Led by the UN’s Office of Information and Communications Technology (OICT) and organised by the ICT4Peace Foundation, the 2013 Crisis Information Management Advisory Group (CiMAG) meeting was held on 2nd and 3rd May in Glen Cove, New York. Representatives from UNOCC, UNITAR, UNDP BCPR, UNICEF, OHCHR, OICT, OCHA, DFS/DPKO, UNHCR and UNOSAT participated along with, on the second day, representatives from Google Crisis Response, Human Rights Watch, Sahana Software Foundation, Standby Volunteer Task Force, World Bank OpenDRI. Representatives from the New Media Task Force were invited but due to unavoidable circumstances, could not attend.

Overall observations

1. It was the best-attended CiMAG retreat thus far, with over 30 participants from the UN and the crisismapping community participating over the two days. The retreat also had the most substantive discussions around information sharing as well as data architecture, a key component of the Crisis Information Management (CiM) strategy of any CiMAG retreat held to date.
2. A substantial interest in, enthusiasm for and commitment to CiMS and the CiMAG process by its members.
3. The expansion of CiMAG to include new UN agencies, like the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (UNHCHR) and the Peacebuilding Support Office (PBSO).
4. CiMAG members agreed that an annual retreat was insufficient to implement CiMS, collectively address critical issues and move the process forward. Perhaps a bi-annual meeting is required, but more importantly a small secretariat, ideally located at the OICT/CITO’s office to manage the CiM process and facilitate problem solving processes, provide a market place for ideas and solutions, provide strategic input and guidance for members of CiMAG in relation to crisis information management, arrange meetings with interested CiMAG members, including and as required with technology providers.
5. The newly established UNOCC and its mandate vis-à-vis the Secretary General on one hand and CiMAG members on the other was considered an excellent driver for implementing CiMS both at HQ and field level. UNOCC agreed to play a catalytic role (“somewhere to put on the hat”), but considers responsibility for CiMS remains with CiMAG members and support role of the CITO/OICT.
6. The Humanitarian Exchange Language (HXL), proposed by OCHA, was considered an excellent driver for CiMS, both on the data and technology side.
7. Considering the four pillars of CiMS: (1) data architecture work will continue with the building of a COD/FOD/HXL Data Service (with support for OCHA, inter alia, from ICT4Peace and Switzerland’s ETH); (2) Technology Development with inter alia HXL (OCHA with UNHCR and support of ICT4Peace); (3) Stake-holder Management with COI and DHN Summit with support of ICT4Peace; (4) Capacity Building: Curricula Development and courses by OCHA, UNHCR, UNICEF and ICT4Peace respectively, and/or in collaboration.
8. DPKO/DFS, a founding member of CiMAG and contributor to CiMS stocktaking report of 2009, highlighted again the high value of COD/FOD/HXL Data Service also for situational awareness creation in peacekeeping and peacebuilding respectively, as well as well peacekeeping cum humanitarian missions. They offered valuable support to its implementation and utilisation. In particular DFS offered to provide to the HXL development: (1) Infrastructure support from Brindisi and/or Valencia; (2) Make available support of in-house developers; (3) Provide GIS capabilities; (4) Contribute financially to establishment of CiMAG Secretariat in CITO office (in collaboration and consultation with Salem Avan).
9. ICT4Peace was invited to assist in the establishment of the CiMAG Secretariat in developing TOR for Secretariat and staff, looking for candidates, the development of a tentative work plan from 2013 to 2016 in cooperation with Salem Avan, Susanna Shanahan, Rudy Sanchez and other members of CiMAG.
10. ICT4Peace was invited to make a joint field visit in June 2013 with DFS of a peacekeeping mission (MONUSCO) to observe its CiM capabilities and practices from a CiMS perspective, including in its relation with HQ and OCC.

Download the full report from here.

Dutch Red Cross worker Meike Groen, working for the ICRC in Haiti, helps people use the satellite phone to reassure relatives that they are alive, via Flickr. © ICRC / Marko Kokic / ht-e-00459 / www.icrc.org

ICRC and InterAction: Consultation on “Protection in violent situations – standards for managing sensitive information”

Date and Location: 23 August 2012, Washington DC

Participants: Civilians in Conflict, Harvard Humanitarian Initiative, ICRC, ICT4Peace Foundation, IMMAP, InterAction, International Rescue Committee, Sahana Foundation, Standby Task Force, Ushahidi, World Vision,

Contact at ICRC: Guilhelm Ravier, gravier@icric.org

ICT4Peace Foundation represented and this note penned by Simone Eymann.

Background

In August 2012, the ICT4Peace Foundation, together with a diverse group of human rights and humanitarian actors, was invited by the International Red Cross to comment on the revised draft of their “Professional standards for protection work” from 2009. The standards were developed to ensure that protection work by humanitarian and human rights actors meets commonly agreed minimum professional standards, a baseline to be respected by all.

Revised standards

New technologies, such as mobile phones, social media, google map and satellite imagery, combined with new methodologies, such as crowd-sourcing and crisis mapping, have changed the access to protection information for humanitarian and human rights actors on the ground and for the population affected by violence. Many actors already use new technologies to collect and publicize information about humanitarian crises, much of which could be considered sensitive protection information, even if the individual or team collecting it are not necessarily “protection actors”.

In light of this developing practice, participants were asked to give specific advice on the scope and the language of the revised standards on the chapter “Managing sensitive protection information”. While not per se a protection activity, data collection and management is an integral part of many protection activities. Despite the sensitive nature of these data, their management is often substandard, owing lack of knowledge, expertise and capacity. This chapter was primarily addressed to protection actors who conduct interviews with witnesses or victims on a regular basis, as well as those, which receive or use such information collected by others.

Discussions among the participants focused on risks and manipulation of crowd-sourced data, informed consent when collecting information remotely, challenges of data interpretation with remotely collected information, and public sharing of sensitive information.

Risk and Manipulation of crowd-sourced data

The participants agreed that more thought should be given to the objectives of crowd-sourcing of information, data analysis and curation and suggested adding a separate guideline on analysis which should also include curation rules. In order to analyze the vast amount of data and to recognize false data early, posts for senior analytics officers should be created. So far, only communications specialists and press officers are identified in the standards (guideline 33). Examining datasets by professional analysts over a period of time could help discover deception. In response to the question if humanitarian actors should work with, or take into account in their assessment and planning, information from sites that clearly favour one side in a conflict at the risk of presenting a partial picture of what is happening on the ground, the participants recommended that all protection data, even if it was suspected to have been manipulated, should be considered in order to understand the dynamics of information in an environment. However, it should be tagged properly. A paragraph should be added to guideline 34 on threat analysis. In addition, the security of data should be regularly reviewed. Throughout the chapter, it would be better to clearly separate first-hand and crowd-sourced information gathering. A new guideline on how to communicate with communities via new technologies should be added.

