The Centre for Internet and Society
http://editors.cis-india.org
These are the search results for the query, showing results 1 to 3.
Comments on the Draft Outcome Document of the UN General Assembly’s Overall Review of the Implementation of WSIS Outcomes (WSIS+10)
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/comments-on-the-draft-outcome-document-of-the-un-general-assembly2019s-overall-review-of-the-implementation-of-wsis-outcomes-wsis-10
<b>Following the comment-period on the Zero Draft, the Draft Outcome Document of the UN General Assembly's Overall Review of implementation of WSIS Outcomes was released on 4 November 2015. Comments were sought on the Draft Outcome Document from diverse stakeholders. The Centre for Internet & Society's response to the call for comments is below.</b>
<p class="Normal1" style="text-align: justify; "> </p>
<p class="Normal1" style="text-align: justify; ">The WSIS+10 Overall Review of the Implementation of WSIS Outcomes, scheduled for December 2015, comes as a review of the WSIS process initiated in 2003-05. At the December summit of the UN General Assembly, the WSIS vision and mandate of the IGF are to be discussed. The Draft Outcome Document, released on 4 November 2015, is towards an outcome document for the summit. Comments were sought on the Draft Outcome Document. Our comments are below.</p>
<ol style="text-align: justify; ">
<li>The Draft Outcome Document of the UN General Assembly’s Overall Review of the Implementation of WSIS Outcomes (“<i>the current Draft</i>”) stands considerably altered from the Zero Draft. With references to development-related challenges, the Zero Draft covered areas of growth and challenges of the WSIS. It noted the persisting digital divide, the importance of innovation and investment, and of conducive legal and regulatory environments, and the inadequacy of financial mechanisms. Issues crucial to Internet governance such as net neutrality, privacy and the mandate of the IGF found mention in the Zero Draft.</li>
<li>The current Draft retains these, and adds to them. Some previously-omitted issues such as surveillance, the centrality of human rights and the intricate relationship of ICTs to the Sustainable Development Goals, now stand incorporated in the current Draft. This is most commendable. However, the current Draft still lacks teeth with regard to some of these issues, and fails to address several others. </li>
<li>In our comments to the Zero Draft, CIS had called for these issues to be addressed. We reiterate our call in the following paragraphs.</li>
</ol>
<h2 style="text-align: justify; "><strong>(1) </strong><strong>ICT for Development</strong></h2>
<ol style="text-align: justify; ">
<li>In the current Draft, paragraphs 14-36 deal with ICTs for development. While the draft contains rubrics like ‘Bridging the digital divide’, ‘Enabling environment’, and ‘Financial mechanisms’, the following issues are unaddressed:</li>
<li>Equitable development for all;</li>
<li>Accessibility to ICTs for persons with disabilities;</li>
<li>Access to knowledge and open data.</li>
</ol>
<h3><i><span>Equitable development</span></i></h3>
<ol style="text-align: justify; ">
<li>In the <a class="external-link" href="http://www.itu.int/net/wsis/docs/geneva/official/dop.html">Geneva Declaration of Principles</a> (2003), two goals are set forth as the Declaration’s “ambitious goal”: (a) the bridging of the digital divide; and (b) equitable development for all (¶ 17). The current Draft speaks in detail about the bridging of the digital divide, but the goal of equitable development is conspicuously absent. At WSIS+10, when the WSIS vision evolves to the creation of inclusive ‘knowledge societies’, equitable development should be both a key principle and a goal to stand by.</li>
<li>Indeed, inequitable development underscores the persistence of the digital divide. The current Draft itself refers to several instances of inequitable development; for ex., the uneven production capabilities and deployment of ICT infrastructure and technology in developing countries, landlocked countries, small island developing states, countries under occupation or suffering natural disasters, and other vulnerable states; lack of adequate financial mechanisms in vulnerable parts of the world; variably affordable (or in many cases, unaffordable) spread of ICT devices, technology and connectivity, etc. </li>
<li>What underscores these challenges is the inequitable and uneven spread of ICTs across states and communities, including in their production, capacity-building, technology transfers, gender-concentrated adoption of technology, and inclusiveness. </li>
<li>As such, it is essential that the WSIS+10 Draft Outcome Document reaffirm our commitment to equitable development for all peoples, communities and states.</li>
<li>We suggest the following inclusion to <strong>paragraph 5 of the current Draft</strong>:</li>
</ol>
