“The Bill Gates Problem…” by Tim Schwab

Whenever I mention my criticisms of Bill Gates and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, I am usually met with quizzical looks, and in some instances by downright disbelief. Now I know I am not alone. Tim Schwab’s really excellent new book The Bill Gates Problem: Reckoning with the Myth of the Good Billionaire (Penguin Business, 2023) provides a detailed and rigorous account of why we all need to be concerned about the harm caused by Gates, and others like him (those I frequently refer to as The Digital Barons). It is essential reading for anyone who has received, or is considering applying for, funding from the Gates Foundation. Although the book is not without its problems, and it should be noted that the right wing (and digital) press has been far less generous than I am about it (see, for example, reviews by Ben Wright and David Enrich), it is a timely and salutary account of why Gates’ work has been so hugely problematic for “international development” and in particular for the lives of the world’s poorest and most marginalised communities.

I have long been critical of Gates, but have only occasionally written or spoken in any detail about the reasons for this. The publication of Schwab’s book provides a catalyst for me to articulate my own concerns, and compare them briefly with some of Schwab’s very apposite observations.

A problem with Microsoft

I confess that I have never particularly liked Microsoft’s products, and ever since the mid-1980s I have always purchased Apple devices and software (apart from also using Linux and Open Office). Originally, I think this was probably because I was beguiled by the slightly anarchic image of Apple’s products at that time, and because they just seemed easier and more intuitive to use. I have so often found Microsoft’s products (especially software such as Excel, Sharepoint and Teams) to be so clunky and counter-intuitive! To be fair, I increasingly now also have serious concerns over Apple’s business model, especially with respect to their environmental impact, right to repair issues, and cost, but I must be open about my early bias against Microsoft. That having been noted, I nevertheless retain some very good friends who have worked, or are indeed still working, within Microsoft.

My main criticisms of Microsoft in the 1980s and 1990s tended to be at quite an abstract level: that it seemed to be trying to create a global monopoly of operating systems and generic “office” software; that it was proprietary and “closed”; that it was too expensive for the world’s poorest to use (which is why there were so many pirated versions of its software in circulation across the world); that it was primarily a sales-led company; and that it was generating very large profits, often at the expense of those who could little afford it. These profits provided the foundation for Gates’ enormous wealth. To put this into perspective, Gates’ total net worth according to Forbes in 2023 was around $134 billion, although the actual amount he has earnt from Microsoft is impossible to calculate. According to the World Bank, only 60 countries in the world in 2022 had an annual GDP of more than this. Gates’ total wealth was about the same as the annual GDP produced by Morocco in 2022, and was more than that of countries such as Ethiopia ($127 billion) and the Slovak Republic ($115 billion), let alone the remaining 140 countries of the world who generated very much less.

At a more theoretical level, my intellectual background in Marxist theory, the Critical Theory of the Frankfurt School (especially that of Jürgen Habermas – see my The Place of Geography, 1992), my commitment to reducing global inequalities, and my concerns with the increasingly dominant power of US Imperialism (and “American Exceptionalism”) all no doubt also helped to shape my opinions about Microsoft.

In the early 2000s, I had the privilege to lead Tony Blair’s Imfundo initiative based with the UK’s Department for International Development (DFID), which was charged with creating partnerships to use ICTs for education in Africa. This brought me face to face in a very practical way with the harsh realities of the enormous inequalities that exist across the world, and how digital technologies might be used to reduce these. Microsoft’s business model did not sit well with our practice, and guided especially by my colleagues Bas Kotterink and Jason Monty we became proud advocates of Open Source “solutions” and the use of thin client Linux systems in Africa. I fondly recall the energy and enthusiasm of people such as Ed Holcroft (NetDay) and Shafika Isaacs (SchoolNet Africa) who contributed so passionately to this work, and also the commitment of private sector companies such as Cisco, Virgin and Marconi who seconded staff to work with us. Since my earliest research in rural India in the mid-1970s I had argued that “development” should be more about reducing inequalities than about increasing economic growth. My work with Imfundo convinced me even more of this “truth” (see my No end to poverty, 2007).

Working in DFID at that time also made me acutely aware of changes taking place in the global structuring of Official Development Assistance (ODA), particularly the role of Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs; see IMF and World Bank, 2001), and the Paris Declaration, (2005) and Accra Agenda for Action (2008) (see OECD). I felt that things were beginning to change, and that the global donor community was at last repositioning itself to try to work collaboratively with, and more in the interests of the world’s poorest countries. I have absolutely no doubt that many of the then senior leadership team within DFID believed in this agenda. Hence, I could not help but feel that private foundations that could do what they wanted undermined the ongoing global efforts towards responding to the real needs of poor people and countries, rather than imposing our own ideologies and practices on them. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (created in 2000 from the merger of the William H Gates Foundation formed in 1994 and the Gates Learning Foundation) was thus hugely problematic to me in its conceptualisation. Whilst I can understand the founders’ desire to do something different about poverty and try to overcome many of the long-standing problems of “aid”, it struck me that to create what seemed to be a parallel system was only going to make matters worse. From talking with colleagues at DFID working in the health sector, I also became all the more convinced of these distortions through the negative impacts of Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, that had been created in 2000 with substantial support from Gates.

