (meeting of the heads of the world’s leadingnations) in July 2000 in Japan, and was included in theUnited Nations Millennium Declaration adopted by theMillennium Summit of world leaders at United NationsHeadquarters in September 2000.

In line with these moves, WSIS conferences were heldunder the initiative taken by the ITU and in which mem-ber countries, related international organizations andnon-governmental organizations (NGOs) participated.During these conferences, an agreement was reachedamong participating countries and organizations on theirmaking efforts to bridge the widening digital divide andto create the global information society.

This paper looks back at moves after the WSIS deci-sions in 2003 and 2005 on the elimination of the digitaldivide and the creation of the global information societythat are positioned as important issues that must beaddressed on a global scale, and also considers the activ-ities of the international community.

II Trends in the International Community

The term “digital divide” was first used in the reportentitled “Falling through the Net,” which was issued bythe United States Department of Commerce in July1995, and started to be commonly used.

In November 1999, the US Department of Commerceheld the Digital Divide Summit, which focused onexpanding access to ICTs for underserved populationsand areas. In January 2000, then President Bill Clintontouched on closing the digital divide as a policy issue inhis State of the Union address. Through such increaseduse, the term “digital divide” has come to be widelyaccepted throughout the world3.

On the part of the ITU, preparations have alreadystarted to hold meetings to discuss the elimination of thedigital divide in the resolution adopted at the ITUPlenipotentiary Conference in Minneapolis in November19984.

Subsequently, the ITU took the lead in facilitating theholding of meetings on the issue of the digital divide andin coordinating the related international organizationsfor this purpose. At its April 1999 meeting, the Adminis-trative Committee on Coordination of the UnitedNations expressed its support for the ITU initiative con-cerning the organization of such conferences in the formof United Nations summit meetings.

At the ITU Council in 2000, instructions were issuedto the Secretariat to set the date, duration and venue ofthe summit to hold the WSIS in 20035. However, thegovernments of Switzerland and Tunisia each submittedan offer to host the WSIS. Through coordination by theITU with the two countries, it was decided at the ITUCouncil in 2001 to hold the first phase in Geneva,Switzerland in 2003 and the second phase in Tunis,Tunisia in 20056. The holding of the WSIS in twophases was officially decided and approved at the UnitedNations General Assembly in December 20017.

1 G8 Summit

In July 2000, the G8 Summit was held in Japan, and thebridging of the digital divide was one of the themes dis-cussed.

In the Okinawa Charter on Global Information Soci-ety (Okinawa IT Charter) adopted at the summit, bridg-ing the digital divide was recognized as having a criticalimportance on respective national agendas, and the prin-ciple that “Everyone should be able to enjoy access toinformation and communications networks” was reaf-firmed8.

Based on this Okinawa IT Charter, the Digital Oppor-tunity Taskforce (DOT Force) was established to inte-grate the efforts into a broader international approachand to examine concrete steps to bridge the internationaldigital divide.

The DOT Force was composed of multi-stakeholdersincluding governments, private sector entities and non-profit organizations (NPOs) of the G8 countries, and atotal of 27 international organizations, including seveninternational intergovernmental organizations—i.e., theUnited Nations Development Fund (UNDP), the WorldBank, the United Nations Economic and Social Council




(ECOSOC), the ITU, the United Nations Educational,Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), theUnited Nations Conference on Trade and Development(UNCTAD) and the Organization of Economic Coopera-tion and Development (OECD)—and three internationalbusiness organizations—i.e., the World EconomicForum (WEF), the Global Business Dialogue on Elec-tronic Commerce (GBDe) and the Global InformationInfrastructure Commission (GIIC). In addition, ninedeveloping nations have been invited to participate9. TheDOT Force was to prepare a progress report for submis-sion to the next G8 Summit scheduled for 2001 inGenoa, Italy.

After holding meetings three times, the DOT Forceprepared the Genoa Plan of Action containing nineaction points in June 2001, and presented it to the G8Genoa Summit in July 200110. At the same time, animplementation team was set up for each of the nineaction points. Each implementation team was to prepareits progress report and to present it at the next G8 Sum-mit. At the Kananaskis Summit in Canada in June 2002,a report on the state of implementation of the GenoaPlan of Action was submitted11.

2 Actions of the United Nations

In deep recognition of the importance of overcoming thedigital divide, the United Nations has also embarked onvarious activities to this end. A high-level panel ofexperts on information and communications technologywas held in April 2000. At this panel, the establishmentof the ICT Task Force and the Trust Fund (fund to sup-port developing countries) was proposed.

In July 2000, in the ECOSOC’s high-level segment,the Ministers and Heads of Delegations issued aministerial declaration12 emphasizing the importance ofICTs by stating that “we recognize a wide consensus thatinformation and communication technologies (ICTs) arecentral to the creation of the emerging global knowledge-based economy.” In addition, then Secretary-GeneralKofi Annan of the United Nations sent letters to the G8leaders who were to participate in the Kyushu-OkinawaSummit in Japan during the same month calling forcooperation in addressing the digital divide issue.

In September 2000, many world leaders gathered atthe United Nations Headquarters for the MillenniumSummit and adopted the UN Millennium Declaration13.In Item 5 of Paragraph 20 of the UN Millennium Decla-ration, it was stated, with the aim at closing the digitaldivide, that “We also resolve to ensure that the benefitsof new technologies, especially information and commu-nication technologies, in conformity with recommenda-tions contained in the ECOSOC 2000 MinisterialDeclaration, are available to all.”

In November 2000, a meeting of the Advisory Group(AG) was held to discuss the establishment of the ICTTask Force. In February 2001, the Advisory Group sub-

mitted a report to the Secretary General of the UnitedNations containing the role, overall objectives, generalstrategic framework, principles of composition and othernecessary matters with respect to the task force to beestablished. Upon receiving this report, the report of theUnited Nations Secretary General was submitted toECOSOC, based on which preparations were started toestablish the ICT Task Force.

In September 2001, the Report of the Secretary Gen-eral was submitted to the United Nations GeneralAssembly as the follow-up to the outcome of the Millen-nium Summit. This report was entitled “Road maptowards the implementation of the United Nations Mil-lennium Declaration.” In this report, the MillenniumDevelopment Goals (MDGs) were stated14. The MDGsconsist of 8 goals and 18 targets that are to be achievedby 2015.

The issue of bridging the digital divide is addressedunder Goal 8 “Develop a Global Partnership for Devel-opment” and Target 5 “In cooperation with the privatesector, make available benefits of new technologies,especially information and communications.” Specificindicators are also set for the number of telephone sub-scriptions (fixed telephone lines and mobile sub-scribers) and Internet connections (users) per 100people.

After these indicators of the MDGs were set, the ICTTask Force was officially inaugurated15 by holding itsfirst meeting in November 2001 where short-termactions and medium-term objectives were decided.While eight items are included in the medium-termobjectives, seven items other than “advisory services tothe UN Secretary General” were copied from the GenoaPlan of Action proposed by the DOT Force.

The major objective of the ICT Task Force was to linkICT and MDGs to contribute to the WSIS outcomes.The term of this task force was set at three years.

3 First Phase of the WSIS in Geneva

On December 21, 2001, the United Nations GeneralAssembly officially endorsed the holding of the WSIS intwo phases. In July 2002, the first meeting of thePreparatory Committee for WSIS took place in Geneva.After holding three Preparatory Committee meetings,the first phase of the WSIS was held in Geneva inDecember 2003.

The objectives of the Geneva Phase of the WSISwhere many world leaders attended were to establish acommon vision about the information society and toform a consensus among countries, related organizationsand those concerned in realizing such a vision.

About 20,000 persons from 176 countries, includingheads of state/government of 54 countries and 83 minis-ters of information and communications, participated inthis conference, adopting the Declaration of Principlesand the Plan of Action.




Under the title of “Building the Information Society: aglobal challenge in the new Millennium,” the 67-paragraph Declaration of Principles encompasses threemajor items: (1) Our Common Vision of the InformationSociety, (2) An Information Society for All: KeyPrinciples, and (3) Towards an Information Society forAll Based on Shared Knowledge16.

Item (1) declares the common desire and commitmentamong the participants to “build an information societythat enables individuals, communities and people toachieve their full potential in promoting their sustainabledevelopment and improving their quality of life,” andstates a common vision that ICTs “can be a powerfulinstrument, increasing productivity, generating economicgrowth, job creation and employability and improvingthe quality of life of all.”

Item (2) states the 11 key principles agreed by all par-ticipants for building an information society (Table 1).These 11 key principles are:

1) The role of governments and all stakeholders inthe promotion of ICTs for development

2) Information and communication infrastructure: anessential foundation for an inclusive informationsociety

3) Access to information and knowledge4) Capacity building5) Building confidence and security in the use of

ICTs6) Enabling environment7) ICT applications: benefits in all aspects of life8) Cultural diversity and identity, linguistic diversity

and local content9) Media10) Ethical dimensions of the Information Society11) International and regional cooperation

Item (3) expressed the commitment of all stakeholders tostrengthening cooperation to seek common responses tothe implementation of the Plan of Action, and furthercommitment to evaluate and follow-up progress inbridging the digital divide so as to reach internationallyagreed development goals. The last paragraph of Item(3) says, “We trust that these measures will open the wayto the future development of a true knowledge society.”

Based on the common vision and guiding principlesof the Declaration, the Plan of Action17 contains sixitems (“A” to “F”). It consists of 29 paragraphs as spe-cific methods to realize the development-oriented Infor-mation Society by promoting the use of ICTs throughcooperation among all stakeholders and by advancingthe achievement of the internationally agreed develop-ment goals including those in the UN Millennium Dec-laration.

As the introduction, Item “A” indicates the positioningof the Plan of Action in which the common vision andguiding principles of the Declaration are converted into

specific actions. Item “B” lists ten ICT-related develop-ment targets to be achieved by 2015. Paragraph 6 ofItem “B” states that “these targets may be taken intoaccount in the establishment of the national targets, con-sidering the different national circumstances.” These tentargets are as follows:

1) To connect villages with ICTs and establish com-munity access points

2) To connect universities, colleges, secondaryschools and primary schools with ICTs

3) To connect scientific and research centers withICTs

4) To connect public libraries, cultural centers,museums, post offices and archives with ICTs

5) To connect health centers and hospitals with ICTs6) To connect all local and central government

departments and establish websites and emailaddresses

7) To adapt all primary and secondary school curric-ula to meet the challenges of the InformationSociety, taking into account national circum-stances

8) To ensure that all of the world’s population haveaccess to television and radio services

9) To encourage the development of content and toput in place technical conditions in order to facili-tate the presence and use of all world languageson the Internet

10) To ensure that more than half the world’s inhabi-tants have access to ICTs within their reach

Item “C” shows specific Action Lines for each of the 11key principles indicated in the Declaration of Principles,which are outlined in Table 1, to achieve the establishedtargets.