<table class="plain">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th style="text-align: justify; "><span><span style="text-align: justify; ">“5. We reaffirm our common desire and commitment to the WSIS vision to build </span><i style="text-align: justify; "><span>an equitable,</span></i><span style="text-align: justify; "> people-centred, inclusive, and development-oriented Information Society…”</span></span></th>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<h3><i><span>Accessibility for persons with disabilities</span></i></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">10. Paragraph 13 of the Geneva Declaration of Principles (2003) pledges to “pay particular attention to the special needs of marginalized and vulnerable groups of society” in the forging of an Information Society. Particularly, ¶ 13 recognises the special needs of older persons and persons with disabilities.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">11. Moreover, ¶ 31 of the Geneva Declaration of Principles calls for the special needs of persons with disabilities, and also of disadvantaged and vulnerable groups, to be taken into account while promoting the use of ICTs for capacity-building. Accessibility for persons with disabilities is thus core to bridging the digital divide – as important as bridging the gender divide in access to ICTs.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">12. Not only this, but the <a class="external-link" href="http://www.itu.int/net/wsis/implementation/2014/forum/inc/doc/outcome/362828V2E.pdf">WSIS+10 Statement on the Implementation of WSIS Outcomes</a> (June 2014) also reaffirms the commitment to “provide equitable access to information and knowledge for all… including… people with disabilities”, recognizing that it is “crucial to increase the participation of vulnerable people in the building process of Information Society…” (¶8).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">13. In our previous submission, CIS had suggested language drawing attention to this. Now, the current Draft only acknowledges that “particular attention should be paid to the specific ICT challenges facing… persons with disabilities…” (paragraph 11). It acknowledges also that now, accessibility for persons with disabilities constitutes one of the core elements of quality (paragraph 22). However, there is a glaring omission of a call to action, or a reaffirmation of our commitment to bridging the divide experienced by persons with disabilities.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">14. We suggest, therefore, the addition of the following language the addition of <strong>paragraph 24A to the current Draft</strong>. Sections of this suggestion are drawn from ¶8, WSIS+10 Statement on the Implementation of WSIS Outcomes.</p>
<table class="plain">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th style="text-align: justify; "><span>"24A. <span style="text-align: justify; ">Recalling the UN Convention on the rights of people with disabilities, the Geneva principles paragraph 11, 13, 14 and 15, Tunis Commitment paras 20, 22 and 24, and reaffirming the commitment to providing equitable access to information and knowledge for all, building ICT capacity for all and confidence in the use of ICTs by all, including youth, older persons, women, indigenous and nomadic peoples, people with disabilities, the unemployed, the poor, migrants, refugees and internally displaced people and remote and rural communities, it is crucial to increase the participation of vulnerable people in the building process of information Society and to make their voice heard by stakeholders and policy-makers at different levels. It can allow the most fragile groups of citizens worldwide to become an integrated part of their economies and also raise awareness of the target actors on the existing ICTs solution (such as tolls as e- participation, e-government, e-learning applications, etc.) designed to make their everyday life better. We recognise need for continued extension of access for people with disabilities and vulnerable people to ICTs, especially in developing countries and among marginalized communities, and reaffirm our commitment to promoting and ensuring accessibility for persons with disabilities. In particular, we call upon all stakeholders to honour and meet the targets set out in Target 2.5.B of the Connect 2020 Agenda that enabling environments ensuring accessible telecommunication/ICT for persons with disabilities should be established in all countries by 2020.”</span></span></th>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<h3><i><span>Access to knowledge and open data</span></i></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">15. The Geneva Declaration of Principles dedicates a section to access to information and knowledge (B.3). It notes, in ¶26, that a “rich public domain” is essential to the growth of Information Society. It urges that public institutions be strengthened to ensure free and equitable access to information (¶26), and also that assistive technologies and universal design can remove barriers to access to information and knowledge (¶25). Particularly, the Geneva Declaration advocates the use of free and open source software, in addition to proprietary software, to meet these ends (¶27).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">16. It was also recognized in the WSIS+10 Statement on the Implementation of WSIS Outcomes (‘Challenges-during implementation of Action Lines and new challenges that have emerged’) that there is a need to promote access to all information and knowledge, and to encourage open access to publications and information (C, ¶¶9 and 12).