Informed consent

How should the standard of informed consent be understood when collecting information remotely and not in a face-to-face setting and what are the challenges if someone was to remove consent remotely? The standards should give more attention to the problematic of information gathering from under-aged or mentally disabled persons. Professional, ethical and legal limitations of confidentiality should be considered and mandatory reporting be disclosed. The power relation between the person who is giving information and the person, who is receiving it, should be reflected. On the ground, the notion of informed consent cannot always be integrated, and, therefore, the sources of information should be maximized. Creating incentives should be avoided: remote info gathering should not be coupled with services. One of the problems on the ground is that it is not always clear if the person who is giving information is speaking on behalf of a larger group (e.g. household).

Public sharing of sensitive information

How does the public sharing of sensitive information affect the risks faced by civilian populations and humanitarian operations? It should always be clear what the benefits of going public are. With ICTs, we should be more sensitive to risk because of the added context provided by triangulation. There should be a distinction between aggregation of information and information that can put people at risk. If information is publicly shared, it needs to be adjusted temporarily and spatially, which also avoids the issue of providing information to military. Regular risk assessments for the system needed a feedback mechanism. To minimize risks, some degree of uncertainty in the data has to be accepted. There should be an obligation to share information that, if withheld, can do harm (mine locations), and by sharing, can benefit. Before publishing sensitive information, actors should look at the context of the country.

Way Forward

The ICT4Peace Foundation sent in detailed comments about the substance of the revised standards and suggested re-structuring the chapters from ”Information Collection”, to “Data Analysis”, to “Information-Sharing”. Since the standards have so far only been used at the organizational level, the ICT4Peace Foundation stressed the need to make the standards more “user-friendly” for field personnel with an online tutorial and/or a shorter version of the standards. Currently, they are only used at the organizational level. The revised version should be published in April 2013. The ICRC informed the ICT4Peace Foundation in January 2013 that an e-Learning course on “Managing of sensitive protection information” was being developed for field staff.

###

Simone Eymann currently works for the UN Development Programme (UNDP) as a Consultant on ICT for Development and Communications.

Previously, Simone has worked as a consultant in the area of ICT 4 Peace for the UN Department of Public Information (DPI) and the UN Department of Political Affairs (DPA), for communications offices in the private sector and as a producer and assistant for internationally acclaimed photographers and documentary filmmakers. 

She holds a M.A. in mass communication and media research, political science and constitutional law from the University of Zurich.

The ICT4Peace Foundation recognises UN OCHA’s new publication Humanitarianism in the Network Age as a significant contribution to our understanding of how new technologies including new web based social media, are reshaping our fundamental understanding as well as the design and delivery of humanitarian aid and relief work across the world, and indeed, beyond the UN.

The report cites our publication Peacebuilding in the Information Age: Sifting Hype from Reality. As far back as 2011, the Foundation’s paper looked at difficult questions and provided concrete recommendations concerning:

• the effectiveness of current systems of crisis information management;
• the need for a comprehensive assessment of the effectiveness of the use of ICTs in crisis response by the academic community;
• the need for better coordinative mechanisms amongst the key players, including the UN and its various agencies;
• the humanitarian responsibility of various actors, in particular new players such as crowdsourcing providers and social media;
• the serious challenges that still need to be overcome in terms of underlying political, hierarchical and traditional resistance to information-sharing amongst diverse organizations;
• the negative potential of ICTs in compromising the security of persons at risk in conflict situations;
• the lessons learned from the earthquake in Haiti on the use of new ICTs in disaster response situations and,
• the big picture of what this shift to an ICT-focused approach really means for existing humanitarian response systems.

OCHA new paper underscores many of these points and records notable developments in the field since 2011.

The ICT4Peace Foundation has worked very closely with OCHA to develop best practices around the use of new media in aid, crisis information management, interfacing and working with volunteer and technical communities (V&TCs) that are now global in nature and local in impact, helped establish vital platforms for the dissemination of fundamentally important datasets of UN member states in relation to disaster risk reduction and crisis response, helped ideate and communicate pathbreaking new technologies like HXL, supported exercises led by OCHA that have strengthened the work of digital humanitarians, published papers on Big Data and humanitarian aid and every year, convened leading UN agencies, including OCHA, and some of the world’s most recognised and respected actors from V&TCs as part of the Crisis Information Management Advisory Group (CiMAG) retreats held in New York.

All this work is carefully documented on our website. OCHA’s new report avers,

The network age, with its increased reach of communications networks and the growing groups of people willing and able to help those in need, is here today. The ways in which people interact will change, with or without the sanction of international humanitarian organizations. Either those organizations adapt to the network age, or they grow increasingly out of touch with the people they were established to serve.

If they choose to adapt, an old dream— enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights—has a chance of coming true: that all people gain the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media, regardless of any frontiers. That is a goal worth pursuing.

As the institutional and global custodian of Paragraph 36 of the WSIS Declaration, is it heartening to recognise renewed political leadership, at the UN and the global level, to more fully embrace the potential of ICTs to – after sudden onset and even during longer term political emergencies – generate, analyse, disseminate, contextualise, visualise, archive and action information that can save lives and strengthen human dignity.

Please click here for a bi-monthly recap of the Foundation’s activities.

The ICT4Peace Foundation carefully curates a collection of unique and widely acclaimed wikis geared towards the humanitarian aid community as well as media and policy makers. They feature vital information from government, the UN system in the disaster / crisis stricken area, other NGOs, the World Bank, comprehensive situation reports, mapping information and GIS data, photos, video, who/what/where information and links to domestic and international media coverage.

Each CiM wiki usually features, inter alia,

• Background information, including any UN operations
• Key UN contacts
• Key situation reports, including from UN OCHA
• A plethora of carefully curated Twitter feeds and other social media updates in English
• Videos, photos and podcasts
• Mainstream media news updates, including streams and content from Al Jazeera, New York Times, BBC, France24 and CNN.
• Discoverable and free GIS / mapping resources
• Google Maps mashups
• Ways to help IDPs and refugees

The latest wiki is on the on-going crisis in Mali. Access it here.

While 2011 was the year marked by the Arab Awakening and increasing awareness of ICTs for peace building, protection of human dignity and crisis management, in 2012 academia and think tanks started to analyse in more detail what happened and what the real contributions by ICTs in these instances were. The overall conclusion remains that ICTs has been changing how today societies function, especially in crisis, but that more research on the causality between ICTs and social and political outcomes is required. ICT4Peace has co-organized and participated in several events and processes in this field with Universities and international organisations, including the United Nations in addition to critically commenting on developments throughout the year. This role and work will need to continue in 2013.