Item “D” touches on the Digital Solidarity Agendawith the aim of putting in place the conditions for mobi-lizing human, financial and technological resources, andstresses the importance of close national, regional andinternational cooperation to overcome the digital dividein the Information Society.

For the follow-up and evaluation of the Plan ofAction, Item “E” notes the need for the development ofsystems to monitor, analyze and report the progress ofthe implementation of objectives, goals and targets in thePlan of Action by developing a realistic internationalperformance evaluation and benchmarking, while takingdifferent national circumstances into account.

Item “F” mentions the holding of a Preparatory Com-mittee meeting for the second phase of WSIS in Tunis,and lists the items that the Tunis phase should consider.They are: preparation of final appropriate documentsbased on the outcome of the Geneva phase of the WSISwith a view to consolidating the process of building aglobal Information Society and reducing the digitaldivide and transforming it into digital opportunities; and




the follow-up and implementation of the Geneva Plan ofAction by respective stakeholders at national, regionaland international levels.

In adopting the Declaration of Principles and the Planof Action as major outcomes of the first phase of theWSIS in Geneva, the issues that were most difficult toagree upon were “Internet Governance” and “DigitalSolidarity Fund.”

With respect to Internet Governance, there were dif-ferences in opinions: one viewpoint was to deal with thismatter under the current system led by the private sector,i.e., the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names andNumbers (ICANN)18, and the other was to establish aninternational inter-governmental organization to managethis issue. The compromise reached was to establish aworking group to continue to discuss this issue byincluding the following statement in the Plan of Action:“We ask the Secretary General of the United Nations toset up a working group on Internet Governance in anopen and inclusive process that ensures a mechanism forthe full and active participation of governments, the pri-vate sector and civil society from both developing anddeveloped countries, involving relevant intergovernmen-tal and international organizations and forums to investi-

gate and make proposals for action, as appropriate, onthe governance of the Internet by 2005” (Paragraph “C6,13 b” of the Plan of Action). Discussions on this issuewere again to be held during the second phase of theWSIS in Tunis.

With respect to the Digital Solidarity Fund, opinionswere divided between those in favor of effectively utiliz-ing the existing schemes such as the World Bank, UNDPand bilateral cooperation programs to implement projectsto overcome the digital divide and those advocating theneed to establish a new fund. Finally, agreement wasreached on the following expression: “While all existingfinancial mechanisms should be fully exploited, a thor-ough review of their adequacy in meeting the challengesof ICT for development should be completed by the endof December 2004. This review shall be conducted by aTask Force under the auspices of the Secretary General ofthe United Nations and submitted for consideration to thesecond phase of this summit. Based on the conclusion ofthe review, improvements and innovations of financingmechanisms will be considered including the effective-ness, the feasibility and the creation of a voluntary Digi-tal Solidarity Fund, as mentioned in the Declaration ofPrinciples” (Paragraph “D2, f” of the Plan of Action).



Table 1. Outline of the 11 Key Principles Listed in the Declaration of Principles Adopted in the Geneva Phase of WSIS

The role of governments and all stakeholders in the promotion of ICTs for development

Information and communication infrastructure: an essential foundation for an inclusive information society

Access to information and knowledge

Capacity building

Building confidence and security in the use of ICTs

Enabling environment

ICT applications: benefits in all aspects of life

Cultural diversity and identity, linguistic diversity and local content

Media

Ethical dimensions of the Information Society

International and regional cooperation

Governments, as well as the private sector, civil society and the United Nations and other international organizations have an important role and responsibility in the development of the information society. Cooperation and partnership among all stakeholders are essential.

Connectivity is a central enabling agent in building the Information Society. Universal, ubiquitous, equitable and affordable access to ICT infrastructure and services constitutes one of the challenges of the Information Society. Greater use of broadband and other innovative technologies can accelerate the social and economic progress of countries.

Access to public domain information (archives, etc.) should be facilitated; the promotion of access to information and knowledge by providing open source and free software and by promoting scientific activities is important for the development of the information society.

Continuous education and literacy in ICTs are an essential foundation. Consideration should be given to the special needs of persons with disabilities and disadvantaged and vulnerable groups.

In addition to privacy and consumer protection, a global culture of cyber security needs to be developed and promoted; the use of ICTs for purposes that may adversely affect security must be prevented.

A transparent and pro-competitive policy is essential; intellectual property protection and the wide dissemination, diffusion and sharing of knowledge is important; the development and use of open, interoperable, non-discriminatory and demand-driven standards is a basic element for the development and greater diffusion of ICTs; the international management of the Internet should be multilateral, transparent and democratic.

The usage and deployment of ICTs should seek to create benefits in all aspects of our daily lives. ICT applications are important in a wide range of fields including e-governments, e-business and e-health.

The preservation of cultural diversity, which is the common heritage of humankind, is important; the Information Society should stimulate respect for cultural identity, cultural and linguistic diversity and traditions.

The role played by media in the Information Society is important; traditional media continue to have an important role in the Information Society; diversity of media ownership should be encouraged.

The Information Society should respect peace and uphold the fundamental values of freedom, equality, solidarity, shared responsibility and respect for nature; the use of ICTs should respect human rights and the fundamental freedoms of others, including personal privacy, and the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion in conformity with relevant international instruments.

The Information Society is intrinsically global in nature and national efforts need to be supported by effective international and regional cooperation; in order to build an inclusive global Information Society, all stakeholders are invited to commit to the “Digital Solidarity Agenda” set forth in the Plan of Action.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

Principles Outline


As a result, a task force to be established under theauspices of the Secretary General of the United Nationswas to undertake studies on the problems of using exist-ing financing mechanisms by December 2004. Based onthe results of these studies, it was decided to consider theefficiency, feasibility and the creation of a voluntaryDigital Solidarity Fund.

4 Second Phase of the WSIS in Tunis

Following the holding of three Preparatory Committeemeetings, the second phase of the WSIS took place inTunis in November 2005.

During this Tunis phase, discussions were held onspecific methods of implementing the Declaration ofPrinciples and the Plan of Action that were adopted dur-ing the Geneva phase, as well as on the pending issues ofthe Digital Solidarity Fund and Internet Governance.

According to the statistics announced by the ITU,more than 19,000 participants from 174 UN membercountries, including 46 heads of state and governmentand 197 ministers, vice ministers and deputy ministers,attended the Tunis phase, where the Tunis Commitment19

and the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society20 wereendorsed at the closing plenary session of the summit.

(1) Digital Solidarity FundWith respect to the Digital Solidarity Fund, which wasone of the two pending issues brought over from theGeneva phase, based on the discussions held in theGeneva phase, a Task Force was established to study thecurrent status of existing financial mechanisms. ThisTask Force prepared its final report after holding twomeetings. The final report was submitted to the SecondPreparatory Committee meeting of the WSIS that washeld in Geneva in February 2005.

This report emphasized the importance of cooperationamong governments, the private sector, civil society andinternational development organizations, and indicatedthe following as a common recognition on the existingfinancial mechanisms:

1) Concerning “fully exploiting” existing mecha-nisms, the benefits of the existing mechanismshave not been fully leveraged; for infrastructuredevelopment and enhanced access to ICT, policiesto promote open access and fair competition andto reduce investment risks and financial burdensare important.

2) Concerning the “adequacy” of existing mecha-nisms, there are a number of areas in which cur-rent approaches are not sufficient; these includeICT capacity-building programs, communicationsaccess and connectivity in remote rural areas,regional backbone infrastructure and coordinatedassistance for small islands and countries to lowertransaction costs.

3) Concerning “improvements and innovations” rela-tive to existing financing mechanisms, discussionsand considerations are necessary in the future forthe following: coordination at the national, regionaland international levels, multi-stakeholder partner-ships such as for the establishment of a “virtual”financing facility, new emphasis on domesticfinancial mechanisms, and private sector supportfor locally relevant applications and content.

Through unofficial coordination among the EuropeanUnion (EU), African countries, the United States andJapan with respect to the Digital Solidarity Fund, it wasagreed to include an expression to such effect as, “wewelcome the Digital Solidarity Fund established with theobjective of transforming the digital divide into digitalopportunities as an innovative financial mechanism of anon-compulsory nature that complements existing mech-anisms.”

Based on such agreement at the second PreparatoryCommittee meeting of the Tunis phase of the WSIS, itwas decided to endorse the improvements and institu-tional reforms of the existing financial mechanisms andthe Digital Solidarity Fund newly established with thefollowing expression: “We welcome the Digital Solidar-ity Fund (DSF) established in Geneva as an innovativefinancial mechanism of a voluntary nature open to inter-ested stakeholders with the objective of transforming thedigital divide into digital opportunities (omitted). TheDSF will complement existing mechanisms for fundingthe Information Society (omitted)21.”

(2) Internet GovernanceIn the Plan of Action adopted at the Geneva phase, theSecretary General of the United Nations was asked to setup a Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) asan agreement reached at the Geneva phase. Based onthis agreement, the WGIG was established in November2004. The WGIG held four meetings during the periodfrom its inauguration to June 2005 and submitted areport to the Secretary General of the United Nationsand publicly announced it in July 200522.

The report considered different organizational modelsfor Internet governance and set out four models rangingfrom one in which a UN organization directly overseesICANN to one in which the current ICANN functionsare left as-is and a totally separate forum for discussionis established.

In response to these moves, on June 30, 2005, theDepartment of Commerce of the United States expressedits four principles on the domain name and addressingsystem of the Internet, including its intention to maintainits historic role in authorizing changes or modificationsto the authoritative root zone file23 and to continue tosupport the ongoing work of ICANN24.

Under these circumstances, the Tunis Agendaexpressed a recognition that all stakeholders must




commit to ensuring the stability and security of theInternet within their respective roles and responsibilities.It also recognized that as a means of preventing themisuse of ICTs such as cybercrime and spam as well,the needed scope of Internet governance includes social,economic and technical issues including affordability,reliability and quality of service.

In order to act on these principles, it was agreed thatthe UN Secretary General would start a process by theend of the first quarter of 2006 to establish a newforum—called the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)—todiscuss wide-ranging issues related to the key elementsof Internet governance. The first meeting of the IGF wasto be convened by the second quarter of 2006. A compro-mise on the other pending issue brought over from theGeneva phase was reached in such a way that involvedholding meetings of the IGF for five years since then25.