Meeting Bill Gates

In 2009 I had the opportunity as part of a small group of people working in the field of ICTs and development to meet with Bill Gates. I remember greatly looking forward to this opportunity to discuss some of my experiences with him, to explore why he had not yet really supported the use of digital tech in “development”, and to try to persuade him of the potential for Microsoft to use its considerable expertise to do “good” in the world through digital tech. Most of the people at the meeting seemed to be completely in awe of Gates. Perhaps my own enthusiasm at this opportunity served to fuel the sense of disillusionment and disappointement that I felt afterwards. 

He was so arrogant; he did not brook any real discussion. He swiftly closed down any attempt to engage in critique. He just wanted us to accept what he said as being “the truth”. He conveyed the impression that because he had been successful in business it was only right and proper that he should know how to solve poverty. He seemed to know very little about the actuality of the lives of the world’s poor. He implied that he had a right to try to change the world in his own image because of his success and wealth. He appeared to have no comprehension at all that digital tech drives global inequalities and its use can cause immense harm. In short, I found the brief meeting to be extraordinary and disappointing. 

Despite this, having heard that he was an avid reader, I remember arranging for my recent edited book on ICT4D to be sent to him in the naïve expectation that he might read it and learn something. Unsurprisingly, I never heard back…

I have often thought about this encounter, not least because it fundamentally influenced my subsequent attitudes to both him and his Foundation. At the centre of my concerns was that Bill Gates is funding development practices based primarily on his own (flawed) vision of the economic growth model, with apparently little understanding of the impacts that this has on inequality and its negative effects on the lives of many of the world’s poorest people – especially with respect to the use of digital tech. I was therefore delighted to read such similar thoughts in Tim Schwab’s critique in The Bill Gates Problem (pagination from 2023 Penguin Business edition):

• The Foundation is “… an institution that thrives on the grotesque economic inequalities that govern the globe, that counts on the rest of us to be too poor or too stupid to say no to its largesse” (p.18).
• “Why have we allowed Bill Gates to take so much power from us for so long”? (p.19).
• “The simple fact is Bill Gates doesn’t have expertise, training, or education in most of the topics where he asserts it” (p.127).
• “While Bill Gates is widely celebrated as the most generous man on earth, during his tenure as the world’s leading philanthropic donor, he has managed to nearly double his personal wealth” (p.178).
• “Bill Gates’s public persona is very much wrapped up in his identity, as a businessman and then as a philanthropist. But underpinning his success, in Gates’s own mind, is his superior intelligence” and “most journalists have embraced the Gates-as-genius narrative” (p.202).
• “Giving away money is not supposed to magnify the asymmetries in power that govern society, but to collapse them. And this is precisely why, in many respects, Bill Gates mght be better described as a misanthrope – if he does not hate his fellow man, then he certainly views himself as superior” (pp.242-3).

These are just a tiny sample of the content and style of Schwab’s critique, but based on my brief conversation with Bill Gates, and listening to some of Gates’ wider rhetoric, they resonate completely with my own experience and understanding. To be sure, Schwab does not sufficiently justify his own position, and has been widely criticised for his anti-capitalist stance, for his claims around neo-colonialism, for over-generalising based on scant evidence (despite the book’s 104 pages of detailed supporting notes), and above all for not proffering an alternative vision for the future. I would also add to these criticisms that the book is written very much from a USA’n perspective in which the voices of the world’s poor are largely, although not completely, absent. However, this was not his point in writing the book, which was above all else to lay bare some of the evidence and contradictions concerning Gates’ life, his business tactics, his political influence, his philanthropy and his exercise of power without accountability.

And the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

The Gates Foundation has been built largely on Bill Gates’ own ideology, experience and practice, and it closely reflects his own approach to business and power. I have always found it difficult to accept the comments from people I have spoken with who work in or near to the Foundation who deny this, and who claim that Gates only provides the funding and lets them get on with delivering the development. It was therefore very refreshing to read Schwab’s detailed account of the ways through which Gates does indeed influence the policies and practices of the Foundation. At the most basic level, people who are critical of the approach and style of Gates and his Foundation are unlikely to apply to work there, let alone be appointed. However, even I was surprised at the extent of Schwab’s revelations about the levels of secrecy and control that pervade the Foundation for those who are indeed employed there. A real problem for anyone wanting to find out about the Foundation is that so few people are willing to speak truthfully on the record about it, and it may be that not everything Schwab suggests is therefore recognisable to its employees, or to those who are so eager to accept its funding. However, the overall thrust of his argument again seems to accord with my own experiences and those of people I know who have worked with the Gates Foundation.