We also continued our close cooperation with UN Chief Information Technology Officer and the UN Crisis Information Management Advisory Group (CiMAG) to support the implementation of the UN Crisis Information Management Strategy (CiMS) as part of the UN Secretary General’s overall UN ICT strategy. This Strategy is based on the recognition that the international community has time and again failed to adequately protect and support the victims of man-made or natural crises, including conflicts and natural disasters. This was and is inter alia due to the lack of willingness to share information and to inadequate Crisis Information Management Systems and capabilities, for the identification, prevention, mitigation, response and recovery of all types of crises. At the same time all UN stakeholders recognise the need for credible, accurate, complete and timely information for managing crises.

Some of the difficulties are also attributable to what has become a highly fragmented Information and Communication Technology (ICT) environment. In parallel, crisismapping, with the integration of crowd-sourced information, has radically changed the way information is collected, viewed and analysed in conjunction with other spatial and non-spatial datasets. Interests have also shifted from static maps to placing data and tools into open platforms that contain continuously updated feeds and map services. In many ways this represents a paradigm shift, whereby information management becomes a collective effort that integrates the affected population into information flows instead of a specialty managed by relatively few professional personnel. Many humanitarian organizations are curious about this new opportunity and some are using these initiatives in their programming. At the same time, other organisations may not realize that they have used new crisis maps (e.g. OpenStreetMaps or Ushahidi instances) while others are uncertain of its added value during crisis. Peacebuilding and humanitarian practitioners, often working hand in hand, and Volunteer & Technical Community (V&TC) members – now called digital humanitarians – are asking to better understand the impact of these initiatives.

For example after the Libya Crisis Map which UN OCHA stood up with the Standby Volunteer Task Force, an in-person Lessons Learned meeting was called, where the activities undertaken were reviewed in detail and resulted in over 40 lessons learned as well as the recommendation for the creation of ten thematic Communities of Interest aimed at improving collaboration between V&TCs and the traditional humanitarian community, including UN, Governments and NGOs.

These interactions grew more frequent and stronger in 2012. The ICT4Peace Foundation was proud and humbled to support a cutting-edge simulation exercise involving the newly established Digital Humanitarians Network (DHN) after ICCM 2012, held at the World Bank in Washington DC.

In line with the above, the next five years will redefine the praxis and approach to humanitarian operations in times of crisis, manmade and natural. This new combination of technology platforms, policies and field practices will change the way crisis are managed, peacebuilding operations and relief is designed and delivered.

The Foundation continued its support for UN OCHA to populate and strengthen the Humanitarian Response – Common and Operational Datasets (CODs) Registry to make critical information during a humanitarian crisis more widely available and accessible. In addition to this, the Foundation gave input and support towards the development of the Humanitarian eXchange Language (HXL) focussed on demonstrating the viability of this approach to enabling data flows within humanitarian responses and making that data available to all actors and the public. This proof of concept work focused on a core set of data of interest to all humanitarian actors: the humanitarian profile (HP), which contains estimates of the numbers and types of affected populations in a given crisis. During 2012, the UN OCHA HXL team finalized the HXL standard components needed to support HP data and built several tools for enabling partners to share this data.

The Foundation continued in 2012 the development of training courses in Crisis Information Management (CiM) for multidimensional and multi-stakeholders missions in peacekeeping and peace-building together with the Folke Bernadotte Academy, ZIF, CMI and CMC. The content of this course is anchored to new dimensions in peacekeeping and disaster management, including harnessing the potential of new media, the web, Internet and mobile technologies for increased situation awareness. The next course will be held at IPSTC in Nairobi from 23 February to 2 March 2013. ICT4Peace also lectured in training courses offered by ISCRAM and the University of Lugano Master Programme for Humanitarian Logistics as well as the Folke Bernadotte Academy.

Finally, the new and positive role that the Internet and web have been playing in recent years in developing and applying new tools to safe lives and protect human dignity might be put into question if a sustainable and resilient Internet is not assured. Cybercrime, cyberterrorism, and cyberhooliganism in particular threaten a well functioning cyberspace. In addition, the risk of a militarization of the cyberspace could lead to its fragmentation and put into question all the positive achievements for the people and societies. It was for this reason that the ICT4Peace Foundation started to look more comprehensively into the question of cybersecurity and resilience of the internet and web. ICT4Peace started to map out the instruments, processes and actors in the on-going global cyber security discussions and negotiations. It was observed, that the solutions to some of these new challenges will be generated as much by States (e.g. developing norms of State behaviour and confidence building measures (CBM’s) as by non-State actors, by building for instance new cyber security standards with the help of the new intermediaries (e.g. ISPs), business companies and consumer organisations.

Thank you for your support, encouragement and engagement. All of us from ICT4Peace wish you and your families a prosperous and healthy 2013!

Download a report of our activities from 2006 – 2012 here.

Download this update as a PDF here.

Daniel Stauffacher

ICT4Peace 2012 Year-End Report

by Paul Meyer[2]

“Jaw Jaw is better than War War” is Winston Churchill’s famous maxim concerning the desirability of dialogue over destruction in the conduct of relations between states. As a great war-time leader, it was not that Churchill was a pacifist, but he did see the merit of trying to resolve disputes first on the basis of dialogue and mutual understanding, before having recourse to armed force. As a former diplomat, I share the predisposition when faced with a new challenge to international security to look first to possibilities for conflict prevention through the application of diplomacy.

As a result, when I survey the current environment for international cyber security I am troubled by the relative dearth of preventive diplomacy and the apparent dominance of militarized approaches to achieving security in cyber space.   Given the particular nature of cyberspace, its ‘global commons’ character and its extensive and predominantly civilian applications, there are good reasons to question the assumption that it represents just another domain for armed conflict and offensive operations. Unlike the terrestrial environments that have been fields of battle for centuries, cyberspace is a recent human creation in which the key decisions as to the extent of cooperation or conflict that should prevail are still to be taken. While considerable attention has been given to criminal and other malicious actions in cyberspace by non-state actors, there has been less focus on the ‘international security’ dimension of cyberspace and the future of inter-state behaviour.

We are still at an early stage in addressing the issue of inter-state behaviour and frankly the future course of events in cyber space could go either way on the cooperation-conflict spectrum. As has frequently been the practice in the past, when the international community has been confronted with the question of how to handle a new development with implications for international security, the world has looked to the leading powers for guidance on the path to follow. Sometimes those powers have been able to cooperate to forestall militarization or weaponization of sensitive environments. One can think of the treaties on the Antarctic, outer space, the seabed and the WMD prohibition agreements such as the Biological Weapons Convention and the Chemical Weapons Convention.  In other situations, weaponization was allowed to proceed, but with various limits and restrictions placed on these systems and their deployments, as witnessed by the many arms control accords of the past century.   And in yet other situations, state behaviour is unregulated formally, but reflects shared norms that have developed over time – e.g. nuclear deterrence.