(3) Follow-up of the Plan of ActionThe Tunis Agenda emphasized the importance of theimplementation and follow-up of the Plan of Actionadopted during the Geneva phase through the participa-tion of all stakeholders as the key to realizing the devel-opment-oriented Information Society.

For this purpose, it was decided to establish a mecha-nism for implementation and follow-up at national,regional and international levels. At the same time, theUN Secretary General was requested to establish aUnited Nations Group on the Information Society. Inimplementing each theme of the Action Lines listed inC1 through C11 of the Plan of Action adopted duringthe Geneva phase, consideration was to be given to theexperience of, and activities in the WSIS process under-taken by ITU, UNESCO and UNDP in selecting leadagency(ies) of this group.

Through discussions on the measures to overcome thedigital divide at the G8 Summit, the United NationsSummit, the WSIS and other opportunities, agreementwas reached on the Plan of Action during the GenevaPhase of the WSIS. In order to turn these principles intoactions, in the Tunis Agenda, it was agreed to determinea moderator/facilitator for each of the individual themesto bridge the digital divide and conduct follow-up activi-ties every year.

III Implementation and Follow-Up of the WSIS Outcomes

Unlike the United Nations summits held in the past, theagreement documents of the WSIS included provisionsfor the implementation and follow-up of outcomes of thesummit.

More precisely, Paragraph 99 of the Tunis Agendaincludes a decision to establish a mechanism for imple-

mentation and follow-up at the national, regional(among countries in the neighboring region) and interna-tional levels to continue to pursue the achievement ofWSIS goals even after the completion of the WSIS.

At the national level, the government of each countrywas encouraged to set up a national implementationmechanism in which (1) national e-strategies should bean integral part of national development plans and (2)ICTs should be fully mainstreamed into strategies forOfficial Development Assistance (ODA) (Paragraph100).

At the regional level, the agenda notes that WSISimplementation activities such as exchanging informationand best practices at the regional level and facilitatingpolicy debate on the use of ICT for development shouldbe conducted with a focus on attaining the internationallyagreed development goals and objectives, including theMillennium Development Goals (Paragraph 101 “a”).

It further states that UN Regional Commissions mayorganize regional WSIS follow-up activities in collabo-ration with regional and sub-regional organizations(Paragraph 101 “b”).

It was further considered that a multi-stakeholderapproach and participation in regional WSIS implemen-tation activities by the private sector, civil society, andthe United Nations and other international organizationsare essential (Paragraph 101 “c”).

At the international level, the agenda mentions thatbearing in mind the importance of the enabling environ-ment (the development of the information environment),each UN agency should act according to its mandate andcompetencies within existing approved resources; imple-mentation and follow-up should include intergovern-mental and multi-stakeholder components (Paragraph102).

With respect to activities among UN agencies, the UNSecretary General was requested to establish, in consul-tation with members of the UN System Chief ExecutiveBoard for Coordination (CEB), a UN Group on theInformation Society (UNGIS) with the mandate to facili-tate the implementation of WSIS outcomes, and to sug-gest to CEB that, in considering lead agency(ies) of thisGroup, it takes into consideration the experience of, andactivities in the WSIS process undertaken by ITU,UNESCO and UNDP (Paragraph 103).

The UN Secretary General was further requested toreport to the UN General Assembly through ECOSOCby June 2006, on the modalities of the inter-agencycoordination of the implementation of WSIS outcomes(Paragraph 104).

In Paragraph 105, ECOSOC was requested to overseethe follow-up of the Geneva and Tunis outcomes ofWSIS. To enable ECOSOC to institutionally overseesuch activities, ECOSOC was further requested toreview the mandate, agenda and composition of theCommission on Science and Technology for Develop-ment (CSTD), which is its subsidiary body.




In response, ECOSOC adopted a resolution on July28, 2006, on the follow-up of WSIS outcomes and thereview of the CSTD26.

The Tunis Agenda attaches great importance to multi-stakeholder implementation at the international level forthe 11 Action Lines (C1 – C11) included in the GenevaPlan of Action. It notes that the experience of, and theactivities undertaken by UN agencies in the WSISprocess—notably ITU, UNESCO and UNDP—shouldcontinue to be used to their fullest extent, and that thesethree agencies should play leading and facilitating rolesin the implementation of the Geneva Plan of Action andorganize a meeting of moderators/facilitators of actionlines (Paragraphs 108 and 109, Table 2).

Based on these statements of the Tunis Agenda, mod-erators/facilitators were determined for each action line,and it was decided to hold follow-up meetings in Genevain May every year with the initiative taken by the rele-vant moderator/facilitator.

1 Follow-Up Meetings on Action Lines

Based on the Annex to the Tunis Agenda, facilitationmeetings have been held for 11 action lines in Genevaevery year since the first meeting in May 2006. In May2008, the third meetings were held27.

This section describes Action Lines C2 (Informationand communication infrastructure) and C5 (Buildingconfidence and security in the use of ICTs), for whichITU was designated as the moderator/facilitator.

(1) Information and communication infrastructure(Action Line C2)

In line with Paragraph 108 and the Annex to the TunisAgenda, the ITU invited all WSIS stakeholders to hold aconsultation meeting on implementing WSIS outcomesrelated to Action Line C2, i.e., information and commu-nication infrastructure.

On May 18, 2006, the first meeting was held at theITU Headquarters in Geneva. At this meeting, the Asso-ciation for Progressive Communications (APC) and theWorld Bank were designated as co-facilitators.

Three initiatives were presented at the meeting. First,the One Laptop per Child (OLPC) initiative advocatedby Professor Negroponte of the Massachusetts Instituteof Technology (MIT), which aims at developing aUS$100 laptop, which can be deployed everywhere, wasintroduced.

Second, the European Commission, together with theMember States of the European Union, outlined itspriorities in the field of telecommunications developmentthroughout the WSIS process: setting up e-strategies suchas e-government, e-health, e-learning and e-commerce;establishing stable and predicable regulatory frameworksthat give incentives to private sector investment,including human capacity building in regulatory affairs;and emphasizing the importance of internationalcooperation in the field of Research and Development.

Third, ITU introduced Resolution 17 by which 25regional initiatives were adopted by the 2006 edition ofthe World Telecommunication Development Conference



Table 2. Role Sharing for Action Lines

Role of public governance authorities and all stakeholders in the promotion of ICTs for development

Information and communication infrastructure

Access to information and knowledge

Capacity building

Building confidence and security in the use of ICTs

Enabling environment

ICT applications• E-government• E-business• E-learning• E-health• E-employment• E-environment• E-agriculture• E-science

Cultural diversity and identity, linguistic diversity and local content

Media

Ethical dimensions of the Information Society

International and regional cooperation

ECOSOC / UN Regional Commissions / ITU

ITU

ITU / UNESCO

UNDP / UNESCO / ITU / UNCTAD

ITU

ITU / UNDP / UN Regional Commissions / UNCTAD

UNDP / ITUWTO / UNCTAD / ITU / UPUUNESCO / ITU / UNIDOWHO / ITUILO / ITUWHO / WMO / UNEP / UN-Habitat / ITU / ICAOFAO / ITUUNESCO / ITU / UNCTAD

UNESCO

UNESCO

UNESCO / ECOSOC

UN Regional Commissions / UNDP / ITU / UNESCO / ECOSOC

C1

C2

C3

C4

C5

C6

C7

C8

C9

C10

C11

Action Line Possible Moderators/Facilitators

Source: Annex to the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society.


(WTDC) held in Doha, Qatar. These initiatives refer tofive major initiatives for each of the following five areas:Sub-Saharan Africa, Americas, Arab States, Asia-Pacificand CIS (Commonwealth of Independent States).

As to future plans, proposals were made regardinghow this group sees the continuation of its work. Theyinclude: taking stock of demand-driven initiatives at theglobal, regional and national levels; building partner-ships around major initiatives; and further developingonline ICT development assessment tools.

Finally, the meeting highlighted the need to urgentlydevelop online tools in order to facilitate the moderationof the work of the virtual group and of its possible sub-groups.

The second consultation meeting took place on May16, 2007, at the ITU Headquarters. The ITU reported onthe activities directly related to the facilitation of ActionLine C2 that were undertaken since last year’s meeting.

Specifically, the virtual working space has beenlaunched. The function abilities of the new WSIS ActionLine C2 Portal provide fully transparent communicationmeans for interaction among all stakeholders. Further-more, the Plan of Action for WSIS Action Line C2 hasbeen elaborated and submitted for internal discussionwithin the ITU. The plan aims to facilitate the activitiesin six fields: (1) promotion of national ICT strategies;(2) harmonization of the ICT policies in the differentregions; (3) development of regional and large-scalenational initiatives; (4) launch of global thematic ICTinfrastructure initiatives for “public access,” “ICT appli-cations for development,” “broadband connectivitythrough the wired and wireless technologies” and “large-scale ICT backbones;” (5) development of a virtualfinancing platform; and (6) deployment of an online toolfor ICT development assessment.

A number of large-scale projects have also been iden-tified as potential projects to be facilitated under WSISAction Line C2. The list of projects includes harmoniza-tion of ICT policies in 43 Sub-Saharan countries (orga-nizations involved: the EC and ITU) and in 17Caribbean countries (organizations involved: the EC andITU); capacity building of ICT policies in 14 PacificIsland States (organizations involved: the EC and ITU);international optical fiber “Infinity Project West Africa”(organization involved: Infinity Worldwide Telecommu-nication Group of Companies (IWTGC)); and ICTapplications and satellite diversity in Pacific IslandStates (organization involved: ITU).

It was reported that the ITU Secretariat sent a query tomember countries on national e-strategies and the coor-dination mechanisms for WSIS implementation at thenational level. As of April 25, 2007, approximately 40countries had reported to the ITU.

Simultaneously, the ITU circulated a new request forupdating information and submitting new projectdescriptions to the WSIS Stocktaking Database. Theprogress of 25 regional initiatives adopted at the World

Telecommunication Development Conference 2006 wasalso reported.

The third meeting was held at the ITU Headquarterson May 19, 2008. At this meeting, the ITU Secretariatreported on the progress in the development of ICTinfrastructure in each country since the 2007 meeting foreach of the six fields described above. Following this, apanel discussion was held on the development of ICTinfrastructure from a diplomatic viewpoint with ambas-sadors stationed in Geneva serving as panelists. In addi-tion, discussions were held among stakeholders on thetheme of the mechanisms that bring about success toICT projects.

Finally, ITU Global View, which was jointly devel-oped by the ITU and Microsoft, was demonstrated. Thisonline platform enables anyone to easily see the status ofICT infrastructure development worldwide.

