UNESCO and the World Summit on the Information Society 

Joan R. Challinor, Ph.D. 

December 20, 2005 

This report is concerned with the final summit meeting of UNESCO’s World 

Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), November 13-18, 2005 in Tunis, Tunisia, 

which I attended for NCLIS as a part of the official United States Delegation. 

What are UN summits? World summits are one-time conferences organized by 

the United Nations to address pressing global issues.1 Preparatory meetings and followup processes occur over a number of years. A summit creates a window of opportunity 

for an important world issue that opens briefly and closes again. Summits affect policy 

discourse; they legitimize and validate policy concepts; they lend prestige to the issues 

and ideas discussed. 

Why are summits held? To give global issues (e.g., global climate change; human 

rights; populations control; women’s rights) a world stage on which to hammer out 

agreements. Further, the ideas and attitudes aired and agreed upon become the starting 

point for all further discussions. For example, it would be very difficult, after Beijing in 

1995, for any world leader to proclaim that women are second class citizens. Some 

leaders may act on that retrograde idea, but they are careful to hew to the rhetoric of 

Beijing. The standard had been set: women’s rights are human rights. 

In any summit the most intense activity occurs in the preparatory phase; 

PrepComs and regional meetings are held to prepare for the main meeting. In the case of 

the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), it was proposed in 1998, 

authorized in 2001 and WSIS Phase I was held in Geneva in 2003, which I also attended. 

The ideas and issues endorsed in the preparatory phase become imbued with the prestige 

of the summit. 

World summits produce statements of principles and plans of action and often 

they stop there—at the level of words and ideas. UN agencies have frequently 

implemented summit policies, but the most effective mechanism for policy 

implementation is often national governments. It is always easier to issue declarations 

than to implement them and were the subjects not serious, enduring and almost 

intractable, they would probably not rise to the level of a UN summit. Social change 

encompasses the most difficult problems and requires the most challenging adjustments. 

Yet summits bring to the attention of the world these very difficult problems and, in my 

view, are extraordinarily important for the diplomatic agreements they engender and the 

heightened awareness of the important issues with which they deal. In the case of WSIS, 

by the very nature of the Internet we can be sure WSIS ideas will not die. The continued 

evolution of the Internet will ensure that discussions on access to information and free 

flow of information will continue. Telecom ministers from many countries attended in 

 

1

 My discussion of UN Summits leans heavily on Hans Klein, Understanding WSIS: An Institutional 

Analysis of the UN World Summit on the Information Society, Internet & Public Policy Project, School of 

Public Policy, Georgia Institute of Technology, www.IP3.gatech.edu 
2

Tunis and it is clear that WSIS will be used for further discussion within their countries. 

Even before the Tunis meeting, India, in preparation for WSIS, took new steps to share 

scientific information. 

 

There was sharp disagreement about where WSIS should be held. Some people 

felt strongly that Tunisia’s deplorable record on human rights should not be rewarded 

with the prestige and financial benefit a major conference would bring. I, myself, 

thought that just because human rights are almost non-existent in Tunisia that the 

meeting should be held there to expose Tunisians to free and open discussions of human 

rights, the world’s free and open information situation and the issue of cultural diversity. 

Sunlight, in my opinion, can be the best medicine, even when it shines only briefly. At 

the end of the WSIS meeting, the U.S. Delegation offered a Press Note that stated, “We 

hope that the successful outcome of the second phase of the World Summit on the 

Information Society in Tunisia will provide additional incentive to the government in 

Tunisia to match its considerable economic and social accomplishments with comparable 

progress in political reform and respect for the human rights of its people.” Because of 

the threat of terrorism while in Tunis, the U.S. delegation lived under extraordinary 

security precautions. 

The recently concluded summit produced two major output documents: the Tunis 

Commitment and the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society. The documents are 

available at: http://www.itu.int/wsis/ The Tunis Commitment reaffirms the WSIS 

participants’ support for the Geneva Declaration of Principles and Plan of Action

adopted at the first phase of the WSIS in Geneva in December 2003. The second 

document, the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society, outlines the recommendations 

on Internet governance and the financial mechanisms for meeting the challenges of 

Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) for development. 

Two important questions were to be decided in Tunis. The first was Internet 

governance; the second was cultural diversity. I had decided from both interest and 

knowledge that my effort would be to support our diplomats in their efforts in the field of 

Internet governance. Free access to information and the free flow of information is an 

overriding requirement for the future. Our diplomats worked hard to maintain the current 

Internet structure—coordinated by the Internet Corporation for Assignment of Names and 

Numbers (ICANN) in California, which operates based on agreements with the U.S. 

Department of Commerce (Commerce). The two delegates to WSIS from the Institute of 

Museum and Library Services (IMLS) (Nancy Weiss, IMLS General Counsel and Mary 

Chute, IMLS Acting Director) were concerned with access to and preservation of 

information and the free flow of ideas and cultural diversity. The Internet governance 

question emerged as the most heated, confrontational and important issue before WSIS in 

2005. 