In this context of international security regime development, the United States traditionally has played a leading role, often being the major architect of new arrangements and then seeking support for these from other actors. The cyber space realm has seen some initial path-breaking policy work by the U.S. in the form of its International Strategy for Cyberspace released by the White House in May 2011. This strategy recognised the tendency of some governments to seek “to exercise traditional national power through cyberspace”, while calling for the development of internationally agreed “norms for acceptable state behaviour through cyberspace”.  The Obama administration however has yet to be able to translate this progressive vision into actual processes which yield substantive results. Currently this administration is distracted by electoral considerations and is not giving thought to issues of high policy.  Critics might also protest that the administration’s apparent involvement in the deployment of the “Stuxnet” and “Flame” cyber weapons renders it a poor standard bearer for that “peaceful and just interstate conduct” in cyberspace that its strategy proclaimed.

In light of the huge stake civil society has in secure and sustainable access to cyberspace, we should not accept a laissez faire approach being taken by states with respect to international cyber security. This environment is too precious to leave it to the cyber generals (or more likely captains) to “safeguard” as they see fit. In the absence of a great power champion willing to convene a global forum on norms for responsible state behaviour on cyber security, to whom can civil society look for some action on this front?  At present there are only a few options out there that might bring some discipline and purpose to what hitherto has been a diffuse and disjointed debate.  One of these is for regional security organizations to look seriously at developing such norms and associated measures as to provide some agreed framework in which to conduct cyber operations. The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) has recently initiated a working group “to elaborate a set of draft confidence-building measures (CBMs) to enhance interstate cooperation, transparency, predictability and stability and to reduce the risks of misperception, escalation, and conflict that may stem from the use of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs)”. The sizable and diverse membership of the OSCE and its successful history in the development of CBMs in the political-military field augurs well for this enterprise, but it is very early days.  The stated goal of the working group to have an initial set of CBMs ready for adoption by the upcoming OSCE Ministerial meeting in Dublin this December seems ambitious and the negotiation process may have to be extended.

At the universal level, and a central feature of cyberspace is its global nature, the United Nations has begun to address itself to the challenge of international cyber security.   It has done so largely through the establishment of a Group of Governmental Experts (drawn from a representative set of some 15 states) to consider issues relating to security in cyberspace. An initial consensus report in 2010 recommended the development of “confidence building, stability and risk reduction measures”. A new Group of Governmental Experts has got underway this year and is due to report back to the UN General

Assembly by the fall of 2013.  These groups operate on the basis of consensus however and it is by no means certain, especially as the governmental experts move beyond formulating general platitudes to grappling with specific measures, that agreed recommendations will be forthcoming.

Influencing these diplomatic processes is an underlying strategic reality, which may assist those who wish to see a cooperative security regime established for cyberspace. This reality is one common to both outer space and cyberspace.  In both of these fragile environments there is a risk that destructive action by any state has the potential to deny use of the domain to all.  One hopes that in cyberspace as in outer space, this recognition of a common vulnerability will induce a common restraint that can overtime be channelled into cooperative arrangements and collaborative habits which can form a basis for more formal agreements.

What should civil society, as cyberspace’s prime stakeholder, do to influence the state-centric activity that is finally getting underway? Firstly, concerned civil society should be monitoring closely these official processes and seeking input to them. Secondly, civil society should be maintaining pressure on governments to ensure that serious diplomatic engagement to devise the norms for responsible state behaviour is sustained. The diplomacy of international cyber security cooperation has lagged far behind the cyber actions of military establishments and it is time to energize a conflict prevention and mitigation effort in determining what sort of state conduct in cyberspace we wish to see in the future.

Please click here for a bi-monthly recap of the Foundation’s activities.

The World Wide Web Foundation on 5 September 2012 launched the first ever comprehensive Web Index – a new country-by-country global study that measures the impact of the Web on the world’s people and nations. The key findings can be found here.

Web inventor and Web Foundation founder Sir Tim Berners-Lee hosted an event in London to mark the launch of the Index. He was joined in conversation by two of the world’s leading Web experts: Wael Ghonim, internet activist and Head of Marketing of Google Middle East & North Africa, and Juliana Rotich, co-founder and Executive Director of Ushahidi, the Kenyan crowd-mapping platform. Juliana Rotich is also a member of the ICT4Peace Foundation International Advisory Board. ICT4Peace’s Daniel Stauffacher, who is a Trustee of the Web Foundation, and a member of the Web Index Steering Group, also attended.

Designed and produced by the World Wide Web Foundation, the Web Index is the world’s first multi-dimensional measure of the Web’s growth, utility and impact on people and nations. It covers 61 developed and developing countries, incorporating indicators that assess the political, economic and social impact of the Web, as well as indicators of Web connectivity and infrastructure. This is the first edition of the Web Index, which will be published annually, and will cover all countries. It will eventually allow for comparisons of trends over time and the benchmarking of performance across all countries, continuously improving our understanding of the Web’s value for humanity. By compiling data across many different dimensions of the Web and making it freely available, the Web Index will help deepen and broaden our understanding of how countries can maximise the impact of this powerful tool.

The Web Index provides a unique, authoritative view of the utility and impact of the Web around the world. The Index is therefore a powerful analytical tool to inform the decision-making process of various stakeholders, allowing for better-informed decisions and more targeted interventions and strategies. The Index will allow policy interventions to be formulated and targeted more directly to improve specific indicators.

The Index can be used by:

Governments: The Web Index will enable national policymakers to assess and track their performance in comparison with other countries, thereby targeting the specific indicators that allow other countries to rank higher.

Multilateral organisations / donors: The Web Index will empower multilateral organisations to more efficiently identify investment areas and program interventions to deliver benefits more effectively

Corporations: The Web Index will also provide an important analytical tool for corporations and private businesses looking to harness the Web’s potential. Companies can analyse indicators in the Index relevant to their field, and target countries where they see demand and the necessary infrastructure for delivery.

NGOs / advocacy groups: NGOs can use the Index and its rankings in their discussions with policymakers to make a stronger case for government support for a particular project in that field.

Ultimately, anyone with an interest in the Web can use the Web Index to develop a better understanding of its impact around the world.  

The Web Index is a composite index incorporating political, economic, social and developmental indicators, as well as indicators of Web connectivity and infrastructure. It relies on both primary data, based on expert surveys, and secondary data pulled from existing sources.

The data and methodology used to produce the Index have been published openly to ensure full transparency and can be used by others to undertake their own research. The Web Foundation hopes that the Index will help stimulate the debate and discussion around the use of the Web and its utility to people. The full methodology used to compute the Index is available on the Web Index Website.