(2) Building confidence and security in the use ofICTs (Action Line C5)

In line with Paragraph 108 and the Annex to the TunisAgenda for the Information Society, the ITU invited allWSIS stakeholders interested and involved in the imple-mentation process for building confidence and securityin the use of ICTs to a consultation meeting to discussthe WSIS multi-stakeholder implementation process forWSIS Action Line C5, “Building confidence and secu-rity in the use of ICTs.”

The first meeting was held on May 15 and 16, 2006,at the ITU Headquarters. The purpose of this meetingwas in line with Paragraph 110 of the Tunis Agenda, i.e.,“the coordination of multi-stakeholder implementationactivities would help to avoid duplication of activities.This should include, inter alia, information exchange,creation of knowledge, sharing of best practices, andassistance in developing multi-stakeholder and public-private partnerships.”

In pursuing potential partnership activities for globalcyber security, this meeting focused on exploring poten-tial partnerships among governments, the private sectorand other stakeholders based on the five main themesidentified at the 2005 WSIS Thematic Meeting onCybersecurity. They are:

1) Information sharing of national approaches, goodpractices and guidelines

2) Developing watch, warning and incident responsecapabilities

3) Technical standards and industry solutions4) Harmonizing national legal approaches and inter-

national legal coordination5) Privacy, data and consumer protection

The second meeting took place on May 14 and 15, 2007,at the ITU Headquarters in Geneva. Based on the firstmeeting in May 2006, work programs in four focusareas have been initiated: (1) national strategies, (2) legal




frameworks, (3) watch, warning and incident responseand (4) spam and related threats.

The guiding themes for this second meeting includeprogress by stakeholders in implementation activities inthese four focus areas, consideration of future frame-work discussions to improve international cooperationand coordination in the above domains as well as futurework plans.

On May 17, 2007, the ITU launched the GlobalCybersecurity Agenda (GCA), which is a framework forinternational cooperation in cyber security and interna-tional partnership against increasing cyber threats28.

For discussions on cyber security, the High LevelExperts Group on Cybersecurity (HLEG) was estab-lished. The HLEG members include high-level expertsfrom governments, industry, regional/international orga-nizations, research institutes, academic institutions andindividual experts from every part of the worldappointed by the ITU Secretary General. The HLEGwas to submit a report to the ITU Secretary General.

The third meeting was held on May 22 and 23, 2008,at the ITU Headquarters. A total of 125 participantsfrom governments, industry, international organizations,academia and civil society attended the two-day meet-ing. Participants included representatives of the govern-ments of 39 countries, 22 industry experts and 50individuals representing international organizations,NGOs and academia.

Six interactive panel sessions on current and emerg-ing threats and solutions were the focus of the first dayon May 22. Experts from governments, industry, inter-national organizations, academia and civil society whoattended the meeting as panelists debated and exchangedviews on current and emerging cyber security issuesand solutions. The first day also included open andlively discussions between the panelists and the partici-pants.

The theme of Session 1 was “Managing cyber-threats:Can we stay one step ahead of the attacker?” Represen-tatives from Cisco Systems, AT&T, Microsoft and otherrelated organizations and institutions participated in thissession as panelists, and discussed whether we are man-aging to curtail existing threats to our data, informationand network security; what new threats we shouldexpect in the short- to medium-term; and what stepssoftware and hardware companies as well as serviceproviders have taken to keep us one step ahead of theattacker.

The theme of Session 2 was “Civilian cyber-defense:Is enough being done to raise security IQs and to protectusers?” Panelists of this session included representativesfrom security companies in Switzerland and Finland andthose from international organizations. They discussedwhere we stand in our efforts to educate the end-user inInternet and information security; when a user is the vic-tim of a cyber-attack, what is his/her degree of responsi-bility and what options are available for his/her

protection; and what are the responsibilities of govern-ment and industry in civilian cyber-defense.

The theme of Session 3 was “Cyber-attacks: Are weready for the battlefield of the 21st Century?” Universityresearchers and representatives from the ITU-T (Interna-tional Telecommunication Union TelecommunicationStandardization Sector) and other related organizationsparticipated in the session as panelists. As millions ofpeople participate actively in virtual communities, theboundaries between the physical and virtual worldsrapidly diminish, and the significance of the virtualworld increases. Discussions were held on what shouldbe done to fight against cyber-attacks under such cir-cumstances.

Following presentations by stakeholders on initiatives,the agenda for the second day, May 23, included discus-sions on identifying possible goals and targets, exchangesof views on mechanisms for performance measurementand reporting towards progress in building confidenceand security in the use of ICTs.

The theme of Session 4 was “Global Challengesrequire Global Solutions: Are there any in the pipeline?”Panelists at this session included the Chairman of GCAand university researchers. The Chairman of GCAreported on the discussions held on May 21 at the GCAmeeting. Following this, discussions were held on theestablishment of guidelines to implement global strate-gies and cooperation.

The theme of Session 5 was “Overview of Stake-holder Activities: Who is doing what in Cybersecurity?”Presentations were made by representatives from theBrazilian Internet Steering Committee, the Asia-PacificEconomic Cooperation (APEC), Interpol (InternationalCriminal Police Organization), the Council of Europe(CE) and the private sector on their respective activities.

The theme of Session 6 was “Meeting C5 Goals: Howfar are we towards meeting the goals of C5?” Presenta-tions were made by ITU officials on the progress madeso far in implementing WSIS Action Line C5 and futureplans. The need to establish relationships betweenGCA’s five work areas (legal measures, technical andprocedural measures, organizational structures, capacitybuilding and international cooperation) and C5 imple-mentation activities was pointed out.

2 CSTD

The Commission on Science and Technology for Devel-opment (CSTD) was established in New York in April1993 as a subsidiary body of ECOSOC, as explained atthe beginning of Chapter III. CSTD replaced the formerIntergovernmental Committee on Science and Technol-ogy for Development and its Advisory Committee thatwere set up after the Vienna Conference on Science andTechnology for Development in 1979.

The purpose behind the establishment of the CSTDwas to provide the United Nations General Assembly




and ECOSOC with high-level advice on issues related toscience and technology through analysis and policy rec-ommendations. Since July 1993, the UNCTAD Secre-tariat has been responsible for assisting the Commission.Accordingly, CSTD meetings are generally held in thePalais des Nations (the United Nations Office inGeneva).

Based on Paragraph 105 of the Tunis Agenda thatnamed the CSTD as the organization to conduct theinstitutional follow-up of the Geneva and Tunis out-comes of WSIS, ECOSOC adopted its resolution at the43rd plenary meeting on July 28, 2006, that included thereview of the roles and responsibilities of the CSTD26.

By virtue of this resolution, ECOSOC officially desig-nated the CSTD as the organization to institutionally fol-low-up WSIS outcomes. Moreover, to strengthen theCSTD organization, ECOSOC decided to enlarge theCSTD by ten members from 33 member countries to 43member countries to ensure effective and meaningfulparticipation29.

Furthermore, the ECOSOC asked the CSTD to adopta multi-stakeholder approach in the same way as wasadopted for the WSIS, while preserving its intergovern-mental nature. To this end, the ECOSOC decided thatNGOs and civil societies that do not have consultativestatus with the ECOSOC but that received accreditationto the WSIS may participate, upon approval by theECOSOC, in the CSTD meetings for the next twoyears—2007 and 2008.

The tenth session of the CSTD meeting was held atthe Palais des Nations in Geneva from May 21 – 25,2007. During this meeting, new member countries wereelected. To facilitate implementation of WSIS outcomes,it was also decided to study the preparation of work pro-grams with focus given to a specific theme related to thebuilding of the information society with a view to bridg-ing the digital divide and to themes that are consideredavailable from among those related to science and tech-nology for development.

In addition, the CSTD asked the ECOSOC to adopt aresolution at its plenary meeting that enables informa-tion sharing among related organizations through report-ing by each UN agency to the CSTD on the status of theimplementation of WSIS outcomes30.

The eleventh session of the CSTD meeting was heldat the Palais des Nations in Geneva from May 26 – 30,2008. During this meeting, participants reiterated thatscience and technology are vital tools in meeting devel-opment goals, especially those contained in the UnitedNations Millennium Declaration. It is thus important thatdeveloping countries integrate science, technology andinnovation policies into national development policies.The participants underscored the importance for govern-ments to adopt a multi-stakeholder approach in design-ing such policies.

The participants emphasized the potential role ofinformation and communications technology, in particu-

lar the Internet, to contribute to knowledge sharing anddissemination and to accelerate progress towards theachievement of development goals. With the digitaldivide taking on new dimensions, they also stressed theneed to ensure affordable access to information andcommunications technology including the Internet anddigital literacy for poor rural populations.

The participants pointed out that the spread of broad-band technologies deserves special policy attention, andthat many of the e-applications indicated in Action LineC 7 of the Plan of Action, such as e-government, e-health, e-business, e-education and e-agriculture, dependon fast and affordable access to broadband technologies.

During this meeting, the CSTD recommended to theECOSOC the adoption of a draft resolution and fourdraft decisions at its plenary session31.

A draft resolution for adoption by the ECOSOC refersto its assessment of the progress made in the implemen-tation of and follow-up to the outcomes of the WSIS.Four draft decisions for adoption by the ECOSOC are:

1) Participation of non-governmental organizationsand civil society entities in the work of the CSTDat its twelfth and thirteenth sessions

2) Participation of academic entities in the work ofthe CSTD

3) Report of the Secretary General on science, tech-nology and innovation to be submitted to theCSTD at its twelfth session

4) Report of the CSTD on its eleventh session and aprovisional agenda and documentation for thetwelfth session of the CSTD

As such, the CSTD has discussed the implementation ofWSIS outcomes at its sessions as one of its two majorthemes. However, these discussions have primarilyfocused on related procedures and reports, and so far,there have been few substantive discussions as a moder-ator/facilitator.

3 IGF

Under the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society, thedesirability of the continuation of the Internet Gover-nance Forum (IGF) was to be examined in formal con-sultation with Forum participants within five years of itscreation. The offer of the Government of Greece to hostthe first meeting of the IGF in Athens was welcomed.

As part of the preparatory process for the Athensmeeting, two rounds of consultations were held at thePalais des Nations in Geneva on February 16 and 17,and May 19, 2006. The participants addressed a widevariety of issues such as the IGF’s scope of work andsubstantive priorities as well as aspects related to itsstructure and functioning.

In the May 19 meeting, 46 persons were appointed asmembers of an Advisory Group, which was to be




chaired by Nitin Desai, the UN Secretary General’s spe-cial advisor for the WSIS, to facilitate preparation of theinaugural meeting of the IGF. In addition, the IGF Secre-tariat headed by Markus Kummer was established at theUnited Nations Office in Geneva.