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">17. In our previous submission, CIS had highlighted the importance of open access to knowledge thus: “…the implications of open access to data and knowledge (including open government data), and responsible collection and dissemination of data are much larger in light of the importance of ICTs in today’s world. As Para 7 of the Zero Draft indicates, ICTs are now becoming an indicator of development itself, as well as being a key facilitator for achieving other developmental goals. As Para 56 of the Zero Draft recognizes, in order to measure the impact of ICTs on the ground – undoubtedly within the mandate of WSIS – it is necessary that there be an enabling environment to collect and analyse reliable data. Efforts towards the same have already been undertaken by the United Nations in the form of ‘Data Revolution for Sustainable Development’. In this light, the Zero Draft rightly calls for enhancement of regional, national and local capacity to collect and conduct analyses of development and ICT statistics (Para 56). Achieving the central goals of the WSIS process requires that such data is collected and disseminated under open standards and open licenses, leading to creation of global open data on the ICT indicators concerned.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">18. This crucial element is missing from the current Draft of the WSIS+10 Outcome Document. Of course, the current Draft notes the importance of access to information and free flow of data. But it stops short of endorsing and advocating the importance of access to knowledge and free and open source software, which are essential to fostering competition and innovation, diversity of consumer/ user choice and ensuring universal access.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">19. We suggest the following addition – of <strong>paragraph 23A to the current Draft</strong>:</p>
<table class="plain">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th style="text-align: justify; "><span>"23A. <span style="text-align: justify; ">We recognize the need to promote access for all to information and knowledge, open data, and open, affordable, and reliable technologies and services, while respecting individual privacy, and to encourage open access to publications and information, including scientific information and in the research sector, and particularly in developing and least developed countries.”</span></span></th>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<h2 style="text-align: justify; "><strong>(2) </strong><strong>Human Rights in Information Society</strong></h2>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">20. The current Draft recognizes that human rights have been central to the WSIS vision, and reaffirms that rights offline must be protected online as well. However, the current Draft omits to recognise the role played by corporations and intermediaries in facilitating access to and use of the Internet.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">21. In our previous submission, CIS had noted that “the Internet is led largely by the private sector in the development and distribution of devices, protocols and content-platforms, corporations play a major role in facilitating – and sometimes, in restricting – human rights online”.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">22. We reiterate our suggestion for the inclusion of <strong>paragraph 43A to the current Draft</strong>:</p>
<table class="plain">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th style="text-align: justify; "><span>"43A. <span style="text-align: justify; ">We recognize the critical role played by corporations and the private sector in facilitating human rights online. We affirm, in this regard, the responsibilities of the private sector set out in the Report of the Special Representative of the Secretary General on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises, A/HRC/17/31 (21 March 2011), and encourage policies and commitments towards respect and remedies for human rights.”</span></span></th>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<h2 style="text-align: justify; "><strong>(3) </strong><strong>Internet</strong> <strong>Governance</strong></h2>
<h3><i><span>The support for multilateral governance of the Internet</span></i></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">23. While the section on Internet governance is not considerably altered from the zero draft, there is a large substantive change in the current Draft. The current Draft states that the governance of the Internet should be “multilateral, transparent and democratic, with full involvement of all stakeholders” (¶50). Previously, the zero draft recognized the “the general agreement that the governance of the Internet should be open, inclusive, and transparent”.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">24. A return to purely ‘multilateral’ Internet governance would be regressive. Governments are, without doubt, crucial in Internet governance. As scholarship and experience have both shown, governments have played a substantial role in shaping the Internet as it is today: whether this concerns the availability of content, spread of infrastructure, licensing and regulation, etc. However, these were and continue to remain contentious spaces.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">25. As such, it is essential to recognize that a plurality of governance models serve the Internet, in which the private sector, civil society, the technical community and academia play important roles. <strong>We recommend returning to the language of the zero draft in ¶32: “open, inclusive and transparent governance of the Internet”.</strong></p>