Why should the management and coordination of the Internet stay the way it is? 

First and foremost is the fact that the system is working well. ICANN has in no way 

abused its power, nor has it manipulated the Domain Name System (DNS) or been unfair 

to other countries. Considering that the Internet is only a few decades old, I consider it a 
3

modern miracle that the “tsunami-like” spread of the Internet has been controlled at all. 

Further, I believe that the ICANN Board of Directors, led by Vint Cerf, has made every 

effort to be fair and deal equally with all other countries (18 countries have had 

representatives on ICANN’s Board, including some from the developing world.) The 

decision of Commerce to maintain its oversight function seems reasonable to me because 

of the enormous amount of commerce now done on the Internet and the disaster that 

could strike were some entity like the UN to take control of ICANN and fail in its effort 

to run it efficiently and fairly. The world potential for e-commerce is absolutely 

staggering and should, in my view, be protected. 

Since the PrepCom meeting in Geneva in 2003, world opinion (except for that of 

a very few countries) has turned against the United States. What had been a low rumble 

against the U.S. role in ICANN in 2003 became a roar in 2005. Even the European 

Union, once a close friend of the U.S., declared just before the Tunis meeting that control 

of the Internet should pass to the UN. After receiving what was reported to be a strongly 

worded letter from Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, the EU arrived in Tunis with a 

much muted message. 

Negotiation on the final document (Tunis Agenda for the Information Society) 

began on November 13, 2005. Our team from the State Department, Ambassador David 

Gross, Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs; Richard Beaird, U.S. Coordinator for 

International Communications and Information Policy in the Bureau of Economic and 

Business Affairs; John Schnitker, Senior Deputy Attorney, and Sally Shipman from the 

Office of International Communications and Information Policy, worked tirelessly for 

three days to “hold the line.” This meant seeing that the current management of the 

system was maintained and that the roles of ICANN and the Department of Commerce 

were unchanged. The position of Commerce was greatly resented by most other 

countries. After three days of non-stop negotiating late into the night, our team was 

successful and, as of this writing, the Internet will stay with ICANN and with the U.S. 

The final document of WSIS—Tunis Agenda for the Information Society—

affirmed much and hoped much. It stated, most importantly, that “freedom of expression 

and the free flow if information, ideas, and knowledge are essential for the information 

society and beneficial to development.” The digital divide between developed and 

developing nations has always been a concern of UNESCO. “We underline the 

importance of removing barriers to bridging the digital divide” was another important 

statement. The U.S. has always made voluntary contributions; the position of the U.S. is 

not to tax Information Communication Technology but to promote it. The Task Force on 

Financial Mechanisms (TFFM) made their report, and “[it] sets out the complexity of 

existing mechanisms, both private and public, which provide financing for ICTs in 

developing countries. It identifies areas where these could be improved and where ICTs 

could be given higher priority by developing countries and their development partners.” 

The Digital Solidarity Fund begun in Geneva in 2003 continues to seek funds to promote 

ICT for development. It is important to understand that ICT and development are 

inexorably linked in these documents. In paragraph 20 of the Tunis Agenda it is 

explicitly stated “We encourage all governments to give appropriate priority to ICTs, 
4

including traditional ICTs such as broadcast radio and television, in their national 

development strategies.” In an unusually felicitous phrase, the Tunis Agenda “reaffirmed 

our commitment to turning the digital divide into digital opportunity.” 

Internet Governance continued to be the most important and most problematic 

subject of the meeting. Here I quote from the Tunis Agenda, “the Internet has evolved 

into a global facility available to the public and its governance should constitute a core 

issue of the Information Society agenda. The International management of the Internet 

should be multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of 

governments, the private sector, civil society and international organizations. It should 

ensure an equitable distribution of resources, facilitate access for all and ensure a stable 

and secure functioning of the Internet, taking into account multilingualism.” As we left 

Tunis, the governance of the Internet was unchanged as was the oversight role of 

Commerce. Praise for ICANN is embedded in paragraph 55 of the Tunis Agenda: “We 

recognize that the existing arrangements for Internet governance have worked effectively 

to make the Internet the highly robust, dynamic and geographically diverse medium that 

it is today, with the private sector taking the lead in day-to-day operations, and with 

innovation and value creation at the edges.” Diplomatic language for Joan Challinor’s “If 

it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” is contained in paragraph 57: “The security and stability of the 

Internet must be maintained.” Yet the future appears in paragraph 60: “We further 

recognize that there are many cross-cutting international public policy issues that require 

attention and are not adequately addressed by the current mechanism,” and in paragraph 

67: “We agree, inter alia, to invite the UN Secretary-General to convene a new forum 

for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue,” and in paragraph 68: “We recognize that all 

governments should have an equal role and responsibility for international Internet 

governance and for ensuring the stability, security and continuity of the Internet. We 

also recognize the need for development of public policy by governments in consultation 

with all stakeholders.” In paragraph 72 the future has arrived: “We ask the UN 

Secretary-General, in an open and inclusive process, to convene, by the second quarter 

of 2006, a meeting of the new forum for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue—called the 

Internet Governance Forum (IGF).” There follow 12 instructions for this forum and 10 

more paragraphs give instructions to the UN Secretary General concerning this forum. 