(1) Inaugural meetingThe inaugural meeting of the IGF took place in Athensfrom October 30 to November 2, 2006. Over 1,200 rep-resentatives from governments, international organiza-tions, the private sector, civil society, educationalinstitutions and other related organizations from all overthe world participated in this meeting.

The overall theme of the meeting was “Internet Gov-ernance for Development” with “capacity building” as acrosscutting priority. The agenda was structured basedon the following broad themes:

1) Openness: Freedom of expression, free flow ofinformation, ideas and knowledge

2) Security: Creating trust and confidence throughcollaboration

3) Diversity: Promoting multilingualism and localcontent

4) Access: Internet connectivity

At this meeting, while the report for the overall meetingwas prepared, agreement documents such as decisionsand/or resolutions reflecting the results of discussionsand negotiations were not created.

In the “openness” session, much of the discussion wasdevoted to the balance between freedom of expressionand responsible use of this freedom, the balance betweenprotecting copyright and access to knowledge, and therole and responsibility of each government and their lim-itations. Diverse opinions were expressed during thissession. While all panelists emphasized the importanceof freedom of expression, some argued that this freedomis not absolute and that the Internet is not above the law.Regulations must be applied to both the on- and off-lineworld. Other topics of discussion included that access tothe Internet and to information constitutes an importanttheme in developing countries as well as the relationshipbetween national regulation on the freedom of expres-sion and the borderless Internet.

Discussions in the “security” session emphasized theneed for Internet security in order to realize the benefitsof the Information Society as Internet security is closelyrelated to the development of economic and social activ-ities. Other topics of discussion included the relationshipbetween maintaining the openness of the Internet andensuring security; protecting users from spam, phishingand viruses while protecting privacy; the importance ofauthentication and identification to ensure security; theneed for reliable authentication organizations; enhancinguser awareness against perpetrators of security breaches;the effectiveness of the sharing of information such as

best practices and international cooperation; and publicregulations and market-based solutions.

Discussions on “diversity” centered on international-ized domain names (IDNs), multilingualism and pro-moting local content. It was pointed out that as therequirement for multilingualism on the Internet is basedon the requirement for ensuring cultural diversity, lackof linguistic diversity might lead to a “linguistic divide.”Discussions also touched on the fact that all of the latestInternet browsers support internationalized domainnames, as well as on the technical issue of international-izing domain names without endangering the stabilityand security of the Internet. Some participants stressedthe need for support for the provision of content in lan-guages for which market forces are not yet strongenough to provide. There was also a discussion of mediafor people with visual and other disabilities and for thosewho are illiterate.

During the discussions on the issue of “access,”increasing access was seen as the principal issue facingthe Internet community and as being multifaceted and afocal point for public policy responses. It was pointedout that the introduction of competition and the removalof blocks to competition were of fundamental impor-tance. The limitation in a market-based approach wasalso observed such as inadequate supplies of power, thelow level of ICT skills and the shortage of funds.

In summing up the inaugural meeting, ChairmanDesai, who also chairs the Advisory Group, commented,“The essential point to realize is that this is a multi-stakeholder forum. It is an open-door forum. It is not aforum with a fixed membership. (Omitted) In that sense,it’s not possible to speak of anything as being a productof this meeting. So it would be misleading to say thatthere is any such thing as an agreed conclusion or aproduct of this meeting in the strict sense of the term(omitted).” Following these remarks, reports were madeon the activities of each session.

Forum participants reported on workshops, generalmeetings and other activities. Chairman Desai closed theforum by noting, “This particular session was an experi-ment. It was an experiment in a multi-stakeholder envi-ronment. It was an open-door experiment32.”

(2) Second meeting of IGFIn February 2007, a preparatory meeting for the secondmeeting was held to reflect the results and experience ofthe first meeting. The multi-stakeholder format was gen-erally seen as one of the key factors of the success of thefirst meeting, and it was decided to maintain this formatas a guiding principle.

In May and September 2007, open consultation meet-ings took place to hear opinions from all stakeholders onthe structure of the second meeting and the themes to becovered. While various opinions were expressed aboutthe themes to be discussed at the second meeting, somedeveloping countries noted that the issue of Internet




resources such as the management of Internet protocol(IP) addresses and the domain name system (DNS)should be added. The governments of developing coun-tries and NGOs emphasized the need for balanced geo-graphic representation to make a multi-stakeholderapproach more effective.

The second meeting of IGF was held in Rio deJaneiro, Brazil from November 12 – 15, 2007. The meet-ing was attended by more than 1,300 participants from109 countries. A new theme, “critical Internetresources,” was added to the four main themes coveredat the Athens meeting, which were “access,” “security,”“diversity” and “openness.” Principal sessions for eachof these 5 themes and 84 workshops were held.

1) Critical Internet resourcesThe “critical Internet resources” session, which wasnewly added in this second meeting, was designed todiscuss issues related to Internet resources such as IPaddresses and DNS.

During the meeting, while a wide range of Internetresources that are important for development were dis-cussed, the primary focus was given to the managementof IP addresses and DNS. Some participants recom-mended that the United Nations establish a specialmulti-stakeholder working group within the IGF frame-work on critical Internet resources. However, there werealso opinions that supported the use of the currentframework for discussion. One of the panelists sug-gested that governments could choose to subsidize therelated costs to encourage IPv6 (Internet Protocol Ver-sion 6) connectivity among all of the Internet serviceproviders. Another panelist indicated that, while criticalInternet resources were not a critical issue for users,security issues as well as issues of access in developingcountries were important. There was a general recogni-tion of the importance of building human capacity as acritical resource. One panelist pointed out that the spreadof the multi-stakeholder methodology was an importantnew protocol for resolving issues of critical Internetresources.

2) AccessThe “access” session was designed to discuss the poli-cies to increase access to the Internet, in particular, thoserelated to the expansion of access to the Internet and thereduction of costs in developing countries.

Panelists highlighted that the issue of access to theInternet remained the single most important issue, par-ticularly in the developing world. A theme that emergedthroughout the session was that while having one billionInternet users as of 2007 was considered a huge success,the focus should shift towards the next billion and thebillions after that.

Many speakers stressed the need for open markets,while others emphasized that market forces alone couldnot solve the issue of accessibility, and governments had

the responsibility of designing and implementing poli-cies of universal access. There was an acknowledgmentthat multi-stakeholder cooperation in which govern-ments, private sector, civil society and related entities areinvolved was very important with regard to access.

Overall, there was a general agreement that the issuesof access remained central to the agenda of the IGF andas the “next billion” come on-line, new challenges andopportunities will emerge.

3) DiversityThe “diversity” session was designed to discuss the pro-motion of linguistic diversity on the Internet, distributionof local content, diversity related to people with disabili-ties and the like.

Panelists called for the Internet to be accessible to all.In order to include people with disabilities, use of uni-versal design and assistive technologies were important.Discussions were held from diverse aspects, includingcultural diversity, linguistic diversity and the role ofDNS.

4) OpennessThe “openness” session was designed to discuss theimportance of the free flow of information, the freedomof expression, harmonization with the protection ofintellectual property rights and the like.

Several speakers pointed out that openness involvedseveral questions of balance. For example, there is a bal-ance between the “two IPs”—the IP for Internet protocoland the IP for intellectual property. There is also a ques-tion of balance between the freedom of expression andfree flow of information and the freedom to enjoy thefruits of one’s labor. Moreover, there is also the questionof balance between privacy and the freedom of expres-sion as the principal issue facing “openness.” It waspointed out that the observance of human rights was notonly for governments, but also for businesses and otherstakeholders.

It was also pointed out that practical solutions toissues such as child pornography, credit card fraud andterrorism should be built based on the respect of humanrights. There was also a discussion on the importance ofopen standards and free and open source software. It wasemphasized that there was no contradiction between freeand open source software and intellectual property.

5) SecurityThe “security” session was designed to discuss the rolesof stakeholders to enhance security on the Internet, theprotection of children and measures to curb cybercrimes.

Many speakers emphasized the legal dimensions ofsecurity. Given the borderless nature of the Internet, theyhighlighted the need for high levels of cooperationamong law enforcement agencies of all member coun-tries. While some called for more legislation, there wasalso a warning against overregulation. Many speakers




pointed out that collaborative, multi-stakeholder effortsof cooperation could be sufficient. There was a strongcall for harmonizing legislation between countries andalso for bringing into force new legal instruments thatapply to the online world.

One of the themes that emerged from the discussionswas that creating a sustainable environment of trust fromall stakeholders was essential in the pursuit of securityand to achieve this required everyone’s cooperation.

As symbolized by the “next billion users” in the chair-man’s summary on the last day, many speakers stressedthat the enhancement of increasing access to the Internetremains a core agenda item of IGF.

It was also pointed out that a fair environment forbusiness competition on a global scale would contributeto an overall improvement in access conditions and that,if necessary, international financing arrangements shouldbe developed to support investment in areas in which itis not commercially feasible. It was also noted that Inter-net Exchange Points (IXPs) could be valuable resourcesin developing countries33.

While so far, an IGF meeting has been held annually,the general recognition is that IGF meetings will not pre-pare any official agreed documents because the themesof the discussions continue to expand.

As such, for the implementation and follow-up ofWSIS decisions as required under the Tunis Agenda,ITU, UNESCO or UNDP play a leading facilitating rolerespectively for each of the Action Lines. CSTD andIGF are respectively holding meetings every year in sucha way that they maintain cooperation and, at the sametime, display their own initiatives.

IV Future Issues and Challenges

In Chapters II and III, the moves and actions taken dur-ing the three years after an agreement was reached at theWSIS to overcome the digital divide and to build theglobal information society were discussed. These chap-ters introduced a wide range of activities such as cooper-ation among UN agencies and activities by allstakeholders including member countries and NGOs atthe meeting held by UN agencies.

In this chapter, the issues to be addressed and chal-lenges to be met in the future by the international com-munity, international organizations and Japan inparticular are considered respectively.

1 Issues Facing the InternationalCommunity

The international community is made up of individualnations as basic units. However, there is no authoritativeorganization with the authority of compulsory executionin the international community, while each nation has

such power that covers its own country. Accordingly,military power was resorted to as an ultimate means ofresolving conflicts between nations in the past. Based ongrave reflections on war, however, each nation hadstarted to give priority to discussion and negotiation.International conferences and meetings were held as theplaces for such discussions to resolve disputes.