The most important issue for me is the way that the Gates Foundation seeks to provide direction, or control, over the individuals and organisations that it funds. However, it is not a sine qua non that all foundations should necessarily behave in the same way. One of the potentially valuable things about non-governmental funding (be it through foundations or charitable trusts) is that it can be a bit anarchic and its recipients need not necessarily be tied by the parameters and reporting mechanisms required through tradiutional bilateral aid systems. Mackenzie Scott (former wife of Jeff Bezos of Amazon fame), for example, has a notoriously hands-off, trust-based approach that has raised many eyebrows amongst traditional philanthropists, in part because of her aversion to micromanagement (Candid, 2023; the Chronicle of Philanthropy). Her style is very far removed from that of Bill Gates.

I have often thought that the Gates Foundation is a bit like like a virus that gets inside an organisation in which is it interested, and then seeks to control it. This comparison has always struck me as being appropriate, not least because of the Gates Foundation’s strong support for vaccines and several of the large pharmaceutical companies. I have never therefore sought funding from Gates, and one of the reasons why I resigned from my role as Chair of the Intellectual Leadership Team and Non-Executive Director of the DFID and World Bank funded EdTech Hub in 2019 was because the Gates Foundation was also about to become one of its funders. I saw the writing on the wall, and was not willing to be party to this decision.

In conclusion: please never accept funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

I have written this post for two main reasons: first to encourage others to read Tim Schwab’s accomplished book to help them make up their own minds as to whether or not Gates is indeed a “good billionaire”; and second to try to encourage anyone thinking of applying for funding from the Gates Foundation to think again. In a very practical sense, the best way to decompose and decapacitate the Gates Foundation is to refuse knowingly to accept its funding. I add the word “knowingly” because it is often difficult to tell exactly where research funding comes from. This will be difficult for many organisations and researchers because of the extent that they already rely upon the Foundation for support. But is not that itself an indication of how dangerous the Foundation actually is? The Foundation will cease to exist in its present form if no-one is willing to accept its tarnished money. Do we really want a world built in the image of Bill Gates? If not, we need to work consciously and assiduously to undermine what the Foundation is trying to do, and take apart the power structures that it has created. Above all we need to forge a new development discourse built around reducing inequalities rather than maximising economic growth.

Let me leave the last word to Tim Schwab with the closing words of his book:

Billionaire philanthropy, as practiced by someone like Gates, preys on our cultural biases to disguise its influence. It makes us believe that a billionaire’s giving away his vast fortune is an unimpeachable act of charity that must be exalted, rather than a tool of power and control that must be challenged.

Tim Schwab (2023) The Bill Gates Problem: Reckoning with the Myth of the Good Billionaire (Penguin Business) p.362.

Digital and Youth: participating in World Data Forum side event in Macau

It was a great honour to be asked by a group of young Chinese interns at the United Nations University Institute in Macau to give a short keynote address at the hybrid event that they were organising from there on 30th April in partnership with The Institute for AI International Governance of Tsinghua University (I-AIIG), forming part of the World Data Forum satellite event being convened by the Institute in the city of Macau. As their introduction to the event summarised:

The younger generation are often seen as digital natives who have more exposure and access to data technology than older generations. They are also more likely to use data technology for learning, innovation, participation and empowerment. However, this also means that they face unique opportunities and challenges related to data that need to be explored and addressed.
As the satellite event of this year’s World Data Forum, this youth forum will take “Digital and Youth” as the main theme, adhere to youth leadership and youth participation, aiming to provide a platform for dialogue and exchange among different stakeholders who are interested in or affected by data and its impact on youth.

In the brief 15 minutes available, I chose to focus on three proposals:

• We need new, more inclusive modes of inter-generational dialogue about digital
• Just because it is possible to do something, does not mean that it is right or good to do so.
  • Digital tech is all too often assumed to be inherently good – but we need to mitigate the harms to ensure any good can prevail
• We must all consider the environmental impact of data, and digital tech more widely. 
  • Digital tech is often the cause of environmental harms rather than a solution

The full presentation (in .pdf format is available at Data and Youth.

The event was great fun, and the organisers had brought together many leading young academics from across China working on digital tech in general, and data in particular, divided into four main sessions:

• Youth Work on Digital Humanities in Empowering the Cultural Legacy
• Digital technology and Wellness
• Artificial Intelligence Cutting Edge
• Personal Information Protection and Data Security Governance

Many thanks to everyone involved for making this such an interesting and enjoyable experience.

Environmental impact of digital tech: spectrum environmental efficiency

It was a real pleasure to join the Wireless World Research Forum’s (WWRF) 47th meeting held at the University of Bristol today, where at the invitation of Knud Erik Souby I presented a short paper entitled “Environmental impact of digital tech: spectrum environmental efficiency“. This provided a broad introduction to the reseach agenda of the Digital Environment System Coalition (DESC) Working Group on spectrum environmental efficiency.

