12.28.11
Cablegate: Indian Ambassador Criticises UNESCO for Signing a Software Agreement With Microsoft (Updated)
Summary: A cable from 5 years ago shows that UNESCO deals we often criticise meet opposition behinds the scenes too
WHENEVER UNESCO promises to promote Free software we quickly see Microsoft showing up and turning UNESCO into what seems like corrupt imposition of Microsoft software on children. According to the following Cablegate cable, we are not alone with these concerns and to quote ¶6, ” The Indian Ambassador criticized UNESCO for signing a software agreement with Microsoft, stating that such an agreement had resulted in UNESCO abandoning efforts to develop open-source software. (COMMENT: It is not clear whether the Indian Ambassador is motivated by anti- globalization ideals, as she might like to suggest, or national interest, though we suspect the latter. The UNESCO open-source software project “Enrich” is being developed, in large part, by Indian software engineers. END COMMENT.) ADG Khan defended this partnership by stating that developing software is vital for capacity building, and added that UNESCO continues to work on open-source software. The Tunis Agenda, he reminded the audience, calls for private sector partnerships in this area, and UNESCO plans to increase them. The DG stated that UNESCO must maintain momentum in building partnerships with the private sector in areas covered by WSIS. The agreement with Microsoft does not mean that UNESCO will stop pursuing the idea of free and open software.”
Here is the full cable:
UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 PARIS 001007 SIPDIS FROM USMISSION UNESCO PARIS SENSITIVE E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: KPAO [Public Affairs Office], ECPS [Communications and Postal Systems], ETRD [Foreign Trade], ECON [Economic Conditions], EINT [Economic and Commercial Internet], ETTC [Trade and Technology Controls], UNESCO [UN Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization] SUBJECT: FOLLOW-UP ON THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE TUNIS AGENDA FOR UNESCO REF: PARIS 431 ¶1. (SBU) SUMMARY: On February 2, 2006 the UNESCO Director General (DG), Koichiro Matsuura, and Assistant Director General (ADG) for Communication and Information, Khan, held an information session for UNESCO's permanent delegations to outline the implications for UNESCO of the World Information Summit on the Information Society's (WSIS) Tunis Agenda. UNESCO's strategy at WSIS featured four key principles: 1) Freedom of expression, 2) Universal access to information and knowledge, 3) Respect for cultural and linguistic diversity, 4) Quality education for all. According to the DG, UNESCO's delegation to Tunis clarified which action lines it would work on, distanced itself from the Internet governance debate, did not rule out the creation of new normative instruments, and reiterated its commitment to private sector partnerships. END SUMMARY. -------------------------------------------- IMPLICATIONS OF THE TUNIS AGENDA FOR UNESCO -------------------------------------------- ¶2. (SBU) The Tunis Agenda designates UNESCO as a moderator/facilitator for 7 Action Lines: 1) Access to information and knowledge, 2)E-learning, 3)E-science, 4) Cultural diversity and identity, linguistic diversity and local content, 5) Media, 6) Ethical dimensions of Information Society, 7) International and regional cooperation. The DG stressed that UNESCO expects to actively participate along with ITU and UNDP in the overall coordination of multi-stakeholder implementation of the WSIS outcomes. --------------------- INTERNET GOVERNANCE --------------------- ¶3. (SBU) UNESCO will participate in the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) as established by the Tunis Agenda. Any preference that UNESCO had for the location of the IGF Secretariat was not discussed. The Brazilian Ambassador SIPDIS asked how "enhanced cooperation," as mentioned in the Tunis Agenda, would be addressed, noting that the language was deliberately imprecise. The DG stated that UNESCO would play a role in identifying what was meant by enhanced cooperation, so that all parties are involved. (COMMENT: He did not offer specifics. END COMMENT.) He also affirmed that UNESCO would be engaged in three aspects of Internet governance: 1) Openness, 2) Linguistic diversity, 3) Access (meaning interoperability). --------------------- CALL FOR INSTRUMENTS --------------------- ¶4. (SBU) The Japanese DCM asked if the DG saw scope for normative instruments in the area of Internet governance. The DG responded that at the moment he does not envisage any normative instruments in the Communication and Information sector, but UNESCO's important mission is to formulate normative instruments in key areas. If there is further need for instruments in Communication and Information, he added, UNESCO should not shy away. ADG Khan noted that the IGF could advance areas of concern with member state support. The Communication and Information sector did not, he said, need normative instruments today, but since technology was changing so fast, he