Subsequently, a secretariat was established to operatesuch international conferences and meetings to resolveand mediate disputes between nations. Since then, talkswere mostly held at the venues of meetings organized bythis secretariat. In particular, in the communicationsfield, an international organization was inaugurated at arelatively early stage as the venue for negotiations forthe resolution and coordination of disputes. This isbecause, as symbolized by the term “sovereignty overcommunications,” communications networks are deeplyinvolved in national security and national sovereignty.This international organization is the International Tele-graph Union, which is the predecessor of the currentITU. It was established in 1865, nine years before theinauguration of the Universal Postal Union in 1874.

Based on the lessons learned from World War I, withrespect to political issues as well, a major movement ofthe international community was towards the importanceof talks at an intergovernmental organization. This trendled to the inauguration of the League of Nations in 1919.

For the first time as an international organization, theLeague of Nations discussed international assistanceactivities, and announced a report entitled “Developmentof International Cooperation in Economic and SocialAffairs” at its General Assembly in August 1939.

After World War II, the international communitybegan to pay attention to the gap between rich and poor,and started to seriously consider international develop-ment aid programs in which rich countries support poorcountries.

In 1944, immediately before the end of World War II,all allied nations gathered in Bretton Woods in theUnited States to discuss a post-war system to stabilizemonetary relations, restore devastated Europe and pavethe way for a free trade system. These discussions led tothe establishment of the International Monetary Fund(IMF) in 1945 for the purpose of promoting stability inthe exchange rates of currencies, with the US dollarserving as the key currency, as backed by the over-whelmingly predominant US economy.

In 1945, the International Bank for Reconstructionand Development (IBRD) was also set up to support therecovery of Europe, which had been devastated duringwartime. To maintain the free trade system by replacingprotectionism, which is accused of being one of themajor causes of the War, the General Agreement on Tar-iffs and Trade (GATT) was signed as a multiple-countryagreement in 1947. In 1948, GATT was concluded by 23countries in Geneva when they negotiated trade issues—this was regarded as the inauguration of GATT.




Currently available international development aid pro-grams can be traced back to the Bretton Woods systemconsisting of IMF, IBRD and GATT, and to the MarshallPlan that was planned and implemented by the UnitedStates to recover Europe from the devastation of the War.

Subsequently, colonies in Asia and Africa becameindependent. These newly independent nations laggedfar behind other nations in developing all facets neces-sary to become independent countries such as justice,administration and national security as well as infra-structure. To support these countries, there was widerecognition that bearing the cost of “assistance” wasindispensable.

In 1960, the International Development Association(IDA) was established to promote development assis-tance for developing countries. Currently, IDA and IBRDconstitute the World Bank Group. During that time, theEast-West conflict was under heightened tension. TheSoviet Union expanded military and economic assistanceto its neighboring satellite nations and communist candi-date nations. The West was urged to consider strategiesfor assistance to strengthen its own camp.

Under these circumstances, the balance of paymentsof the United States had significantly worsened (it hadbeen in deficit since 1958), and requests for “burdensharing” were issued to “allied nations.” In 1960, byagreement among all related countries, the Organizationfor European Economic Cooperation (OEEC), whichwas established to help administer the Marshall Plan forthe reconstruction of Europe, was restructured into theOrganization for Economic Cooperation and Develop-ment (OECD). In 1961, the development aid groupwithin OECD was officially transformed into the Devel-opment Assistance Committee (DAC) as the OECD’sforum for discussion.

Around that time, under the initiative of then PresidentJohn F. Kennedy of the United States, the first UnitedNations Decade of Development was launched. Thisconcept continued to be implemented four times for 40years until 2000. Currently, there is widespread recogni-tion that achievement of the results and goals initiallyanticipated was blocked by difficulties encountered fromtime to time.

Under such a set of moves, as explained in Chapter II,the Millennium Assembly of the United Nations in Sep-tember 2000 adopted the United Nations MillenniumDeclaration. This Declaration listed the goals to beachieved by the international community in the 21st cen-tury. In Chapter III for Development and Poverty Eradi-cation, the Declaration stated that we are committed tomaking the right to development a reality for everyoneand to freeing the entire human race from want. As alsoexplained in Chapter II, in September 2001, interna-tional development goals so far established were inte-grated into an enhanced common framework known asthe Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). With theoccurrence of the terrorist attacks in the United States on

September 11, 2001, concerns about development issuesbegan to arise in the international community due to theview that countries suffering from poverty could becomehotbeds of terrorism. Subsequently, international confer-ences where discussions on development issues werecentral were held one after another.

In March 2002, the International Conference onFinancing for Development took place in Monterrey,Mexico, where discussions were held to seek ways ofmobilizing resources for financing development aroundthe world, particularly in developing countries, to fulfillthe MDGs.

During this conference, the Monterrey Consensus wasadopted, which centered on a substantial increase inODA and debt relief for poor countries. While the WorldSummit on Sustainable Development held in Johannes-burg, South Africa in September 2002 was scheduled todiscuss the implementation of the principles adopted atthe Earth Summit (the United Nations Conference onEnvironment and Development) held in Rio de Janeiroin 1992, as well as newly emerging issues, the majorfocus of discussions at the meeting in Johannesburg wasa call to protect the poor in developing countries.

The Johannesburg Declaration adopted at the WorldSummit on Sustainable Development stated, “the deepfault line that divides human society between the richand the poor and the ever-increasing gap between thedeveloped and developing worlds pose a major threat toglobal prosperity, security and stability” as one of thechallenges we face. This demonstrated recognition thatthe development issue is deeply involved in the world’sstability and security.

In September 2005, a high-level plenary meeting ofthe UN General Assembly was held to review the inter-nationally agreed development goals including thosecontained in the Millennium Declaration. The OutcomeDocument adopted at this meeting reiterated the deter-mination to ensure timely and full realization of thedevelopment goals and objectives that emerged from themajor United Nations conferences and summits, includ-ing the Millennium Development Goals (Table 3).

There were two focal points for international develop-ment assistance that were expressed at international con-ferences and meetings held under the initiative of theUnited Nations. One was the “quantity of assistance.”The achievement of the MDGs requires substantialincreases in official development assistance. The specificgoal toward this end that was set was that each assistingcountry increases its ratio of ODA to GNI (grossnational income) to 0.7 percent by 2015. The secondwas the “quality of assistance.” To provide assistance inthe most effective manner, the recognition was thatincreased emphasis must be given to coordination, own-ership, mutual accountability and management of devel-opment results.

Nevertheless, an all-round approach was adopted forselecting the target areas for assistance, and the idea of




prioritizing the areas in accordance with their expectedimportance in the future and distributing funds based onsuch priority was not seen.

From a time series perspective, in 2000, the OkinawaCharter on the Global Information Society was adoptedat the Kyushu-Okinawa Summit. While the UnitedNations Millennium Declaration adopted at the UN Mil-lennium Summit touched on bridging the digital divide,there was no mention of the digital divide in either theMonterrey Consensus or the Johannesburg Declarationin 2002. While the outcome documents of the GenevaPhase of the WSIS in December 2003 included anagenda for building the global information society, therewas no such mention during the OECD MinisterialCouncil Meetings in 2004 and 2005.

As stated above, in September 2005, a high-level ple-nary meeting of the General Assembly was held at theUN Headquarters, where the MDGs and the develop-ment issues were discussed, and the outcome documentwas announced in 2005. In this outcome document, ICTwas treated as one of the eight subcategories under thetitle of Science and Technology for Development, andwas not taken up as an independent theme, while consid-eration was given to education, rural and agriculturaldevelopment, employment, health issues, etc. as inde-pendent themes.

As such, from the viewpoints of major internationaldevelopment assistance organizations such as the United

Nations, OECD and the World Bank, the priority givento bridging the digital divide and building the globalinformation society is still low. The development andutilization of ICT is not yet positioned as an independentfield.

In the future, each country and these organizationsmust develop deep recognition of the fact that ICT uti-lization will have a major effect on global society andcan bring about significant benefits to the economicdevelopment of developing countries. Developed coun-tries providing assistance should give full considerationto the roles that can be played by ICTs. At the sametime, it is important to facilitate the understanding ofbeneficiaries (developing countries, etc.) of the fact thatICT can drive the development of economic society andlargely contribute to solving domestic problems. It isalso important to encourage these countries to raise thelevel of priority of ICT as a field where they requestassistance.

2 Issues Facing InternationalOrganizations

Because of the need for a permanent venue for interna-tional conferences, international organizations were gen-erally established as the secretariat to operate suchconferences and meetings. Accordingly, the major pur-pose of their activities is to facilitate smooth operation of



Table 3. The International Community and History of International Development Assistance

Establishment of international organizations by field

1919

1945

1961

1961

1961

2000

2001

2002

2002

December 2003

September 2005

November 2005

1865: The International Telegraph Union (ITU) was inaugurated1874: The Universal Postal Union (UPU) was inaugurated

The League of Nations was inaugurated1939: The Report on the International Development Assistance was submitted to the General Assembly

The United Nations was founded1945: The International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) were inaugurated; the Bretton Woods system was established1948: The Marshall Plan (the European Recovery Program) was prepared and implemented by the United States.Current international development assistance activities can be traced back to the Bretton Woods system and the Marshall Plan.

The International Development Association (IDA) was establishedTogether with IBRD, IDA consists of the World Bank group.

The Organization for European Economic Cooperation (OEEC) was reformed into the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)

The Development Assistance Committee (DAC) was established

The first United Nations Decade of Development was started (1961 – 1970); currently the fifth plan is under way (2001 – 2010)

United Nations Millennium Summit

Terrorist attacks on the United States; Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) were established

The International Conference on Financing for Development was held in Monterrey

The World Summit on Sustainable Development was held in Johannesburg

Geneva Phase of the WSIS

World Summit to review MDGs

Tunis Phase of the WSIS; APEC (Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation) Ministerial Meeting

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11


conferences and meetings. The activities of the secre-tariat are basically structured so as not to affect the sov-ereignty of any member country. Accordingly, a generalconcept shared among developed countries is that thescope of the activities of international organizationsshould be limited, and that contributions to the UN bymember countries should be minimal.

On the other hand, developing countries maintain thatthe scope of the activities of international organizationsshould be expanded so that these organizations can pro-vide assistance on their own authority to support devel-oping countries.

Developing countries also consider that contributionsto these international organizations by developing coun-tries should be kept at the lowest possible level, and thatthe share of contributions by developed countries witheconomic power should be increased.

The basic mechanism for decision making at the gen-eral assembly of an international organization is a major-ity vote based on a one-vote-per-nation system regardlessof the share of contributions, except for the veto powerheld by the permanent members of the United NationsSecurity Council and a decision making method in whichthe number of votes a member country can cast is deter-mined by the amount of investment, as adopted by finan-cial international organizations. Because there are anoverwhelmingly large number of developing countries,developing countries generally hold an advantageousposition.