In essence, the paper

• emphasised the substantial amount of existing research on spectrum efficiency and energy efficiency;
• highlighted the lack of existing research on “spectrum environmental efficiency” (rather than just on energy);
• reflected on the observation that, although 5G is widely seen as being more energy efficient, the total increase in traffic (and sensors) means that 5G systems as a whole require more energy than was the case with previous wireless generations;
• emphasised the importance of future wireless generations being designed to reduce environmental harms;
• outlined aspects of the future research agenda of the working group, including:
  • always taking environmental considerations (not just climate and energy) into our research practice;
  • what are environmental implications of using different parts of the spectrum?
  • how do different masts/antennae impact the environment?
  • new ways of assessing landscape impact
  • environmental implications of sensor network
  • recommendations for good practices by telecom/wireless companies – and regulators
  • helping develop a toolkit for the UN Partner2Connect digital coalition
  • how can future wireless generations minimise environmental harms?
  • links with DESC working group on satellites and outer space (with UNOOSA involvement);
• recognised the importance of listening to and understanding alternative/indigenous knowledges about the environment (and digital tech);
• noted that the WWRF is a formal partner of DESC; and
• invited members of the WWRF, and especially those from the private sector, to join DESC and contribute to our future work.

Academic perspectives on WSIS and the SDGs, WSIS 2022

It was a great pleasure to have been invited to contribute as a panellist to Session 406 of the WSIS Annual Forum on 2nd June 2022 on the theme of “Academic perspectives on WSIS and the SDGs”. This was a hybrid event, and as the picture below shows it was sadly not attended by very many people actually in Geneva! (Follow this link for my short, full presentation.)

However there was active participation online, and it was good to share some reflections on the theme. As ever, I tried to be diplomatically provocative, reflecting on my participation in the original World Summit on the Information Society in Geneva (2003) and Tunisia (2005)…

… as well as on many occasions since at the WSIS annual forums, especially when in 2019 I changed WSIS to MISS in front of my good friend Houlin Zhao the Secretary General of the ITU:

My presentation in particular emphasised the important need for the UN system to stop replicating and duplicating its efforts to use ICTs for “development” (or should this read “to serve the interests of the rich and powerful” especially the “digital barons“?); it is striking and sad, for example, that the UN Secretary General’s Roadmap for digital cooperation and Our Common Agenda make no mentions at all of the WSIS process.

My main argument was that with only eight years to go, it is essential that we start planning now for what will replace the SDGs, especially with respect to the uses of digital tech.

I did, though, also address to other themes: how academics can indeed benefit from the WSIS process (see below) as well as a short introduction to the work that we are now doing as part of the Digital-Environment System Coalition (DESC).

Follow this link for my short, full presentation.

Freedom, enslavement and the digital barons: a thought experiment

It was a delight and a challenge to have the opportunity earlier today to present a keynote for this year’s IFIP 9.4 conference on Freedom and Social Inclusion in a Connected World in the form of a thought experiment on the topic of “Freedom, enslavement and the digital barons“.

My main aim was to explore how thinking about the “unfree” can help us better understand the intersection between freedom and digital tech. In particular I focused on five main themes: some of the ways in which academics have previously considered the concept of freedom within the field of Information and Communication Technologies for Development (ICT4D); ways of understanding “unfreedom”; six examples of digital enslavement; the relationships between freedom, rights and responsibilities; and the ways in which people in general and academics in particular can resist enslavement by the digital barons.

The examples of digital enslavement that I briefly explored were:

• Digital addiction
• We are the data
• Governments enforcing use of digital systems for government services
• Labour exploitation (through extending the working week)
• Digital poverty and education
• Digital tech contributing to modern slavery

Time precluded the inclusion of several other forms of enslavement that I might have considered. Drawing on my medievalist backgroung, I was especially interested in the role and interests of the Digital Barons.

In part, this keynote drew on arguments that I have previously addressed in more detail in

• Prolegomena on Human Rights and Responsibilities
• The advantages of being unconnected to the Internet: a thought experiment
• Reclaiming ICT4D

I also made it clear that appropriately designed digital tech can be used to great advantage by poor and marginalised communities, although given the theme of the confernce I concentrated exclusively on “digital enslavement” and the role of the “digital barons”.

The full slide deck (in .pdf format) is available here without the transitions and animations. It also omits the subtitles in Spanish that were included for our colleagues in Peru who had originally been planning to host us in person.

Inter Islamic Network on IT and COMSATS University workshop on ICT for Development: Mainstreaming the Marginalised

The 3rd ICT4D workshop convened by the Inter Islamic Network on IT (INIT) and COMSATS University in Islamabad, and supported by the UNESCO Chair in ICT4D (Royal Holloway, University of London) and the Ministry of IT and Telecom in Pakistan on the theme of Mainstreaming the Marginalised was held at the Ramada Hotel in Islamabad on 28th and 29th January 2020.  This was a very valuable opportunity for academics, government officials, companies, civil society organisations and donors in Pakistan to come together to discuss practical ways through which digital technologies can be used to support  economic, social and political changes that will benefit the poorest and most marginalised.  The event was remarkable for its diveristy of participants, not only across sectors but also in terms of the diversity of abilities, age, and gender represented.  It was a very real pleasure to participate in and support this workshop, which built on the previous ones we held in Islamabd in 2016 and 2017.