<h3><i><span>Governance of Critical Internet Resources</span></i></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">26. It is curious that the section on Internet governance<strong> </strong>in both the zero and the current Draft makes no reference to ICANN, and in particular, to the ongoing transition of IANA stewardship and the discussions surrounding the accountability of ICANN and the IANA operator. The stewardship of critical Internet resources, such as the root, is crucial to the evolution and functioning of the Internet. Today, ICANN and a few other institutions have a monopoly over the management and policy-formulation of several critical Internet resources.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">27. While the WSIS in 2003-05 considered this a troubling issue, this focus seems to have shifted entirely. Open, inclusive, transparent and <i>global</i> Internet are misnomer-principles when ICANN – and in effect, the United States – continues to have monopoly over critical Internet resources. The allocation and administration of these resources should be decentralized and distributed, and should not be within the disproportionate control of any one jurisdiction.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">28. Therefore, we reiterate our suggestion to add <strong><span>paragraph 53A</span></strong> after Para 53:</p>
<table class="plain">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th style="text-align: justify; "><span>"53A. <span style="text-align: justify; ">We affirm that the allocation, administration and policy involving critical Internet resources must be inclusive and decentralized, and call upon all stakeholders and in particular, states and organizations responsible for essential tasks associated with the Internet, to take immediate measures to create an environment that facilitates this development.”</span></span></th>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<h3><i><span>Inclusiveness and Diversity in Internet Governance</span></i></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">29. The current Draft, in ¶52, recognizes that there is a need to “promote greater participation and engagement in Internet governance of all stakeholders…”, and calls for “stable, transparent and voluntary funding mechanisms to this end.” This is most commendable.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">30. The issue of inclusiveness and diversity in Internet governance is crucial: today, Internet governance organisations and platforms suffer from a lack of inclusiveness and diversity, extending across representation, participation and operations of these organisations. As CIS submitted previously, the mention of inclusiveness and diversity becomes tokenism or formal (but not operational) principle in many cases.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">31. As we submitted before, the developing world is pitifully represented in standards organisations and in ICANN, and policy discussions in organisations like ISOC occur largely in cities like Geneva and New York. For ex., 307 out of 672 registries listed in ICANN’s registry directory are based in the United States, while 624 of the 1010 ICANN-accredited registrars are US-based.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">32. Not only this, but 80% of the responses received by ICANN during the ICG’s call for proposals were male. A truly global and open, inclusive and transparent governance of the Internet must not be so skewed. Representation must include not only those from developing countries, but must also extend across gender and communities.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">33. We propose, therefore, the addition of a <strong><span>paragraph 51A</span></strong> after Para 51:</p>
<table class="plain">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th style="text-align: justify; "><span>"51A. <span style="text-align: justify; ">We draw attention to the challenges surrounding diversity and inclusiveness in organisations involved in Internet governance, including in their representation, participation and operations. We note with concern that the representation of developing countries, of women, persons with disabilities and other vulnerable groups, is far from equitable and adequate. We call upon organisations involved in Internet governance to take immediate measures to ensure diversity and inclusiveness in a substantive manner.”</span></span></th>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p style="text-align: justify; "> </p>
<hr size="1" style="text-align: justify; " width="33%" />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Prepared by Geetha Hariharan, with inputs from Sunil Abraham and Japreet Grewal. All comments submitted towards the Draft Outcome Document may be found <a class="external-link" href="http://unpan3.un.org/wsis10/Preparatory-Process-Roadmap/Comments-on-Draft-Outcome-Document">at this link</a>.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/comments-on-the-draft-outcome-document-of-the-un-general-assembly2019s-overall-review-of-the-implementation-of-wsis-outcomes-wsis-10'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/comments-on-the-draft-outcome-document-of-the-un-general-assembly2019s-overall-review-of-the-implementation-of-wsis-outcomes-wsis-10</a>
