karine, i like your conclusion (about the wisdom age)! that is the vision that might inform us...

Thanks for sharing these informative perceptions.

As I try to get plural for information society, I share your concerns.
May be you can try that next time, if you still feel like spoiling your time in these futile exercises.

I remember a good friend showing at the beginning of an UNESCO international conference the list of earlier recommendations and asking what happen with them. Of course nothing. Therefore he said we may resume the meeting once earlier agreements have been implemented.

As Ricardo said one may watch for a window of opportunity to open up.
But for most of the time they are closed and so dirty no one sees through.

As to wisdom, remember the fate of Socrates ...

Change can only come from the local level and then spread. Or alternatively by virtue of a catastrophe, if I may say.

What we witness with the current financial crisis seems to show that windows are securely closed.

Best

Michel

http://www.itworld.com/060929icann

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/5213470.stm

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/04/technology/04telecom.html

1. Stakeholders on the Internet:

There is (still) a wide range of different stakeholders with different, frequently competing interests in how cyberspace and all its related functions and features are governed. (And yes, this has been the case ever since the Internet was released to the commercial public in 1990, but the stakeholders advocating their interests have grown both in number and in dedication as the Internet has increased in reach around the world and in richness of content available).

2. Authority and governance on the Internet:

There is (still) a vacuum of authority regarding who is empowered to govern the methods and systems by which the Internet reaches people. Many view that lack of authority as a positive aspect of the 'net for a variety of reasons -- the belief that self-organization is the most efficient way to govern the Internet, a desire to have the 'net remain a "wild frontier," a desire to further the interests of one group of stakeholders (potentially at the expense of another group's interests), and/or a desire to not have any form of authority reside in any one country. This authority vacuum in the area of governance further dictates that even if a standard of Internet governance does actually get produced, there is no one group that can enforce this standard.

ICANN is perhaps the closest group to a governance authority body, but their reach is limited -- most Internet users have no idea ICANN even exists, and ICANN can only do so much in terms of defining and enforcing Internet policies and standards. And yes, ICANN does have loose ties to the U.S. Treasury Department (though in reality the Treasury Department has bigger things to pay attention to than Internet governance, especially with the current U.S. economy). This does lead to the charge that America is managing the Internet, though as I say, the reality is that the U.S. Government has more immediate challenges than Internet governance. With this charge in mind, ICANN has adopted an international steering committee. While there is potential for disagreement between the steering committee and the Treasury department over how the Internet is managed, I have yet to see a major policy showdown between the two.

As an aside, the Treasury Department has in the past discussed severing all ties with ICANN sometime in the early 2010s, though I don't know of any specific plans to sever the connection yet. If and when that happens, does ICANN govern itself? Would it require a watchdog authority? Does its steering committee serve that role? If the committee is a part of ICANN itself, can it act as an effective independent review body for ICANN's activities if there is need of such a body? The ITU has been proposed as an option for this review body role, though connecting them to ICANN gets into the questions of whether a UN body is efficient enough to keep pace with Internet governance issues. The ITU has also said (I believe under pressure from the U.S. Government) that it has no interest in connecting itself to ICANN.

3. Definitions of concepts within the "information society":

Drawing from #7 above, there is definitely a lack of definition about what we are discussing when we talk about an "information society" or about a concept with the information society. This lack of definition I think tends to lead to scope creep -- the expanse of what people consider when they consider an information society-related issue continues to get bigger and (frequently) lose clarity.

With that in mind, I do find it important to debate the parameters of whichever elements of the information society are considered under what circumstances, and how these elements connect to each other. For that reason, I do think the S has a place in the digital divide discussion. We certainly can (and should) talk about the access divide, but there are other divides as well, such as the gender divide you mention.

To my mind, the obvious way to deal with defining parameters and connecting discreet concepts is to me semantically precise in naming concepts. Rather than speaking of the digital divide as if it is one blanket issue, we could speak of a "digital access divide" or a "digital gender divide." I admit this could lead to some long, overly complex terms, and that encouraging widespread adoption of terms like this would pose challenges, but terms like these do offer a more semantically precise means of describing what we discuss, and at the same time limit separate issues out of the discussion.

Of course connecting my second and third thoughts could entail a governance committee for every last aspect of Internet governance -- an access divide committee, etc. This might provide a flexible range of forums in which to discuss issues, but I could easily see it turning into a large bureaucracy as well -- a situation we might want to avoid

One additional insight I would add is that policymaking does not happen in a linear or rational process, but there are "windows of opportunity" that open and close. Being in the right place at the right time... watching out for windows of opportunity. Influencing processes indirectly. This "randomness" adds an interesting flavor to the otherwise frustrating process of policymaking from the perspective of researchers and activists.

Wolfgang - thanks