could not say that UNESCO would not consider them in the future. (COMMENT: World Press Freedom Committee Representative Rony Koven's reaction to this comment was, "We'll worry about the future when we get there. The main thing is that he sees no need for instruments now." Koven is a thirty-year advocate of media freedom at UNESCO, an active WSIS stakeholder, and seasoned observer of the UNESCO scene, who will participate as a stakeholder in the Internet Governance Forum. END COMMENT.) --------------------------- UNESCO'S ROLE INADEQUATE? --------------------------- ¶5. (SBU) Delegates from Brazil, India, and Japan questioned whether UNESCO had been given its "due" role in the process. The Indian Ambassador stated that, according to the Indian delegate at WSIS, UNESCO was not allowed to play the role it wanted to have because of "certain key delegations." (COMMENT: Is this the same Indian Delegate to WSIS that the USG worked well with? We wonder if the Indian Ambassador is articulating her own version of WSIS events here. END COMMENT.) This echoed concerns that UNESCO ambassadors, including the Indian Ambassador, raised with Ambassador Gross on January 18, 2006 (reftel). The DG responded that while he shared this concern, it was useless to complain. UNESCO, he stated, had wanted to represent member states in the WSIS process and its only ambition was to fulfill its mandate. ------------------------------------------ CRITICISM OF PUBLIC SECTOR PARTNERSHIPS ------------------------------------------ ¶6. (SBU) The Indian Ambassador criticized UNESCO for signing a software agreement with Microsoft, stating that such an agreement had resulted in UNESCO abandoning efforts to develop open-source software. (COMMENT: It is not clear whether the Indian Ambassador is motivated by anti- globalization ideals, as she might like to suggest, or national interest, though we suspect the latter. The UNESCO open-source software project "Enrich" is being developed, in large part, by Indian software engineers. END COMMENT.) ADG Khan defended this partnership by stating that developing software is vital for capacity building, and added that UNESCO continues to work on open-source software. The Tunis Agenda, he reminded the audience, calls for private sector partnerships in this area, and UNESCO plans to increase them. The DG stated that UNESCO must maintain momentum in building partnerships with the private sector in areas covered by WSIS. The agreement with Microsoft does not mean that UNESCO will stop pursuing the idea of free and open software. ¶7. (SBU) COMMENT: While it is disturbing that the DG stated that the Communication and Information sector "should not shy away" from new instruments, we note that some Communication and Information junkies at UNESCO find little evidence that this will happen in the next biennium. The Mission will remain vigilant in its efforts to promote media freedom and Internet status quo at UNESCO. END COMMENT. Oliver
It is reassuring to see that some politicians too let their opposition be known. The Microsoft/UNESCO PR needs to be countered. █
Update: There is also a cable that says: “UNESCO staff noted the “Preservation of Digital Heritage” program, UNESCO-sponsored open source software for digital libraries, and a 2003 declaration on Multilingualism and Cyberspace.”
The cable in full:
UNCLAS PARIS 001733 SIPDIS FROM USMISSION UNESCO PARIS FOR IO/UNESCO E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: KPAO [Public Affairs Office], ECPS [Communications and Postal Systems], ETRD [Foreign Trade], ECON [Economic Conditions], EINT [Economic and Commercial Internet], ETTC [Trade and Technology Controls], EAID [Foreign Economic Assistance], UNESCO [UN Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization] SUBJECT: UNESCO AND THE WORLD DIGITAL LIBRARY ¶1. (SBU) SUMMARY AND GUIDANCE REQUEST: Deanna Marcum, Associate Librarian for Library Services and Chair of the Memory of the World Programme International Advisory Committee met with the UNESCO Communication and Information Sector and the Director General (DG) on March 8, 2006 to discuss the Library of Congress' (LOC) initiative to develop a plan for the World Digital Library (WDL). She also discussed the UNESCO Memory of the World Program with the Director General. The DG and other senior level staff were enthusiastic about the WDL project, but working level staff, who discussed the LOC's initial planning stage with Marcum, were suspicious of Google motives to fund the WDL plan. Marcum stated that Google had stepped out of the picture after making its donation. The UNESCO Secretariat is confused as to whether Marcum is the point of contact on the WDL, or another LOC staffer. Marcum has told post that, in her view, her meetings at UNESCO Headquarters were "unofficial," and mentioned that another LOC staffer would be designated as the project manager and would come to UNESCO to discuss the WDL further. Mission requests guidance on who is going to be the LOC's WDL point of contact and what its vision of the WDL is, and asks IO/UNESCO to remind U.S. officials request country clearance from the Mission rather