</p>
No publishergeethaICT4DCall for CommentsWSIS+10Access to KnowledgeAccessibilityHuman Rights OnlineInternet GovernanceICANNIANA TransitionOpen SourceOpen Access2015-11-18T06:33:13ZBlog EntryA provisional definition for the Cultural Last Mile
http://editors.cis-india.org/raw/histories-of-the-internet/blogs/the-last-cultural-mile/definiton
<b>In the first of his entries, Ashish Rajadhyaksha gives his own spin on the 'Last Mile' problem that has been at the crux of all public technologies. Shifting the terms of debate away from broadcast problems of distance and access, he re-purposes the 'last mile' which is a communications problem, to make a cultural argument about the role and imagination of technology in India, and the specific ways in which this problem features in talking about Internet Technologies in contemporary India.</b>
<div class="main">
<div class="snap_preview">
<p>In its classical
form, the ‘last mile’ is a communications term defining the final stage
of providing connectivity from a communications provider to a customer,
and has been used as such most commonly by telecommunications and cable
television industries. There has however been a a specific Indian
variant, seen in its most classical avatar in scientist Vikram
Sarabhai’s contention that overcoming the last mile could solve the two
major challenges India has faced, of <strong>linguistic diversity </strong>and <strong>geographical distance</strong>,
and mounted as the primary argument for terrestrial television in the
early 1980s. (I will try and attach the Sarabhai paper a little later
to this posting).</p>
<p>This specifically Indian variation, where technology was mapped onto
developmentalist-democratic priorities, has been the dominant
characteristic of communications technology since at least the
invention of the radio in the 1940s. For at least 50 years now, that
means, the last mile has become a mode of a techno-democracy, where
connectivity has been directly translated into democratic citizenship.
It has continuously provided the major rationale for successive
technological developments, from the 1960s wave of portable
transistors, the terrestrial transponders of the first televisual
revolution it the early 1980s (the Special Plan for the Expansion of
Television), the capacity of satellite since SITE and the INSAT series,
and from the 1990s the arrival of wired networks (LANs, Cable,
fibre-optic) followed by wireless (WLAN, WiMAX, W-CDMA). At each point
the assumption has been consistently made that the final frontier was
just around the corner; that the next technology in the chain would
breach a major barrier, once and for all.</p>
<p><strong>What I hope to do is to provide a historical account to
argue that the theory of the ‘last mile’ has been founded on
fundamental (mis)apprehensions around just what this bridge
constitutes. </strong>Further, that these apprehensions may have been
derived from a misconstruction of democractic theory, to assume, first,
an evolutionary rather than distributive model for connectivity, and
second, to introduce a major bias for broadcast (or one-to-many) modes
as against many-to-many peer-to-peer formats. The book, whenever I
succeed in writing it, will hope to argue the following:</p>
<p>1. It has been difficult to include <strong>human resource</strong>
as an integral component to the last mile. Contrary to the relentlessly
technologized definition of the last mile, it may perhaps be best seen
historically as <em>also</em>, and even perhaps <em>primarily</em>, a
human resource issue. This is not a new realization, but it is one that
keeps reproducing itself with every new technological generation<a href="http://culturallastmile.wordpress.com/#_ftn1">[1]</a>,
with ever newer difficulties. The endemic assumption, derived from the
broadcasting origins of the definition is that it is primarily the <em>sender</em>’s responsibility to bridge the divide, that <em>technology </em>can
aid him to do so on its own, and that such technology can negate the
need to define connectivity as a multiple-way partnership as it reduces
the recipient into no more than an intelligent recipient of what is
sent (the citizen model). On the other hand, it is possible to show how
previous successful experiments bridging the last mile have been ones
where <em>recipients have been successfully integrated into the communications model </em>both as peers and, even more significantly, as <em>originators </em>as well as <em>enhancers </em>of
data. Importantly, this paper will show, this has been evidenced even
in one-way ‘broadcast’ modes such as film, television and radio (in the
movie fan, community radio and the television citizen-journalist).</p>
<p>2. The one-way broadcast versus peer-to-peer versus two/multiple-way
debate needs to he historically revisited. The need to redefine the
beneficiary of a connectivity cycle as a full-fledged partner tends to
come up against a bias written into standard communications models –
and therefore several standard revenue models – that consistently tend
to underplay what this paper will call the <em>significant sender/recipient</em>.