The inaugural session included addresses by Prof Dr Raheel Qamar (President INIT and Rector COMSATS University, Islamabad), Mr. Shoaib Ahmed Siddiqui (Federal Secretary Ministry of IT & Telecom) and Dr. Tahir Naeem (Executive Director, INIT), as well as my short keynote on Digital Technologies, Climate Change and Sustainability.  This was followed by six technical sessions spread over two days:

• Future of learning and technology
• Policy to practice: barriers and challenges
• Awareness and inclusion: strategizing through technology
• Accessibility and Technology: overcoming barriers
• Reskilling the marginalised: understandng role reversals
• Technical provisio: indigenisation for local needs.

These sessions included a wide diversity of activities, ranging from panel sessions, practical demonstrations, and mind-mapping exercises, and there were plenty of opportunities for detailed discussions and networking.

Highlights for me amongst the many excellent presentations included:

• Recollections by Prof Abdful Mannan and Prof Ilyas Ahmed of the struggles faced by people with disabilities in getting their issues acknowledged by others in society, and of the work that they and many others have been doing to support those with a wide range of disabilities here in Pakistan
• The inspirational presentations by Julius Sweetland of his freely available Open Source Optikey software enabling those with multiple disbilities to use only their eyes to write and control a keyboard
• Meeting the young people with Shastia Kazmi (Vision 21 and Founder of Little Hands), who have gained confidence and expertise through her work and are such an inspiration to us all in continuing our work to help some of the pooorest and most marginalised to be empowered through digital technologies.
• The very dynamic discussions around practical actions that we can all take to enable more inclusive use of  digital technologies (mindmaps of these available below)
  • How can we best change men’s attitudes and behaviours so that gender digital equality improves in Pakistan?
  • How can digital technologies be used better to support learning in deprived contexts?

Enormous thanks must go to Dr. Tahir Naeem (COMSATS University and Executive Director of INIT) and his team, especially Dr. Akber Gardezi and Atiq-ur-Rehman, for all that they did to make this event such a success.

A shortened version of this workshop was also subsequently held on Monday 3rd February at the University of Sindh in Jamshoro, thanks to the support and facilitation of Dr. Mukesh Khatwani (Director of the Area Study Centre for Far East and Southeast Asia) and his colleagues.  This also focused on the practical ways through which some of the most marginalised can benefit from the appropriate use of digital technologies, and it was once again good to have the strong involvement of persons with disabilities.

Quick links to workshop materials and outputs:

• My short keynote on Digital Technologies, Climate Change and Sustainability given at both workshops.
• Introduction to Technical Session I. The future of learning and technology: understanding the deprived context.
• Introduction to Technical Session III. Awareness and inclusion: strategising through technology.
• Introduction to Technical Session IV.  Accessibility and technology: overcoming barriers.
• Introduction to Technical Session V. Reskilling the marginalised: women and technology.
• Mindmap of workshop discussion on How can we best change men’s attitudes and behaviours so that gender digital equality improves in Pakistan?
• Mindmap of workshop discussion on How can digital technologies be used better to support learning in deprived contexts?

 

Reflections on IGF 2019 in Berlin

High Level Session on Internet Governance at IGF 2019

I have been quite critical of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) process in the past, arguing that it was created essentially as a talking shop and a palliative to civil society following the original WSIS meetings in 2003 and 2005 (for details see my Reclaiming ICT4D, OUP, 2017), and that it has subsequently achieved rather little of substance.  I still retain the view that there are far too many “global” ICT4D gatherings that overlap and duplicate each other, without making a substantial positive difference to the lives of the poorest and most marginalised.  Likewise, I have been hugely critical of the creation and work of the UN Secretary General’s High-Level Panel on Digital Cooperation (HLPDC), despite having several good friends who have been involved in trying to manage this process (see the UNESCO Chair in ICT4D’s response to the original call for contributions).  I retain the view that it is poorly conceived, duplicates other initiatives, and will again have little positive impact on the lives of the poorest and most marginalised.

So, it was with much interest that I arrived at the IGF in Berlin on 25th November in response to three invitations: to participate in a session on ICTs for people with disabilities, to support colleagues involved in the EQUALS initiative intended to increase gender digital equality, and also to participate in a side event on Many Worlds.  Many Nets.  Many Visions, for which I had contributed a short piece on our TEQtogether initiative designed to change men’s attitudes and behaviours towards women and technology.  To this end, it is salient to note the largely elderly white male dominance on the key opening plenary panel on the future of Internet governance shown in the picture above – more on that later!  I had many interesting discussions during the week, but want here to share five main reflections and challenges in the hope that they will provoke dialogue and discussion.