Accordingly, developed countries try to limit theactivities of international organizations to those that arenecessary to achieve the purposes established at the timeof their inauguration, while developing countries hope toexpand the scope of their activities to facilitate assis-tance activities for their benefit.

Because of this difference in basic recognition con-cerning the roles of international organizations, compro-mise between developed and developing countries isalways necessary in making any decision within theinternational organization. Furthermore, for the interna-tional organization to embark on any new activities, theapplicable treaty or regulation must be amended. Thisrequires a number of days for deliberations for compro-mise or amendment procedures to start any new activitiesbased on the fully established underlying foundation.Consequently, it is often difficult for international organi-zations to quickly launch new activities.

At the same time, because a large number of inter-governmental organizations already exist, overlaps ofactivities are highly likely to occur with existing organi-zations in one way or another whenever a new task isconsidered.

When the creation of the Digital Solidarity Fund(DSF) was proposed by developing countries during theWSIS meetings, developed countries opposed this ideain the context that there are duplications and overlapswith existing financial mechanisms. However, compro-

mise was reached between developing and developedcountries in such a way as that DSF would be createdvoluntarily by stakeholders outside the framework of theUnited Nations, and not as a UN agency, to raise fundsto reduce the digital divide.

Based on such a compromise, the Global Digital Soli-darity Fund was formally established in March 2005 inGeneva and started its activities34.

Among international organizations, some make effortsto survive even after the purposes of their creation wereachieved such as CSTD, which could find a new missionas stated in Paragraph 105 of the Tunis Agenda of theWSIS.

There are also cases such as that in which the DOTForce created at the Kyushu-Okinawa Summit in 2000was merged with the ICT Task Force to survive as a neworganization as a UN agency, which is called the GlobalAlliance for Information and Communication Technolo-gies and Development (GAID)35. GAID conducts activi-ties such as panel discussions at the CSTD plenarysessions.

While international organizations specialized indiverse fields are conducting their respective activities,the WSIS, as explained in Chapter III, designated a facil-itator/moderator organization for each theme. The facili-tator/moderator organization is responsible for holdingmeetings, implementing and following up on theassigned theme and exchanging information on thetheme.

These facilitation and consultation meetings for allthemes are held in May every year in Geneva. To date,these meetings have been held three times. While eachfacilitator/moderator organization assigned to each themeassumes the role of coordinating the schedule and agendafor its own theme, there is no organization that coordi-nates matters covering all themes. Although the UnitedNations Group on the Information Society (UNGIS) wasset up as a new inter-agency mechanism with the mainobjective of coordinating the substantive and policyissues facing the implementation of the outcomes of theWSIS, CSTD and IGF are not members of this Group.While each moderator organization of the Group is tohold a meeting in turn, as far as its reports indicate, itappears that the Group is not functioning as a secretariatcoordinating all related matters, such as eliminating anyoverlaps in themes in respective Action Line meetings.

This situation leads to the lack of adequate coordina-tion among WSIS-related organizations, such as theCSTD, which was established to provide coordinationfor the UN agencies; the IGF, which discusses Internetgovernance; the GAID, which was set up for the purposeof utilizing ICTs to support developing countries; andthe Global Digital Solidarity Fund, which was launchedto provide financial support for the use of ICTs in devel-oping countries.

Considering that WSIS follow-up meetings are chieflyheld at the ITU buildings, it might be appropriate that




ITU becomes the responsible organization for the fol-low-up of WSIS outcomes and provides overall coordi-nation. In light of the thinking of developed countries asexplained above and the mechanisms of internationalorganizations, not only ITU member countries but alsoother international organizations might oppose ITUplaying the role of providing overall coordination.

Turning our eyes to the CSTD to which the role ofcoordination among international organizations wasassigned, we find that its functions as the secretariat arenot adequately performed, and the participants in itsmeetings from member countries are the same as those inthe past. As such, the CSTD has no experience or accu-mulated knowledge in ICTs, and is simply acceptingreports on the follow-ups of the WSIS outcomes fromother international organizations at its meetings. This sit-uation suggests that, currently, the CSTD has not fullydisplayed its own initiative in acting as a coordinator.

Because of such insufficient coordination, specificthemes such as cyber security are discussed in an over-lapped manner at various conferences. Simply holdingrespective discussions at the meeting of the existinginternational organizations would not produce any inte-grated or meaningful outcomes.

To address a theme that covers an extensive range ofsubjects on an integrated basis by avoiding any overlaps,an organization responsible for such coordination isrequired. However, there are many difficulties in assign-ing such a role to existing organizations such as thescope of mandated activities and coordination with otherorganizations.

At the same time, many developed countries wouldoppose the establishment of a new organization for thispurpose.

Under such circumstances, in order to make the bestuse of the WSIS outcomes in pursuit of building theglobal information society, each member country mustshare the problems that international organizations cur-rently have, and must join in a consensus at the level ofthe heads of state/government about the utilization ofinternational organizations. Upon forming such consen-sus, member countries should cooperate in providingguidance to respective international organizations tofacilitate coordination.

3 Issues Facing Japan

As explained in Chapter II, the bridging of the digitaldivide was one of the themes discussed at the Kyushu-Okinawa Summit in Japan in 2000. One of the officialdocuments issued as a result was the Okinawa Charteron Global Information Society (Okinawa IT Charter).Ahead of the Kyushu-Okinawa Summit, Japanannounced a comprehensive cooperation package toaddress the international digital divide mostly consistingof ODA public funding amounting to a total of $15 bil-lion over a five-year period.

As such, Japan has paid attention to the importance ofICTs at a relatively early stage as compared to othercountries, and made a commitment to internationalcooperation to work to eliminate the digital divide. How-ever, when we look at the actual situation in 2006 afterthe elapse of five years, we see that it is difficult to findspecific results from the international commitmentsmade by Japan.

One of the reasons for this situation that could be con-sidered is that because the Japanese government appliedthe conventional ODA allocation scheme on an as-isbasis without establishing a new, special scheme for theelimination of the digital divide, the assistance measuresfor this purpose might be hidden in the conventionalscheme.

The Japanese government’s basic concept for its inter-national commitment of providing a total of $15 billionover five years was not to allocate $15 billion separatelyfor this purpose, but was to accumulate the ICT-relatedportion of ODA in the general-accounting budget forfive years to reach a total of $15 billion.

In the conventional ODA allocation scheme, the per-centage of allocation for each field is predetermined tosome extent to ensure balanced assistance measures foreach field. Accordingly, this scheme makes it difficult togive priority to only the ICT field. Considering the ODAallocation scheme that is specific to the Japanese govern-ment, it was difficult for Japan to implement the interna-tional commitment unless it established a special schemefor this purpose.

According to the website of Japan’s Ministry of For-eign Affairs (MOFA), the primary purpose of Japan’sinternational cooperation to date was to fulfill its respon-sibilities commensurate with its national strength and itsstanding in the international community. The specificgoals to achieve this objective were to facilitate peaceand stability in the world through promoting develop-ment in developing countries and providing humanitar-ian assistance and to reduce poverty through economicgrowth.

The concept in which top priority is placed on human-itarian assistance is apt to lead to an all-round, balancedapproach because the objective of cooperation is theassistance measures themselves, rather than the effectsgenerated by the assistance measures.

As a result, the actual implementation of strategicinternational cooperation is deferred, and it becomes dif-ficult for the Japanese government to announce its mes-sages to the international community, thus hindering anyincrease in Japan’s standing in the international commu-nity.

Considering that the taxes people pay constitute thesource of funds for international cooperation, “ensuringJapan’s national interest under the trend toward increas-ing globalization,” which is listed as the second purposeon the MOFA website, should be considered as theprimary purpose. In order to provide a persuasive




explanation to taxpayers, the concept of strategic inter-national cooperation in which the effects of assistanceare always kept in mind becomes necessary.

Under the difficult financial situation in which Japanfinds itself, overall ODA in the general-accounting bud-get was about ¥700 billion in fiscal 2008. In light of this,it is necessary to discuss what benefits are to accrue toJapan for each assistance case, and to examine how anyparticular case contributes to Japan’s national interest.Whether ODA in the general-accounting budget is effec-tively utilized must be determined based on if the rele-vant assistance case meets the interests of the nation, aswell as if the relevant assistance case contributes to thedomestic economy of the recipient country. In theUnited States, Congress deliberates the ODA budget,decides recipient countries and evaluates the results. InJapan, however, the National Diet simply ratifies thecontents that are determined by the government. Ratherthan following such procedures, the National Dietshould deliberate and make final decisions on its ownresponsibility in consideration of the national interest.

A third-party group other than those who are directlyinvolved in the relevant assistance case should examinethe achievement of mutual benefits (both to Japan and tothe recipient country) based on objective materials, suchas whether the provided assistance has actually con-tributed to the economic growth of the recipient country;and whether the possibilities of Japanese companies par-ticipating in the market of the recipient country haveexpanded. If the National Diet is to deliberate and makedecisions from a strategic perspective based on thereports submitted by this group, official explanations asto whether the relevant ODA case meets the strategicpurposes and whether it is effective become necessary.This will contribute to an improvement of the current sit-uation in which the government takes the initiative.

As in the cases of ODA provided to some countries,there were instances in which the provided assistancewas not appreciated by the recipient country, or in whichit is not clear if the assistance actually generated anyeffects. Japan’s ODA scheme, which simply focuses onthe expansion of the amount of ODA, should bereviewed.

Another reason the priority of building the globalinformation society is not raised within the Japanesegovernment stems from the vertically structured admin-istration. Japan’s administration is composed of a uniquevertical structure; it is said that there are the same num-ber of “nations” within Japan as the number of min-istries/agencies. It has been a long time since suchadverse effects were pointed out. The vertical structurecan be traced back to the Meiji era. While the Constitu-tion of Japan was enacted after Japan was defeated inWorld War II, the organizational concept of legislationand administration was still based on that of the Consti-tution of the Empire of Japan (Meiji Constitution).Accordingly, there was inadequate recognition among

the Diet and administrative agencies regarding theirrespective new roles to be assumed under the new con-stitution.

As stated above, because Japan’s administrative agen-cies still maintain the traditional vertical structure thathas continued since the Meiji era, coordination amongall governmental organizations often becomes insuffi-cient. Although the Diet has been positioned as the high-est organ of state power under the new constitution, itstill adheres to the tradition under the Meiji Constitution,and does not completely fulfill its role as the highestorgan, often simply ratifying matters determined by theadministrative organizations of the government. In par-ticular, this vertical structure of administrative organiza-tions not only hinders reaching quick and effectivesolutions of domestic problems, but also causes variousproblems in the international community.