than setting up their own meetings at UNESCO. Mission notes that the UNESCO Secretariat does not consider meetings between U.S. officials and the DG to be "unofficial." END SUMMARY AND GUIDANCE REQUEST. --------------- MEETING THE DG: --------------- ¶2. (SBU) Marcum met with the UNESCO Director General Koichiro Matsuura on March 8. He stated his strong support for the WDL and noted UNESCO's desire to contribute to the project. Marcum stated that the question was how to formulate a partnership with UNESCO on the WDL, noted that Google had provided 3 million USD in finances, and stated that Project Manager John van Oudenarem would be in contact with UNESCO to follow up. The Communication and Information Sector's Director for the Information Society, Elizabeth Longworth, cited UNESCO's experience and familiarity with digitization, ability to provide a neutral platform, interest in building standards around metadata, expertise on governance and interoperability issues and commitment to spreading digitization. Matsuura instructed Longworth to continue to work with the LOC on an agreed-upon approach to the WDL, and stated that UNESCO could hold an international meeting to promote the WDL. ¶3. (SBU) Marcum brought up her recent election as Chair of the Memory of the World Programme International Advisory Committee and indicated her interest in encouraging U.S. institutions to put forth nominations for the programme. The Director General responded with enthusiasm. Ambassador Oliver noted that this was a good idea that ought to be discussed with the U.S. National Commission for UNESCO and urged Marcum to coordinate with them. ---------------------------------- Working Level - Developing a Plan: ---------------------------------- ¶4. (SBU) The UNESCO Communication and Information Sector convened a meeting for Marcum to meet with working-level representatives of the Division on the Information Society and UNESCO librarians and archivists from the Administrative Section in order to have a more detailed discussion on the WDL. Marcum emphasized that she had come to UNESCO to listen and to describe the idea for a WDL and clarified that she did not have a proposal in hand to present to UNESCO staff. (COMMENT: The lack of a proposal appeared to take them by surprise, but they welcomed the opportunity to contribute to plans. END COMMENT.) The main issues, she stated, were governance, selection and architecture. The LOC had identified a project manager for the WDL, and the goal would be to draft a report by October 2006, she said. Marcum stated that the LOC could bring the principle of the library to the digital world, as an aggregation of lots of different information, not as a repository. She stated that it was important for the WDL not to be politicized. ¶5. (SBU) She provided a history of the concept of a WDL dating beyond the American Memory and Global Gateway websites. Global gateway projects, she noted, were bilaterally arranged with Russia, Brazil, France, Spain, The Netherlands and Egypt. Each one addressed an area where U.S. culture intersected with these countries, and from this project, the LOC started to think about bilingual digital images of collections. The Librarian of Congress, James Billington, she emphasized, wanted to find ways to help people understand one another and use information exchange as a basis for global understanding. ¶6. (SBU) She stated that Billington spoke to the U.S. NATCOM last June to ask them to think about what steps to take to create a WDL. The LOC had also reached out to the Digital Library Federation (mostly U.S. libraries, plus the British and Australian libraries) to look at standards, best practices, architecture, and metadata. Marcum noted that many libraries around the world have started digital libraries already for items not covered by copyright. Examples include the European library, the British Library/Microsoft partnership or the test project of the "Google 5" libraries. (The University of Michigan, The New York City Public Library, Harvard University, Oxford, and Stanford University.) A key difference here is that unlike the other projects, the European Library, spearheaded by France last year as a move "against googlization" and including the national libraries of Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Poland, Slovenia, Slovakia, Spain and Sweden, is government funded. ¶7. (SBU) Marcum explained that Google was impressed with Billington's desire to promote mutual understanding through on-line access to other cultures, and therefore donated 3 million USD for the LOC to devise a plan for a WDL. The brand name of Google, she acknowledged, raises questions for many. She added that there is probably every reason to be concerned about Google's influence on open access when one looks at the details. She noted that the LOC did not pursue mass digitalization with Google because of concerns about how this would mesh with the LOC housing the U.S. copyright office. She explained that there was almost nothing in writing in terms of an agreement between the LOC and Google: it had handed over the check, and that was the end