IGF (plus?)…

Water Station at IGF 2019

It was rumoured that the German government had put aside some €10 million to cover the costs of this year’s IGF.  Whilst that may well be an exaggeration we were certainly hosted in great luxury, and it would be churlish not to thank the German government for their generous hospitality.  In compliance with increasing concerns over plastic and climate change, there was even a very impressive water station in the exhibition area!  They had also done much to encourage the participation of many quite young people, and to get the gender balance better than at some similar digital technology events in the past.  The IGF 2019 outputs are already available and make interesting reading.

UN SG speaking in IGF 2019 Opening Ceremony

However, I was struck by the relative absence of people from China, India and Russia, as well as from many of the poorer countries of the world who were unable to afford the travel costs or who had difficulties in obtaining visas.  This absence set me thinking of the wider global geopolitical interests involved in the IGF process.  At a time when the ITU is unfortunately being increasingly criticised by North American and European countries for being too heavily in the pocket of Chinese organisations and companies (recent criticism of China’s efforts to influence global standards on facial recognition is but one small example), free-market capitalist governments have turned ever more to the IGF as the main forum for their engagement on Internet issues.

Angela Merkel in IGF 2019 Opening Ceremony

The theme of this year’s IGF One World.  One Net.  One Vision. says it all (and hence why I was so eager to be involved in the innovative and creative Many Worlds. Many Nets.  Many Visions initiative).  The IGF is about maintaining a unitary free open Internet in the face of perceived attempts by countries such as China and Russia to fragment the Internet.  It is no coincidence that next year’s IGF is in another European country, Poland, and that the last two IGFs have been in France and Switzerland.  The messages of the UN Secretary General and the German Chancellor (shown in the images above) were equally forceful about the kind of Internet that they want to see.

Moreover, this hidden war over the future of the Internet is also being played out through the HLPDC process which has suggested that there are three possible architectures for digital cooperation.  The presence of such high-level participants at this year’s IGF very much conveyed the impression that the IGF Plus option is the one that they prefer as the main forum for policy making over the Internet in the future.  This is scarcely surprising: all but two (one Chinese and one Russian) of the 20 members of the HLPDC Panel and Co-chairs are from free-market capitalist-inclined countries; 8 of the 20 are from the USA and Europe.

The sale of .org by ISOC to Ethos Capital

Another major issue that raised its head during this year’s IGF was the very controversial sale by the Internet Society (ISOC) of its non-profit Public Internet Registry (PIR) which had previously managed the top-level domain .org to a for-profit company, Ethos Capital, for the sum of $1.135 bn.

Key elements of the controversy that were widely mentioned during the IGF, and are well summarised by The Registry, include:

• ISOC’s decision under a new CEO to shift its financial structure from benefitting from the variable profits derived from .org to creating a foundation from which it would then use the interest to fund the activities of its various chapters (the new Internet Society Foundation was created in February 2019);
• The lifting of the cap announced in May 2019 by ICANN on prices of .org domain names, which would enable the owner of the .org registry to impose unlimited price rises for the 10 million .org domain name owners; and
• The observation that the former CEO of ICANN had personally registered the domain name used by Ethos Capital only the day after the cap had been lifted (it appears that he and a small number of his close affililates linked to ICANN are the only people involved in Ethos Capital) .

The lack of transparency over this entire process, and the potential for significant profits to be gained by certain individuals from these changes have given rise to huge concerns, especially among civil society organisations that use .org domain names.  As a recent article in The Register concludes, “The deal developed by former ICANN CEO Chehade is worth billions of dollars. With that much money at stake, and with a longstanding non-profit registry turned into a for-profit with unlimited ability to raise prices, the internet community has started demanding answers to who knew what and when”.

Inclusion, accessibility and people with disabilities…

Absence of people in IGF 2019 Main Hall for High Level Session on Inclusion

It was good to see a considerable number of sessions devoted to inclusion, accessibility and people with disabilities at this year’s IGF.  However, it was sad to see how relatively poorly attended so many of these sessions were.  The exodus from the Main Hall between the High Level Session on the Future of Internet Governance and the High Level Session on Inclusion, for example, was very noticeable.  The content of most of these sessions on disabilities and inclusion was generally interesting, and it is just such a shame that the wider digital community still fails to grasp that digital technologies will increase the marginalisation of those with disabilities unless all such technologies are designed as far as is reasonably possible to be inclusive in the first place.  Assistive technologies can indeed make a very significant difference to the lives of people with disabilities, but such persons should not have to pay more for them to counter the increased marginalisation that they face when many non-inclusive new technologies are introduced.