While both terrestrial and satellite systems require some level of
peer-to-peer transmission systems to facilitate last-mile
communications, it has been a common problem that unless <em>either</em> a clear focus exists on geographic areas <em>or</em>
significant peer-to-peer participation exists, broadcast models
inevitably find themselves delivering large amounts of S/N at low
frequencies without sufficient spectrum to support large information
capacity. While it is technically possible to ‘flood’ a region in
broadcasting terms, this inevitably leads to extremely high wastage as
much of the radiated ICE never reaches any user at all. As information
requirements increase, broadcast ‘wireless mesh’ systems small enough
to provide adequate information distribution to and from a relatively
small number of local users, require a prohibitively large number of
broadcast locations along with a large amount of excess capacity to
make up for the wasted energy.</p>
<p>This problem, importantly, springs as much from a built-in <em>ideological </em>commitment
to one-way broadcasting formats, as from technological limitations. The
technology itself poses further problems given the bias of different
systems to different kinds of connectivity, and with it different types
of peer-to-peer possibilities. Rather than attempting a
one-size-fits-all model for all models to follow, we need to work out
different <em>synergies </em>between broadcast-dependent and peer-to-peer-enabled platforms.</p>
<p>This book will eventually hope to study the history of peer-to-peer
and multiple-way structures as systems where sending has become a
component part of receiving. Key technological precedents to the
present definition of the sender-communication ‘partner’ would be <strong>community radio</strong>, <strong>low-power transmission-reception systems </strong>(most famously the Pij experiment in Gujarat conducted by ISRO), and various <strong>internet-based networking models</strong>.</p>
<p>3. The need to revisit the technological community is therefore
critical. The key question is one of how technological communities have
been produced, and how they may be sustained. In January 2007, the
attack by V.S. Ailawadi, former Chairman, Haryana Electricty Regulatory
Commission, on India’s public sector telecom giants BSNL and MTNL for
keeping their ‘huge infrastructure’ of ‘copper wire and optic fibre’ to
themselves, when these could be used by private operators as cheaper
alternatives to WiMAX, W-CDMA and broadband over power lines, shows the
uneasy relationship between new players and state agencies. Mr.