A list of documents can be found here.

A report on the use of Information and Communications Technologies for peacebuilding (ICT4Peace), with a Preface by Kofi A. Annan, former Secretary General of the United Nations.

We are pleased to recognise that the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) on 27 July 2012 granted Special Consultative Status to the ICT4Peace Foundation.

The Consultative status for an organization enables it to actively engage with ECOSOC and its subsidiary bodies, as well as with the United Nations Secretariat, programmes, funds and agencies, including consulting with Member States and the United Nations system at large, based on the nature and scope of work that ICT4Peace undertakes. Consultative relationship with NGOs also enables the Council or one of its bodies to seek expert information or advice from organizations with special competence in a subject matter.

This status also entitles ICT4Peace to designate official representatives to the United Nations Headquarters in New York and the United Nations offices in Geneva and Vienna. These representatives will be able to register for and participate in events, conferences and activities of the United Nations, and organizations in general and special consultative status may designate authorized representatives to sit as observers at public meetings of ECOSOC and its subsidiary bodies, General Assembly, Human Rights Council and other United Nations intergovernmental decision-making bodies. Those on the Roster may have representatives present at such meetings concerned with matters within their field of competence. These arrangements may be supplemented to include other means of participation.

A letter dated 27 July 2012 from the United Nations to the ICT4Peace Foundation in this regard can be read here.

ICT4Peace Foundation Granted Special Consultative Status at the United Nations

With the UN General Assembly convening next week for the third time the Group of Governmental Experts (GGE) to address threats to international information security in the Disarmament and International Security Committee (also known as the First Committee), Dr. Eneken Tikk, Senior Advisor of the ICT4Peace Foundation prepared a brief on the work done by the First Committee in the field of international information security, highlights key national positions, and looks at the challenges facing the upcoming GGE discussions.

The past activities of the First Committee include international concerns of nuclear non-proliferation, chemical and biological weapons and weapons of mass destruction. Further, the disarmament of outer space and prevention of a space arms race has been addressed by the First Committee, as well as issues involving regional security and terrorism.

Please find Dr. Eneken Tikk’s brief as a PDF.

Other texts by the Foundation on this subject can be found here:

ICT4Peace Foundation calls for an International Code of Conduct on Cyber-Conflict
Getting down to business: Realistic goals for the promotion of peace in cyber-space
Op-ed in Neue Zürcher Zeitung (NZZ): Disarmament Negotiations for the Cyberspace are needed

Daniel Stauffacher, President of ICT4Peace and Ambassador Paul Meyer have published an Op-ed on 23 July in the Neue Zürcher Zeitung called “Disarmament Negotiations for the Cyberspace are needed”. The English translation of the text can be found here.

The original article in German can be downloaded as a PDF from here.

The world is facing a new challenge – a modern arms race with no visible weapons and identifiable actors, which is characterized by a growing number of known and hidden attacks on websites of government agencies or infrastructures. It often remains unknown, who ran these attacks, whether by governments or non-state actors. The fact is that new technologies provide in cyberspace a new generation of offensive weapons. One of the major powers could soon decide to use cyberspace as a battlefield in order to decide an inter-state conflict. And with such, the vital question would be answered, whether an exclusively peaceful use of the cyber-space will continue to be possible or whether we are approaching its definitive militarization. No matter in which direction the journey goes, the consequences for international security will be substantial. The diplomatic and military elites of the leading cyber-powers are therefore required, as soon as possible, to develop a common approach, how to behave in the future in this unpredictable and dangerous environment. Should Governments not soon develop coherent strategies for international cooperation in this area, they could very soon be faced with a fait accompli.

The inter-state dimension of security in cyberspace is comparatively new, and its importance is generally not yet fully understood. So far, the discussion on international cyber-security has primarily focussed on the problems of crime, cyber-terrorism and the role of non-state actors. In the fight against criminals and terrorists, it was easier for States to find common ground for cooperation among themselves. But now it’s about their own behaviour – especially in cases of conflict. The States must therefore in their consultations go beyond issues of criminal and terrorist activity in cyberspace and try to define now also the limits of so-called “unacceptable state behaviour” in cyberspace. Currently, there is no general agreement. In such a grey area of ​​international law states are largely free to decide on their own what constitutes an “acceptable” action. It is clear, however, that recently States carried out or supported activities which, while not expressly prohibited, can have a destabilizing effect.

The international community in discussing these issues is clearly lagging behind the military developments. There are, however some encouraging indications that such consultations at an international level are finally taking place. At the UN, more importance is being given to the question of responsible state behaviour in cyberspace. A first contribution to this debate was the report of the UN Group of Governmental Experts (GGE) on “Developments in the Field of Information and Telecommunications in the Context of International Security”. The GGE will continue its work in 2012 and 2013. Russia and China also proposed an International Code of Conduct for Information Security to the UN. In the framework of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), of which Russia is also a member, and with US support, government officials are presently preparing in an informal working group, a first set of confidence building measures (CBMs) on a regional basis.

When assessing the possible steps of a preventive diplomacy for the security and peace in cyberspace, the international community can rely on the experience with confidence building measures (CBMs) in the area conventional weapons, for instance. First confidence building steps could be, for example, the publication of national cyberspace-specific doctrines and multilateral consultations. One could add the joint observation of “military cyber manoeuvres”, common situation reports and the establishment of communication links for consultations in case of conflicts in cyberspace. In addition, countries could formally renounce the first use of cyber weapons. At the international level also a catalogue could be worked out, which enumerates the measures and tools for self-defence that are legitimate.

Regarding this subject please also refer to the following two posts by the ICT4Peace:

ICT4Peace Foundation calls for an International Code of Conduct on Cyber-Conflict
Getting down to business: Realistic goals for the promotion of peace in cyber-space

Report on High-Level Dialogue with UN Member States on the status of the UN Crisis Information Management Strategy (CiMS) using inter alia social media tools, crisis mapping and crowdsourcing

After the successful two day retreat on 11 and 12 June 2012 of the UN Crisis Information Management Advisory Group (CiMAG), consisting inter alia of OCHA, DPKO, DFS, UNFP, UNHCR, WFP, UNDP, Global Pulse, UNOSAT, OHCHR, organized by the UN ASG Chief Information Technology Officer (UN CITO) and the ICT4Peace Foundation, the Swiss Ambassador to the UN, Paul Seger hosted on 10 July 2012 a High-Level briefing luncheon for UN Member States. Participating countries were Bangladesh, Chile, Costa Rica, Egypt, France, Germany, Finland, Malaysia, Russia, Singapore. From the CiMAG, representatives of OCHA, DPKO, DFS and UNDP were invited to participate.