Concerning the Forum, paragraphs 73 and 77 state “The Internet Governance 

Forum in its working and function will be multilateral, multi-stakeholder, democratic and 

transparent. The IGF would have no oversight function and would not replace existing 

arrangements, mechanisms, institutions or organizations, but would involve them and 

take advantage of their expertise. It would be constituted as a neutral, non-duplicative 

and non-binding process. It would have no involvement in day-to-day or technical 

operations of the Internet.” The IGF will deal with further questions of the Internet and, 

to my great surprise, will meet in a very short time—late spring 2006 or summer 2006. 

The delegate from Greece offered a building that had been used for the Olympics as a 

meeting place for the Forum. It is important to realize that the IGF is “convened” and is 

not “established” by the UN Secretary General. This means that it has a lower standing 

and its deliberations do not lead to an official UNESCO agenda. The Forum can be 

constructive because it will allow all countries to participate and, further, it will also 
5

provide a good opportunity for experts to come together and talk about global 

development of the Internet and ICTs. The IGF is particularly appropriate as a venue to 

discuss cyber crime, spam and other global problems. 

Why does my report lean so heavily on these paragraphs? Because this is what 

the diplomats were coping with. There were many paragraphs in the documents to which 

everyone at the beginning of the meeting did not agree—paragraph by paragraph our 

team worked their way through the wording of all paragraphs still unagreed upon until 

everyone assented to the paragraph on the large screen in front of the assembled 

negotiation. Then “agreed” would appear after the paragraph. We then moved on to the 

next one, and the one after that and the one after that. Finally, after three full days of 

work, in a room appropriate for 150 people, but which was crammed with 500—15 

minutes before the deadline—the task was completed and every one of the 122 

paragraphs had “agreed” after them. 

Before I left for Tunis, Elliot Siegel of the National Library of Medicine (NLM) 

asked me if I would stand-in for NLM and accept the World Summit Award (WSA) for 

the Best in Health e-Content and Creativity. The award ceremony was held in a theatrelike space in the Summit Exhibits Hall; about 200-300 people attended, including about 

20 Heads of State. The WSA is a global initiative to identify high-quality e-content 

products and to promote the most outstanding achievements of creativity worldwide. The 

main aim of the WSA is to help bridge the Content Gap and narrow the Digital Divide. 

Those of us accepting the award climbed onto the stage, were given the 

microphone and were then asked about our organizations. I had imagined such a scenario 

and was prepared with two sentences that explained the work of NLM. Because there 

were Heads of State present, I said “Along with our present efforts to improve the health 

of the globe through information, we should pay particular attention to women. Women 

are 50% of the world’s population. There is a digital divide but it is not only between the 

developed and developing nations but in large measure between women and men. Until 

women have the same and equal access as men to Information Communication 

Technology and until they are as adept at using it, we will never, ever, improve the health 

of the globe. Women, not men, will deliver health care to the children of future 

generations.” My words were well-received. 

When the negotiations ended, the delegations moved to a large hall where all sat 

at a series of long tables with each country’s place assigned alphabetically. Our delegates 

thus sat between those of the United Kingdom and Uruguay. The many Heads of State 

who attended WSIS spoke from a large stage and it was important that the U.S. place be 

fully staffed at all times. I sat and listened to many speeches by the Heads of State. The 

one that remains most clear in my mind was that of Dr. Vaira Vike-Freiberga, President 

of Latvia. She spoke movingly about the needs of all people to have access to the miracle 

of ICT. I am afraid to say that some Heads of State were enunciating fine-sounding 

words while governing countries in which human rights and free access to information 

are absolutely unknown. It was in this hall that President Bush’s Science Advisor John 
6

Marburger spoke; his excellent speech can be found at 

http://usinfo.state.gov/gi/Archive/2005/Nov/19-134756.html

The entire U.S. delegation considers the Tunis part of the World Summit on the 

Information Society to be a resounding success. And they have every right to think so. 

The principles of free and open access to information and the free flow of information 

were firmly established. Further, according to Paul Uhlir, Director of International 

Scientific and Technical Information Programs at the National Academies in 

Washington, D.C., WSIS was a major step forward in science information sharing. The 

Internet is still safely in the hands of ICANN under the supervision of Commerce. 

We should all recognize the talents necessary for diplomatic work and a rightful 

regard for these skills seems appropriate at this moment. We should put negotiators on 

an equal footing with our martial heroes; diplomats should take their place beside 

generals and admirals in our pantheon. The test of statesmanship is not only in the will to 

win, but even more in the will to build a world in which fairness and equality are part of 

every negotiation and, eventually, part of every citizen’s rights. On all these grounds I 

think we can be grateful to and applaud: Ambassador David Gross, Richard Beaird, Sally 

Shipman and John Schnitker.