Ailawadi’s contention that the ‘unbundling’ of the last mile would
bring in competition for various types of wireless applications and
broadband services not just for 45 million landlines but also for 135
million mobile users of various service providers, also therefore needs
to be revisited from the perspective of community formation. How would
the new 135 million mobile users be effectively tapped for their
capacity to become what we are calling significant senders?</p>
<p>In defining the last mile as to do with the recipient-as-sender, and thus the <strong>community</strong>, this paper will focus on a history of community action along specific models of connectivity. These are: cinema’s <strong>movie fan</strong>, internet’s <strong>blogger</strong> and <strong>networker</strong>, solar energy’s <strong>barefoot engineer</strong>, software’s <strong>media pusher</strong> and television’s <strong>citizen-journalist. </strong>A specific focus for study will be the models of <strong>participatory learning</strong> in the classroom, using <strong>film</strong>, the <strong>vinyl disc</strong>, the <strong>audio cassette</strong>, the <strong>radio</strong>, the <strong>television</strong>, the <strong>web </strong>and now the <strong>mobile phone</strong>.</p>
</div>
</div>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/raw/histories-of-the-internet/blogs/the-last-cultural-mile/definiton'>http://editors.cis-india.org/raw/histories-of-the-internet/blogs/the-last-cultural-mile/definiton</a>
</p>
No publishernishantA copy of this post is also available on the author's personal blog at http://culturallastmile.wordpress.com/2009/10/25/1-what-is-the-cultural-last-mile/ICT4DDigital GovernancePublic AccountabilityInternet GovernanceCyberculturesDigital subjectivities2011-08-02T08:57:07ZBlog EntryIT and the cITy
http://editors.cis-india.org/research/grants/the-promise-of-invisibility-technology-and-the-city/itcity
<b>Nishant Shah tells ten stories of relationship between Internet Technologies and the City, drawing from his experiences of seven months in Shanghai. In this introduction to the city, he charts out first experiences of the physical spaces of Shanghai and how they reflect the IT ambitions and imaginations of the city. He takes us through the dizzying spaces of Shanghai to see how the architecture and the buildings of the city do not only house the ICT infrastructure but also embody it in their unfolding. In drawing the seductive nature of embodied technology in the physical experience of Shanghai, he also points out why certain questions about the rise of internet technologies and the reconfiguration of the Shanghai-Pudong area have never been asked. In this first post, he explains his methdologies that inform the framework which will produce the ten stories of technology and Shanghai, and how this new IT City, delivers its promise of invisibility.</b>
<p></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Shanghai. City of bits, bytes and
Baozi. China’s home-grown success story that eclipses the colonial legends of
HongKong. The city that was, until the Bejing Olympics, the showcase city which
is now working hard at recovering some of its stolen glory as it prepares for
the World Trade Expo in 2010. A city that is constantly at war with itself,
trying to museumise its past, eradicate pockets of history and times, and
running to escape its present and live in a futuristic tomorrow. A city that
broke the distinctions of the public and the private, by privatising all that
was public, and by encouraging the private to be constructed for a public
spectacle. There are many stories of Shanghai to be told, but the one that
needs to be told now, is about the space of the city and how, in its attempt to
become an IT city, it has become a city of surfaces, all reminding you, in an
overwhelming hypervisual way that is the predominant aesthetic of cyberspaces,
that it is the city that not only houses technology but also embodies it,
becoming, possibly, the only city in Asia that brings the IT back into the
City.</p>
<img src="http://editors.cis-india.org/home-images/shanghai/image_preview" alt="Aerial view" class="image-left" title="Aerial view" />
<p style="text-align: justify;"> </p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"> </p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">A cursory glance around you,
perhaps travelling in the uber efficient metro system that feeds into the
mobile metaphor of accelerated speed and space that Shanghai has become, or
just walking down the more touristy XinTianDi where the rich and the famous of
Shanghai’s society hang out, or walking down the HuaiHai Road where
sky-scrapers fortress the sky and shopping malls greet you with neon-lit spaces
of consumption, you are overwhelmed at the significant and ubiquitous presence
of internet technologies. The buildings are designed to be interfaces, rather
than walls, covered constantly with the graffiti of digital advertisements,
live weather and stock updates, displaying the latest block-buster movie, or
just presenting a kaleidoscopic array of lights spiralling in a dizzying,
schizophrenic style on the surfaces of the buildings. As you walk through the
sci-fi inspired urban landscape, you try and suppress the feeling of being
inside a giant-size arcade game, waiting for a gobbling monster to come and
devour you, and continue browsing at the city that never remains the same –
either the surfaces mutate so that not even signboards or billboards remain the
same, or the very buildings disappear into rubble under the shadows of gigantic
cranes, as a concentrated demand for real estate necessitates a constant
recycling of limited space (The estimate says that 60 per cent of Shanghai gets
rebuilt every ten years), or high speed transport dissolves the city into a
blur so that only the biggest and the brightest buildings stay as north-stars
to the fluid geography of the city.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">If you happen to stand on the
magnificent Bund in PuXi (The older Shanghai), you keep on looking down at the
ground beneath your feet, making sure that it is still there, because the
slightly lurid but dazzling sky-line that faces you, with huge LCD screens
mounted on buildings, lights flirting with low lying clouds on the top of
gigantic buildings, and a constant buzz of electricity breaking the waves in
the Huangpu river, you know that you are in a city that gives IT its address.