IGF 2019 Session WS#64 on empowering persons with disabilities

I was, though, hugely challenged by my own participation in one of these sessions.  Having been invited by Brian Scarpelli to be the penultimate speaker in a session that he had convened on Internet Accessibility Empowering Persons with Disabilities (WS #64), I just felt that it needed a little livening up by the time it was my turn to speak.  I therefore decided to take a roving microphone, and did my presentation walking around inside the cage of desks around which everyone was seated.  I wanted to engage with the “audience” several of whom did indeed have disabilities, and I tried hard to involve them by, for example, describing myself and the venue for those who were blind.  The audience seemed to welcome this, and I had felt that I had got my messages across reasonably well.  Afterwards, though, someone who is autistic came up to me and in the nicest way berated me for having walked around.  She said that the movement had distressed her, and made it difficult for her to follow what I was saying.  She suggested that in the future I should stay still when doing presentations.

This presented me with a real challenge, since I have been encouraged all my life to deliver presentations as a performance – using my whole body to engage with the audience to try to convince them of my ideas.  So, what should we do when making presentations to an audience of such varied abilities?  Can we cater for them all? Clearly, I don’t want to upset those with one disability.  Should I ask if anyone in an audience minds if I walk around?  But then, someone with autism might well not want to speak out and say that they did actually mind?  Should the preference of one person with a disability over-ride the preferences of the remaining 49 people in a room?  There is no easy answer to these questions, but I would greatly value advice from those more familiar with such challenges than I am.

Exclusion in the midst of diversity: being an elderly, white, grey-haired, European man…

“Many Worlds. Many Nets. Many Visions” gathering held during IGF 2019 at HIIG

Far too many international events associated with digital technologies continue to be excessively male dominated, and it was refreshing to see the considerable gender diversity evident at IGF 2019.  Despite this, as noted above, several panels did remain very “male”!  It was therefore very refreshing to participate in the Many Worlds.  Many Nets.  Many Visions side event held at the Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society (HIIG), and congratulations should once again be given to Matthias Kettemann and Katharina Mosene for putting this exciting and challenging initiative together.

Reflecting on the various gender-related events held during and around IGF 2019, though, has made me very uneasy.  I was particularly struck by the frequency with which presenters advocating plurality and diversity of ideas, behaviours, and self-identification, nevertheless also seemed to castigate, and even demonise one particular group of people as being, in effect, the “enemy”.  That group is the group that others see me as belonging to: elderly/middle-aged, white, grey-haired, European (and let’s add north American and Oceanian as well), men!  Perhaps it was just in the sessions that I attended, but over and over again this group was seen as being oppressive, the main cause of gender digital inequality, and those who are to be fought against.  The language reminded me very much of some of the feminist meetings that I attended back in the 1970s.

I was surprised, though, how sad this made me feel.  Some elderly, white, grey-haired, European (etc.) men have indeed worked over many decades to help change social attitudes and behaviours at the interface between women and technology.  This group is not uniform!  Some have written at length about these issues; some have helped implement programmes to try to make a real difference on the ground.  To be sure, we need to continue to do much more to change men’s attitudes and behaviours;  TEQtogether has been set up to do just this.  What upset me most, though, is that these efforts were rarely recognised by those who were so critical of  this particular “uniform” group.  Too often, all elderly, white, grey-haired, European (etc.) men seemed to be lumped together in a single group by those very people who were calling for recognition of the importance of diversity and multiple identities. There is a sad irony here.  Perhaps it is time for me just to grow old gracefully…

It was therefore amazingly humbling that, almost at the end of the EQUALS in Tech awards, a young woman who I had never met before, came up to me and simply said thank you.  Someone had told her what one elderly, white, grey-haired, European (etc.) man had tried to do over the last 40 years or so…  I wonder if she has any idea of just how much those few words meant to me.

Novelty and learning from the past

Poster about sexual exploitation of children, Ethiopia, 2002

Finally, the 2019 IGF re-emphasised my concerns over the claims of novelty by people discovering the complexity of the inter-relationships between technology and society.  All too often speakers were claiming things that had actually been said and done twenty or more years ago as being new  ideas of their own.  This was typified by a fascinating session on Sex Work, Drug Use, Harm Reduction, and the Internet (WS 389).  Whilst this is indeed a very important topic, and one that should be addressed in considerably more detail, few of the presenters made any reference to past work on the subject, or appeared to have made much attempt to learn from previous research and practice in the field.  Back in the early 2000s, for example, the Imfundo initiative had spent time identifying how “bar girls” in Ethiopia might have been able to use digital technologies that were novel then to help transform their lives and gain new and better jobs.  I wonder how many people attending Session WS 389 were at all aware of the complex ethical questions and difficulties surrounding the conduct of research and practice on this topic that the Imfundo team had explored all those years ago.  There were important lessons to be learnt, and yet instead the wheel seems to be being reinvented over and over again.