The main purpose of the working lunch was to discuss the status of implementation of the UN Crisis Information Management Strategy and the results of the recent CiMAG retreat. UN ASG Dr. Soon-hong Choi and Dr. Daniel Stauffacher launched the discussion with a presentation that can be downloaded here. The goal of the CiM strategy is to improve the collection and sharing of credible, accurate, complete and timely information both within and among the United Nations organisations and with other stake-holders, such as Member States, Humanitarian Organisations and Business, in order to / with the goal of protecting people, property, human dignity and the environment affected by crises. In particular, the cooperation with the newly emerging Volunteer and Technical (V & T) Community (Digital Humanitarian Network and Stand-by Task Force) of crisis mappers and crowd-sourcing platforms provides important new opportunities and challenges. The objective and philosophy of CiMS is to work toward a convergence in Crisis Information Management, while respecting the mandates of the individual organisations.

The CiM Strategy encompasses the following areas:

1. Data Architecture: Data that we need to collect and share for all countries, in particular, and as a priority for, disaster prone countries: e.g. roads, hospitals, damage caused, number and location of victims;
2. Technology Development: What ICT tools and platforms do we use?
3. Stakeholder Management: Who are the stake-holders in producing, sharing and receiving crisis information: United Nations, Governments, NGOs (including Volunteer and Technical Communities) and
4. Capacity Building and Training: Knowledge Management, Joint Development of CiM Training curricula for Crisis Information Management skill development.

Mary Keller, OCHA, reported on the progress made in the field of data architecture in more detail including the level of implementation of the Core Operational Data Sets (CODs) and FODs for the most crisis prone countries (http://cod.humanitarianresponse.info).  She also reported on the experience with the enhanced cooperation with the Volunteer and Technical (V & T) Community (e.g. SBTF in the case of Libya), including the Digital Humanitarian Network. Dr. Daniel Stauffacher reported inter alia on the hosting of the 3rd International Conference of Crisis Mappers (ICCM 2011) in Geneva and the connected on-going work of the Community of Interest (COI) and the successful testing of the Crisis Information Management Training Pilot Course at CCCPA in Cairo, jointly organized by Folke Bernadotte, ZIF, CMC, CMI, APSTA and ICT4Peace in October 2011. OCHA and DPKO showed interest in joining the development of this course. The ultimate goal of this effort is to be able to train a larger number of Crisis Information Managers in the field and at HQ, who will also be capable of collecting, analysing and sharing large amounts of data including information coming from the V & T community, (Crisis Mappers and Social Media), in addition to the data produced by traditional media and UN situation reports etc.

Dr. Soon-Hong Choi subsequently reported on the results of the CiMAG retreat as follows: CiMAG members agreed to continue working on the convergence within CiMS and the UN and with the crisis mapping community on data architecture, technology development, stakeholder management and capacity building. The next retreat/meeting will be held in the second half of 2013. It was decided to develop a high-level approach for how the four pillars of CiM could be applied, with appropriate data mobilisation and web visualisation, to the situations in selected counties in crisis, by the CiMAG as a joint endeavour. It was suggested that a repository of CiM platforms should be built, that can be accessed via the web to help CiM members identify platforms and systems useful in a crisis based on previous deployments, use cases and capabilities.

Throughout the luncheon a very lively, engaged and interactive dialogue took place among the participating representatives of Governments and UN organizations. In general the efforts to work incrementally towards a convergence in crisis information management under the umbrella of CiMS and CiMAG were welcomed by the participants (some felt CiM would in such a way also contribute to the endeavours of “One UN” and better coordination within the UN and the international community in general). It was underlined that in times of crisis good information is essential for effective decision-making in real time and that feedback systems are needed in both directions between HQ and the field. Questions and solutions were discussed on how to analyse and validate the large amounts of data produced during crises by the crisis mapping and crowd-sourcing platforms, some coming even from victims. Ethical questions were also raised, such as the “do no harm” principles and the question of responsibility of those entities that generate and make available information, vis-à-vis the victims and those in need. Among many other points, the issues of business continuity and resilience of connectivity but also of CiM capabilities were raised. It was explained that the work of the UN regarding Global Pulse and CiMS were complementary, and the data produced by Global Pulse would be part of the CiMS data architecture.

Ambassador Paul Seger thanked all the participants for the excellent presentations and discussion. He concluded that crisis information management plays a vital role for the UN to carry out its tasks, and that CiMS and the CiMAG are useful platforms to advance and improve the functioning of CiM. However considerable work remains to be done. Switzerland has been supporting these efforts in the past and will continue to do so in the future. He welcomed other Governments and partners to join forces and announced that he would be happy to host such a luncheon again next year.

Download this report as a PDF here.

Daniel Stauffacher, 14 July 2012

The report of the Crisis Information Management CiMAG Retreat, held from 10–12 June 2012 at Dolce Palisades, New York is now available. Please download a copy of it here.

Big themes that emerged during the day included the dual use of technologies and best to create guidance notes and progressive policies regarding this (e.g. Big Data could be both very useful and lead to privacy nightmares and possibly even border on surveillance in less democratic regimes). It was also flagged that the sheer volume of data could, given the myriad of metrics collected for each customer on mobile networks, and user of web based social networks for example, lead to a high accuracy in determining personal information, including traits, credit history and location data. Given that the likes of CNN and Facebook had asked the UN to present a coherent approach if they wanted to be featured primus inter pares in their respective information space, it was asked as to what the UN could do in this regard.

There were concerns over the privatisation of CiM and crisis related information, with the likes of Google, Twitter, Microsoft and Facebook now as corporations involved in data collection, archival and dissemination that is fundamentally different to the operational ethics, guidelines, practices and standards of the UN system, with obvious concerns over data retention, use and release. There were questions over the effectiveness and efficiency gains, if any, with the use of social media and bounded crowdsourcing. Some participants flagged that the selection of the bounded crowdsourcing frame impacted the nature of the information produced, which can be very important to not forget when dealing with Complex Political Emergencies (CPEs). It was noted that CiM tools, practices and platforms that worked for humanitarian disasters would not be those most appropriate for generating, capturing, archiving and analysing information around CPEs. Questions were also raised on the statistical models for social media in CiM and whether social media based situational awareness was most useful and appropriate only in high frequency, geographically framed contexts, and that difficulties over verification when they were few and far between undermined social media’s value. The issue of translations was flagged, and the idea was mooted whether the CiMAG could be a marketplace of ideas responding to challenges faced by its constituency members.