of its involvement in the WDL plan. ---------------- UNESCO CONCERNS: ---------------- ¶8. (SBU) Above all, suspicion of Google and its role in the plan dominated UNESCO concerns at the working level. Staff asked if there was an outline of how the LOC would use the Google funds (Comment: UNESCO staff does not appear to know a lot about private philanthropy in the U.S and expected there would be an MOU-type document. END COMMENT.) One UNESCO staffer stated that he believed the Google 3 million USD donation was seed money for it to come in later on the WDL. A French UNESCO staffer asked if Google involvement was even necessary. ¶9. (SBU) Another staffer stated that the U.S. initiative on the WDL was a lot like the U.S. position on Internet Governance while another stated that the U.S. should refer to the WSIS Geneva declarations (2003) which states that libraries should be accessed electronically. UNESCO staff also noted that the LOC's "Global Gateway" project, cited by Marcum as an example of intergovernmental cooperation on digital items, had generated editorially driven electronic publications and that the WDL should not use this model. ¶10. (SBU) UNESCO staff strongly urged that the U.S. reaches out to a wide variety of international actors on this project. The Communication and Information Sector's Director for the Information Society, Elizabeth Longworth noted the potential for politicization of the WDL, given the documented -- and French-led - negative European reaction. Longworth suggested that the U.S. and UNESCO draw lessons from the Internet governance debate. (COMMENT: Some at UNESCO feel the perception that other countries could not have a role in internet governance undermined the U.S. position in the lead up to WSIS II in Tunis last November. END COMMENT.) She also asked who the LOC's stakeholders were in the project while other staff noted that Marcum did not mention libraries in Latin America, Arab States, Asia and Africa. They mentioned a digital library project led by the Philippines and financed by Intel for 20 Asian countries link their public domain material. ------------------- UNESCO Value Added: ------------------- ¶11. (SBU) UNESCO staff made many suggestions on how UNESCO might contribute to the WDL, many of which were repeated by Longworth in Marcum's meeting with the DG. They noted above all that UNESCO has the power to convene people, help with capacity building and training and to provide a neutral platform. UNESCO also had a library portal with some 14,000 links and was active in the development of small digital libraries, such as the El Dorado library for Latin America and the Caribbean (Note: Only a Bolivian contribution to this project exists thus far, although in terms of other regions, the Palestinians also asked UNESCO to help them build either a virtual or actual library.) ¶12. (SBU) UNESCO staff noted the "Preservation of Digital Heritage" program, UNESCO-sponsored open source software for digital libraries, and a 2003 declaration on Multilingualism and Cyberspace. UNESCO's French- chaired Information for All Programme could be involved, they suggested. They offered to hold a panel discussion on the WDL at the next UNESCO Open Forum, and suggested that the LOC work with IFLA and UNESCO on this. UNESCO could also call a conference on the issue, they added. One staffer suggested UNESCO could create standard setting instruments in the area of digital libraries. (COMMENT: Mission strongly advises against this. END COMMENT.) ¶13. (SBU) The UNESCO Archivist stated that one excellent source of primary documents for a WDL would be the United Nations. He cited the United Nations Intellectual History Project (UNIHP) whose secretariat was established at the Ralph Bunche Institute for International Studies of The Graduate Center of The City University of New York in 1999. There was a potential copyright issue with some UN publications, he warned. But there was a goldmine of material in UN and UNESCO archives, he added. Other staff cited UNESCO's e-science program and its scientific information commons may be able to contribute. -------- COMMENT: -------- ¶14. (SBU) COMMENT: At a high level, UNESCO staff has received the WDL project with open arms. However, at the working level, suspicion of Google's role in the project as well as a lack of understanding of how private philanthropy works in the United States must be addressed for the project to succeed. In addition, the LOC will want to demonstrate to UNESCO that it has a wide -- and significantly international - stable of WDL stakeholders. Procedurally, the Secretariat has advised the Mission that meetings with the Director General and other senior officials at UNESCO Headquarters are indeed official, and we ask IO/UNESCO to convey to all USG agencies and branches that engage with UNESCO that country clearance and a briefing with the Mission Country team is essential to their visit. Mission also requests clarification of who leads the WDL project at the LOC, and, if this person is not Marcum, whether his views on the entire project are the same as the ones she conveyed. END COMMENT. Oliver