Essentially, negotiations in the international commu-nity must be based on a national strategy as well as onthe country’s predetermined priorities, and a decisionmust be quickly reached based on such strategy. How-ever, because of the lack of a national strategy, the Japa-nese government cannot coordinate opinions and viewsamong ministries and is unable to make quick decisions.There have been many cases in which Japan has been ata disadvantage in negotiations because of its inability tomake quick decisions as a nation.

However, even under the vertically structured admin-istrative organizations, decisions can be quickly reachedeven for matters in which multiple ministries areinvolved if a national strategy is established in advancethrough coordination among the ministries, which wouldclarify the priorities the nation gives to relevant matters.

The proper flow would be as follows: each Cabinetestablishes its own national strategies; diplomatic andnational security strategies are formulated based on suchnational strategies; and an important issue that arisesfrom time to time such as the ICT strategy is set upbased on these strategies.

However, currently, there are neither national strate-gies nor diplomatic and national security strategies thatare established in advance through coordination amongthe ministries. In addition, there is no organizationwithin the Japanese government that functions to estab-lish such strategies.

In order to deal with this situation, the AdvisoryPanel to Discuss Strengthening National SecurityFunctions of the Prime Minister’s Office was set up onthe initiative of the Abe Cabinet in November 2006. Itsubmitted its report in February 2007. The reportpointed out that no organization was available in Japanthat worked to establish national strategies. The reportalso suggested that the functions of the Security Coun-cil established in 1986 should be thoroughly reviewedand that the National Security Council should be newlyestablished as an organization that formulates nationalstrategies. The National Security Council was expected




to deliberate the following three new “control tower”functions, in addition to those covered by the formerSecurity Council36.

1) Basic principles on important matters related todiplomacy and national security

2) Important diplomatic and national security poli-cies that are under the jurisdiction of multipleministries/agencies

3) Basic principles for addressing critical eventsinvolving diplomacy and national security

Based on this report, a bill to amend the Law on theEstablishment of the Security Council of Japan was sub-mitted to the Diet in April 2007. However, because theAbe Cabinet resigned, deliberations on the matter wereincomplete, and the bill was dropped.

Under these circumstances, in Japan, a system forestablishing national strategies and diplomatic andnational security strategies has still not fully been inplace. This situation is caused by not only the lack ofthorough discussions by the government about the needfor such strategies, but also by the fact that there are onlya limited number of people who recognize such a need,which is considered to be the more fundamental reason.

However, if it is assumed that a national strategy werein place in Japan, and the ODA amounting to $15 billionwere decided at the Kyushu-Okinawa Summit in 2000based on such national strategy, we could have been ableto generate substantive achievements after five years byovercoming the difficulties existing under the currentsystem. Broadly speaking, the current system presentsthree difficulties.

The first difficulty existing under the current system isthe lack of prior consultation with the financial authority.In general, it is extremely difficult to determine therequired amount in advance by consulting with thefinancial authority about details of the activities. Thisrequires a mechanism in which the relevant theme isincluded as part of a national strategy as a matter of pri-ority; based on this national strategy, coordination ismade with the financial authority in advance and therequired amount is determined from a political view-point.

The second difficulty is the so-called “request princi-ple” to provide ODA. Under the current ODA scheme,ODA is based on the request of the recipient country.Waiting for a request from the recipient country takes along time before the actual implementation of the ODAproject. By doing away with the request principle, quickresponses could be made. Furthermore, by consideringan ODA case as a support project in which Japan takesthe initiative rather than applying the request principle, itwill become possible to establish projects that also con-sider the benefits to Japan in addition to the benefits tothe recipient country. If this process becomes possible,Japan can independently conduct surveys on the actual

status of the digital divide and the expenses required todevelop infrastructure for each country. Japan can alsoproject the benefits that can be brought about by ICT uti-lization in the recipient country based on the developedinfrastructure.

Moreover, infrastructure to be developed should con-sist of portions developed by self-efforts of the recipientcountry and portions developed by assistance providedby Japan. By promoting the integration of the develop-ment of infrastructure and its post-development utiliza-tion, the use of ICTs can be tailored to the actualsituation of each specific recipient country. At the sametime, requesting the efforts and the bearing of someexpenses by the recipient country would give the recipi-ent country a deeper understanding and recognition ofthe ICTs. It would also become possible to offer com-munications systems and applications on an integratedbasis such as e-government, e-health and e -educationbased on Japan’s technical standards. If the recipientcountries adopt these standard systems, such adoptionwould contribute to the improvement of Japan’s interna-tional standing. Supporting such an overall integratedsystem would bring about an advantage to Japan becausethe ODA model would become visible to the relevantrecipient country, other developing countries and theinternational community.

A third difficulty is Japan’s vertically structuredadministrative functions. In Japan, the use of ICTs is atheme under the jurisdiction of multiple ministries.

The Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communicationstakes charge of the development of infrastructure; theMinistry of Health, Labour and Welfare is responsiblefor medicine that uses such infrastructure; and the Min-istry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technol-ogy supervises education. As such, each ministry coversonly the portion that is under its jurisdiction. So far,much time and labor have been required for coordinationamong these organizations. However, if ICT assistancewere treated as the priority item in a national strategy, aresponsible organization were set up, and this organiza-tion were to take charge of providing ICT assistance todeveloping countries, such an organization could pro-mote integrated development and utilization of infra-structure beyond the borders of ministerial jurisdiction.This would enable effective assistance that could lead toeconomic growth of the recipient country through inte-grated infrastructure planning, design and developmentand ICT utilization.

If Japan could establish a national strategy in such away, and could eliminate the three difficulties mentionedabove, it would be possible to deal with ICT projectsflexibly as the key to the elimination of the digital dividein developing countries based on their actual situations.If this were possible, we would have been able to gener-ate achievements in a tangible manner by using the $15billion ODA, which was the international commitmentJapan made at the Kyushu-Okinawa Summit.




In order to build the global information society byovercoming the digital divide, the priority of measures todeal with the digital divide must be raised in the interna-tional community. At the same time, developing coun-tries themselves must have an adequate understanding ofthe need for and importance of such measures as the keyto their economic development.

On the part of international organizations, a systemmust be established that enables quick response to anynew undertaking that arises in the future. At the sametime, priorities must be increased for new areas that areexpected to assume greater importance.

Japan must overcome the adverse effects of its verti-cally structured administrative functions, and mustestablish a system in which the administration can for-mulate timely national strategies including budgetarymeasures for priority issues. Under such a system, thegovernment must prioritize its policies, and clearly showits intentions by giving high priority to the ICT strategysuch as bridging the digital divide and building theglobal information society.

Under the trend of increasing globalization, Japan canresolve issues such as budgetary measures, the requestprinciple and vertically divided administrative functionsby establishing a national strategy. Based on a clearnational strategy, Japan can strengthen its internationalinfluence, improve its international competitiveness andincrease its global presence.

Notes:1 2008 White Paper on Information and Communications

in Japan (http://www.johotsusintokei.soumu.go.jp/whitepaper/eng/WP2008/2008-index.html)

2 See Note 1 above.3 http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/digitaldivide/summit/4 Resolution 73 of the ITU Plenipotentiary Conference in

Minneapolis5 Resolution 1158 of the ITU Council 20006 Resolution 1179 of the ITU Council 20017 Resolution 56/183 of the United Nations General

Assembly8 http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/economy/summit/2000/

pdfs/charter.pdf

9 The countries that actually participated were Bolivia,Brazil, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Senegal, South Africaand Tanzania. Although China was invited to participate,it did not attend any meetings.

10 http://www.mofa.go.jp/mofaj/gaiko/summit/ko_2000/genoa/it5.html

11 http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/economy/it/df0206.html12 http://www.un.org/documents/ecosoc/docs/2000/e2000-

19.pdf13 http://www.un.org/millennium/14 http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/15 http://www.unicttaskforce.org/about/16 http://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-s/md/03/wsis/doc/

SO3-WSIS-DOC-0004!!PDF-E.pdf17 http://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-s/md/03/wsis/doc/

SO3-WSIS-DOC-0005!!PDF-E.pdf18 ICANN is a non-profit corporation that was created in

1998 pursuant to the laws of the State of California forthe purpose of managing and coordinating the Internet’sname and numbering systems all over the world.

19 http://www.itu.int/wsis/doc2/tunis/off/7.pdf20 http://www.itu.int/wsis/doc2/tunis/off/6rev.1pdf21 http://www.itu.int/wsis/tffm/final-report.pdf22 http://www.wgig.org/docs/WGIGREPORT.pdf23 The root zone file lists the top-level domains (currently,

259 TLDs) forming Internet domain names, and indicatesprimary and secondary name server names and IPaddresses.

24 http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/USDNSprinciples_06302005.htm

25 http://www.intgovforum.org/meeting.htm26 ECOSOC Resolution 2006/4627 http://www.itu.int/wsis/implementation/index.html28 http://www.itu.int/osg/csd/cybersecurity/gca29 http://www.unctad.org/Templates/Page.asp?intItemID=

2698&lang=130 http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/ecn162008d4_en.pdf31 http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/ecn162008d5_en.pdf32 http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/athensmeeting33 http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/secondmeeting34 http://www.dsf-fsn.org/35 UN Press Release, DEV/2572, PI/1701, April 17, 200636 http://www.kantei.go.jp/jp/singi/anzen/index.html

Ikuo OHASHI is a counselor at NRI. His specialties includeinformation and communications policies.



As a leading think tank and system integrator in Japan, Nomura Research Institute is openingnew perspectives for the social paradigm by creating intellectual property for the benefit of allindustries. NRI’s services cover both public and private sectors around the world throughknowledge creation and integration in the three creative spheres: “Research and Consulting,”“Knowledge Solutions” and “Systems Solutions.”

The world economy is facing thorough structural changes led by the dramatic growth of ITindustries and the rapid expansion of worldwide Internet usage—the challenges of whichrequire new concepts and improvement of current systems. NRI devotes all its efforts toequipping its clients with business strategies for success by providing the best in knowledgeresources and solutions.

NRI Papers present selected works of NRI’s 3,000 professionals through its worldwide researchnetwork. The mission of NRI Papers is to contribute new ideas and insights into businessmanagement and future policy planning, which are indispensable for overcoming obstaclesto the structural changes in our society.

All copyrights to NRI Papers are reserved by NRI. No part of this publication may bereproduced in any form without the prior written consent of NRI.

Inquiries to: Corporate Communications DepartmentNomura Research Institute, Ltd.E-mail: [email protected]: +81-3-6660-8370

Building the Global Information Society - United Nations

Documents

Transcript of Building the Global Information Society - United Nations