Overall, CiMAG members discussed whether anyone, including the UN system, had a full understanding over the risks of using crowd-sourced information. It was noted that the debate wasn’t about whether to use crowd sourced information or not, but how best to do it in light of the larger responsibilities of the UN system to its stakeholders and member states. It was also repeated, as with CiMAG meetings before, that those involved in CiM needed to institutionalise CiM practices, policies and platforms before a crisis, and not just start thinking about them after one. Re-purposing existing platforms was noted to be far more effective than the sudden introduction of new platforms, no matter how good they were. Some said that it was important to listen carefully first before protecting one’s own pre-suppositions and biases towards the information received from the field, especially from CPEs and humanitarian emergencies within CPEs. Around stakeholder management, there was also some discussion over the need to create more CiM API’s for the UN, and that one of the best uses of Global Pulse within the UN system would be to see it as a service, and less as a standalone platform or initiative.

You can also read the full report below.

Crisis Information Management CiMAG Retreat, 10–12 June 2012

Photos from Day 1 and Day 2 of the retreat are below.

Sanjana Hattotuwa was invited by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) on the 3rd of July to deliver a presentation over Skype on how the field of crisis information management had changed in the last few years, as part of UNHCR’s annual consultations with NGOs from around the world. Sanjana was asked by UNHCR to focus in particular on how new web and mobile based tools and platforms could aid in-country NGOs, who were partners of UNHCR.

In response, Sanjana spoke about the evolution of social witnessing, and how the democratisation of tools and platforms related to information production, curation, dissemination, archival and visualisation had both in each sphere and combined, revolutionised the manner in which even low funding NGOs in high latency, low bandwidth contexts could push out and also receive in return vital information in a timely, easily understood manner.

Download a PDF of the presentation here.

Online Dispute Resolution: Theory and Practice: A Treatise on Technology and Dispute Resolution, Mohamed S. Abdel Wahab (Author), Ethan Katsh (Author), Daniel Rainey (Author)

Hardcover: 571 pages
Publisher: Eleven International Publishing (January 1, 2012)

Sanjana Hattotuwa, Special Advisor at the ICT4Peace Foundation, contributed Mobiles and ODR: Why We Should Care to this significant new work on Online Dispute Resolution’s theory and practice. As noted in his introduction,

The events earlier this year in Tunisia, Egypt, and other countries in the region commonly referred to as the Middle East were powerful markers of how information and communications technologies (ICTs) undergird struggles for democratic governance. It is not only these struggles they support. ICTs are in and of themselves mere tools, and are increasingly used by repressive governments for their own parochial ends, in stark opposition to those who seek to foster democracy and strengthen human rights. This is a double-edged sword, for the same ICTs that help bear witness and strengthen accountability are those that place activists at greater risk.

It is no different with mobile telephony and communications. The mobile phone is to many in this region as well as in my own region – South Asia – their first PC. Mobiles today are more capable in fact than average PCs were a few years ago. They are more pervasive, affordable and utilitarian. The mobile today is first a device for the exchange of information through text messages (SMS), including mobile commerce, and only then a device for voice conversations. In the case of smartphones, the mobile is even more akin to a PC, revolutionising in the vernacular as well as in English, the way content is consumed, disseminated and archived through text, video, audio and photography.

Few in the world of ICT for Development (ICT4D) saw this coming. Fewer in peacebuilding and conflict transformation saw the potential for mobiles even a few years ago. My Masters thesis and other academic writing at the time, based on my work in Sri Lanka using ICTs and mobiles to transform violent conflict, is still flagged as some of the first forays into what has today become a praxis and theory far more studied, yet perhaps still as misunderstood.

Purchase the book on Amazon here.

The advent of social media has changed the way that people receive and disseminate information, and how they communicate with one another. Discussions at the High Level Risk Forum began to touch on some new applications of social media in risk and crisis communication, as well as some of the challenges. Governments are in the beginning phases of refining their communication strategies to take advantage of the benefits and to mitigate the risks associated with these new media platforms. This workshop has explored how governments can use, influence and shape social media and social networking for effective and reliable two-way communication in times of crisis. It was both about how social media shape modern communications and how governments can use them for the purpose of improving crisis management. Among the topics for discussion were:

1. How to use social media and social networks for risk and crisis communication, e.g.:

• Use as an awareness tool (e.g. monitoring social media sites and compiling relevant information);
• Use as a one-way communications tool (e.g. dissemination of public safety and crisis information; sending out information about upcoming events or campaigns);
• Use as a two-way communications tool (e.g. engaging with the online community by taking part in conversations via social media tools);
• Use as a tool to leverage networks as a resource in response efforts, adding functions as time goes on, such as: situational awareness and crisis mapping via crowd-sourcing; receiving requests for assistance; and mobilising citizens to achieve communal goals.

Participants were invited to submit examples of relevant practices in their country.

2. How to manage social media in such a way that it contributes to effective risk and crisis management. Here, participants will be invited to submit examples of relevant policies in their country.

Expert presentations and policy oriented discussions during the workshop focussed on enabling participants to identify opportunities and constraints and ways to remedy to them.

Download the agenda for the workshop here and Daniel Stauffacher’s PowerPoint presentation here. The presentation features content and a number of ideas and concepts developed by Sanjana Hattotuwa, Special Advisor, ICT4Peace Foundation, as part of the Foundation’s on-going work and input on crisis information management and the use of ICTs in peacebuilding.

An interview with Daniel Stauffacher by www.unimondo.org (OneWorld Italy)

Available also here.

Mappe interattive che segnalano focolai di violenza elaborate a partire da segnalazioni via sms e internet. Video educativi per prevenire l’insorgere di epidemie in territori dilaniati dalla guerra. Database aggiornati dagli utenti e combinati con sistemi informativi geografici (GIS) che consentono di identificare le mine da rimuovere. Monitoraggi di elezioni attraverso la condivisione di informazioni su piattaforme digitali. Sistemi di allerta (early-warning) che permettono di prevedere l’insorgere di conflitti. Sono solo alcuni esempi dei tanti possibili modi per utilizzare le Tecnologie per l’Informazione e la Comunicazione (TIC) nella promozione della pace e della ricostruzione post-bellica. A questo tema, il World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), che proprio in questi giorni si sta tenendo a Ginevra, dedicherà una discussione di alto livello presieduta da Daniel Stauffacher, Presidente della ICT for Peace Foundation ed ex Ambasciatore della Svizzera presso le Nazioni Unite.

Il nome della fondazione di cui è presidente unisce due termini, TIC e pace, che, a prima vista, possono apparire estranei. Potrebbe spiegare il loro legame con tre esempi pratici?