No other city in Asia – not even the almost-not-Asia spaces of Tokyo or
Singapore – gives you the assurance of being completely and totally immersed in
the glory of Internet technologies. Shanghai stands, networked, connected,
mobile, accelerated, and in a time-less vacuum that hoovers the future into the
present, as a city that technology studies will have to reckon with in a
paradigm of its own.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><img src="http://editors.cis-india.org/home-images/Bund/image_preview" alt="Shanghai Bund" class="image-right" title="Shanghai Bund" /></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">And so strong is this seduction
of technology that conversations about technology and its place in Shanghai,
always revolves around the surface – about the building of the surface, about
the dissolution of depth (temporal or spatial),
and about imagining the city only in terms of light, connectivity, and
speed. So that the historicity in PuXi
becomes a flat display of the Chinese Way (Zhongguo Fangshi) and the
work-in-progress present in PuDong remains a quest for the future. In this split discourse, the questions and concerns - about governance, about citizenship, about regulation, about cultural production and political negotiation - become invisible. Like the buildings, which get guised in digital cloaks, the questions that pressingly need to be asked but are always postponed, also get cloaked in the rhetoric of development propelled by ICTs and globalisation. In a city that was constructed to eternally deflect attention, ownership or voices, how does one begin to scratch at the surfaces (Literally and figuratively) to search for something more than narratives of consumption, solipsist self-gratification, and self-congratulatory development?</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">It is with this agenda, in this city, torn and
marked and seamlessly stitched by technology, that I start to unravel my
questions about Internet and Society in China, trying to look at relationships
between technologies, city spaces and identities, drawing from seven months spent
at the Centre for Contemporary Studies at the Shanghai University. These stories, written with retrospective memory and embellished by the privilege of
hindsight, posit a set of questions about Internet technologies, construction
of city spaces, and manifestation of identities in China, but especially in
Shanghai, to locate potentials of social transformation, political
participation, engagement and discourse, which has not been transplanted on
technology studies in China. In the process it also lays down a framework to
understand how, in an oppressive or authoritarian regime, the cultural becomes
the grounds upon which foundations of new political intervention and social
change can be built.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">This blog, in its ten different
entries, relies on academic and popular discourse, semi-structured interviews,
participant observation, field work, conversations, and personal experiences that
I collected in my stay there, trying to deal with the double translations of
culture and language. Whenever I have been unsure – and those moments have been
many – I have tried to discuss and debate ideas with colleagues, friends, peers
and participants, to ensure that the observations or arguments are qualified by
more than just a neo-colonial meaning making sensibilities. Despite that rigour, if faults remain, they
are all mine, and hopefully will serve as points of entry into a fruitful
discourse.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/research/grants/the-promise-of-invisibility-technology-and-the-city/itcity'>http://editors.cis-india.org/research/grants/the-promise-of-invisibility-technology-and-the-city/itcity</a>
</p>
No publishernishantCyberspaceinternet and societyShanghaiICT4DDigital NativesCyberculturesDigital subjectivitiesIT Cities2009-09-18T10:45:27ZBlog Entry