Bisogna innanzitutto sottolineare che le TIC sono strumenti che permettono a tutti noi, cittadini della società dell’informazione, di lavorare meglio, qualsiasi sia la nostra occupazione: questo principio vale per un contadino, un banchiere, un funzionario pubblico, un cooperante o, appunto, un operatore di pace che si occupa della prevenzione e allerta dei conflitti, mediazione, peacekeeping, ricostruzione, protezione dei civili o gestione delle informazioni in situazioni di crisi. Tre situazioni concrete mi vengono in mente : un progetto di sminamento umanitario supportato da piattaforme informatiche, i tentativi di riconciliazione tra le fazioni belligeranti in Congo e la piattaforma di allerta dell’UNDP che, aggiornata costantemente attraverso l’incrocio di indicatori e rapporti, permette di prevedere l’insorgere di una crisi.

Il Vertice di Tunisi sulla Società dell’Informazione (WSIS) nel 2005 ha riconosciuto il potenziale delle TIC nella promozione della pace, nella prevenzione dei conflitti e nella ricostruzione post-conflitto. Quali innovazioni si sono affacciate in questo campo dal 2005 a oggi?

Sicuramente oggi disponiamo di strumenti di gran lunga più sofisticati, come le piattaforme per gestire la raccolta e l’elaborazione degli sms, i social media, il crowdsourcing (progetto realizzato da un insieme di persone non definito) e il crowdmapping (mappatura interattiva via internet). Questi strumenti sono venuti alla ribalta per la prima volta in Kenya per localizzare le violenze che si sono scatenate in seguito alle controverse elezioni del 2007. In seguito, nel 2010, in occasione del terremoto a Haiti, sono stati utilizzati per affrontare la crisi umanitaria. Più recentemente, le TIC hanno avuto un ruolo di rilievo durante la primavera araba, in particolare a supporto dell’attivismo per i diritti umani e nel monitoraggio delle elezioni in Egitto e Tunisia.

In che modo le TIC possono fare la differenza nel prevenire un conflitto o ristabilire la pace?

Ci sono sempre molteplici fattori che portano alla guerra o alla pace. Possono essere di natura politica, economica, culturale o etnica, per nominarne alcuni. Non sarebbe intellettualmente onesto affermare una causalità diretta tra l’uso di TIC e la prevenzione o la risoluzione di un conflitto. È vero però che le persone che combattono per la libertà e per i diritti umani, gli operatori umanitari e i mediatori hanno la possibilità di svolgere il proprio lavoro in modo più efficace grazie alle tecnologie digitali perché queste permettono di condividere informazioni vitali in tempo reale con soggetti chiave come decisori, vittime, popolazioni colpite, mezzi di informazione internazionali e così via.

Sulla condivisione rapida e allargata di informazioni via web si basano le piattaforme di crowdsourcing e crowdmapping come Ushaidi (testimone in swahili). Qual è la loro funzione in una situazioni di crisi?

In breve, queste piattaforme permettono a chiunque sia connesso a internet o disponga di un telefono cellulare di comunicare la propria posizione, i bisogni sul campo e coordinare gli interventi di risposta.

In che modo le TIC possono rappresentare un rischio per la pace?

I fomentatori di guerre hanno sempre usato le TIC, e in primo luogo i media tradizionali. La vera novità è che oggi anche chi lavora per prevenire, mediare e gestire un conflitto, ristabilire e mantenere la pace e portare soccorso dispone di una vasta gamma di strumenti tecnologici, diventati più facilmente accessibili a un costo relativamente basso. Tra le possibili minacce, dopo il cyber-crimine e il cyber-terrorismo, ci sono una guerra tra nazioni e la militarizzazione del cyberspazio, in cui potremmo perdere la libertà di accesso e di utilizzo. Per prevenire tale pericolo, c’è bisogno di promuovere dialogo e accordi internazionali.

Il 16 maggio presiederà il dibattito di alto livello del WSIS dedicato alle TIC per la ricostruzione post-conflitto. Quali saranno i principali punti di discussione?

L’utilità delle TIC nella promozione della pace e la ricostruzione, affermata durante il WSIS di Tunisi, è stata testata solo qualche anno dopo, quando un gruppo di cittadini tunisini si sono uniti per rovesciare il governo e protestare contro la mancanza di opportunità economiche e sociali. Le TIC, e sin particolar modo i social media, hanno giocato un importante ruolo nel coordinamento della rivoluzione, nella relativamente pacifica transizione e nel monitoraggio delle elezioni. La Tunisia è uno dei casi, sempre più numerosi, in cui le TIC assumono un ruolo determinante nella ricostruzione post-rivoluzione e post-conflitto. Il programma di partnership internazionale promosso dalla Banca Mondiale infoDev, insieme alla ICT for Peace Foundation e con finanziamenti dell’agenzia inglese per lo sviluppo DfID, ha commissionato una serie di casi studio che analizzano il contributo delle TIC in paesi che si trovano in diverse fasi del processo di ricostruzione: Afghanistan, Liberia, Ruanda, Sri Lanka, Timor Est e Tunisia. Il panel di esperti, basandosi in parte su queste ricerche, discuterà di come i decisori e il settore privato dovrebbero dare priorità all’utilizzo delle TIC in situazioni post-belliche e approfondirà come questi strumenti possano migliorare la fornitura di servizi e la costruzione della nazione (nation building). Si potrà così comprendere meglio il ruolo dell’informazione nello sviluppo post-conflitto e nella promozione della coesione sociale.

Daniela Bandelli

George Sadowsky, the editor, along with Najeeb Al-Shorbaj, WHO, Torbjörn Fredriksson, UNCTAD, two of the fourteen authors and ICT4Peace’s Daniel Stauffacher, member of the Board of the World Wide Web Foundation, released at the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) in Geneva  on 15 May the  Web Foundation’s first major publication: Accelerating Development Using the Web: Empowering Poor and Marginalized Populations, available for download today.

Generously supported by the Rockefeller Foundation and in partnership with the United Nations Development Program, the book is a compendium of articles by recognized experts describing the real and potential effects of the World Wide Web in all major aspects of economic and social development. It provides overviews of the major macro issues – access, capacity, and standards, among others – while also detailing insights into specific business and public policy domains.

The book unites themes of technological innovation, international development, economic growth, gender equality, linguistic and cultural diversity and community action, with special attention paid to the circumstances surrounding the poor and vulnerable members of the Global Information Society. Its findings will be of particular value to policy makers, NGO staff members, foundations, private donors, and regional experts and will also enrich the discourse among academics and members of civil society who are interested in progress in the least developed countries in the world.

Our research fills a gap in the current store of knowledge by taking a broad holistic approach, offering detailed commentary from fourteen experts who are deeply engaged in the field of ICTs for development, many with extensive experience in developing countries, and each able to emphasize the key questions, challenges, and successes unique to their field. While these authors speak of the fields with which they are most familiar, much of the commentary is structured in a way that enables the reader to draw parallels across the fields and identify where there are similarities and divergences in the deployment of ICTs for development.

Browse the Table of Contents and view or download a copy today.