This example was not isolated, and a recurrent feature of the field of ICT for Development is that people so rarely seem to learn from mistakes of the past, and everyone wants to claim novelty for ideas that have already been thoroughly explored elsewhere.  I  must write at length some time about the reasons why this seems to happen so often…

---

Finally, the artists who created this image of Berlin from tape during IGF 2019 deserve to be congratulated on their amazing work!

Artwork of Berlin made in tape, 25th November

Artwork of Berlin made in tape, 29th November

IGF 2019 WS #64 Internet Accessibility Empowering Persons with Disabilities

Visually impaired girl using Braille in Tunisia

I’m so glad to have been invited to contibute to the session on Internet Accessibility Empowering Persons With Disabilities at this year’s Internet Governance Forum Meeting in Berlin (Wednesday 27th November, 1500-1650 CET in Room IV of the Estrel Congress Center, Sonnenallee 225, 12057 Berlin).

Hopefully, the introductory pieces by all of the speakers will be short, so that we can have a lively discussion.  I am speaking last, so previous speakers will probably have made all of the important points! However, for those unable to attend, this is what I am hoping to say:

I would like to use this opportunity to make four brief points:

First, unless universal inclusion and accessibility are built into all new digital technologies from the original design stage to end user, they will further increase inequality.  The more and more advanced technologies become, the further they benefit those who can afford and are able to use them, rather than the most marginalised and poorest, especially those with disabilities

Second, it is crucial that we change the design approach mindset so that inclusion becomes of paramount importance for the internet and the use of digital technologies.  This can be done in many ways, but I have always been impressed by the power of the market, and the role that procurement can play, especially by governments and large corporations.

Third, we can all get better at what we do!  I continually get cross with myself that I do not always insert alternative text for all of the images I post on my digital platforms, and in the slide decks that I share of my talks.  It is not good enough, but it takes longer to do, and with a tight schedule I usually forget. I need to do better; we all do.

Finally, and to end on a more optimistic note, of course the design of new digital technologies can indeed be used by people with disabilities to transform their lives.  There are always new things being developed – my latest exciting discovery is OptiKey .  However, we need to do much more to help change developers’ attitudes – and indeed those of the wider tech community.  Smart city technology for example should be being used much more to help the blind and visually impaired.  We must all do more – together with those with disabilities, and not just “for them”.

For more about our work on inclusion and disability, see our small site at Disabilities and ICT4D.

 

 

Drones over the Danube, from Buda to Pest

The Hungarian government arranged an extraordinary drone display last night as part of their generous hospitality for this year’s ITU Telecom World event in Budapest.  I have never seen anything quite like it, and I hope the photos below provide just a glimpse into the technical and artistic success of this occasion.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

So many thoughts sprang to mind!  In the future, drone displays may well take over from fireworks and laser shows!  But more worryingly, just imagine that each drone carried a small explosive payload, that the drones had facial and gait recognition capabilities, and that they were programmed autonomously to track you down…  There are many different futures: we need to ensure that the negatve aspects of digital technologies are mitigated, so that their positive aspects can flourish.

It is without doubt appropriate to thank HE Mr. István Manno, Head of the Protocol Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade of Hungary for his indefatigable work to ensure the strongest possible relationships between the ITU and the Government of Hungary, and especially for all of his efforts to make this evening event such a success.

Participating in the e-Borneo Knowledge Fair 6 held in Ba’Kelalan, 25-27 October 2017

Far too many ICT4D initiative are thought up by the rich and privileged, often, but not always, with the intention of using technology to improve the lives of poor and marginalised peoples.  More often than not, well-intentioned researchers and academics in Europe and north America, or those living in major urban centres of economically poorer countries, try to develop new “solutions” that will help to eliminate poverty or deliver on some aspect of the Sustainable Development Goals agreed by the global elite.  Invariably, they have little understanding of the real needs of poor people or marginalised communities, and all too often such initiatives prove to be unsustainable once the initial funding for them has dissipated.

Some initiatives do, though, run counter to this all too familiar tale of woe.  One of these is the work of the Institute of Social Informatics and Technological Innovations at the Universiti Malaysia Sarawak, which has over many years sought to work with local communities in some of the most isolated areas of Sarawak.  This action research started almost 20 years ago with the creation of the e-Bario telecentre initiative in 1998. It was therefore a real privilege to be invited to give a keynote presentation at their 6th e-Borneo Knowledge Fair, held on the theme of community-based sustainability in Ba’Kelalan from 25-27 October (EBKF6).  The first e-Bario Knowledge Fair was held in 2007, and a decade on the change of name indicates a broadening of its focus beyond the village of Bario to be more inclusive of other initiatives across Borneo.

The central belief underlying these knowledge fairs has been the importance of sharing understandings between communities and researchers in co-creating new knowledge.  In a fundamental reversal of the normal conference format, where participants usually meet in major cities of the world, the e-Bario and now e-Borneo Knowledge Fairs have been held in isolated rural communities, with participating academics being encouraged to learn as much from those living there as the latter do from the conference and workshop speakers.  To emphasise this difference, outside participants were encouraged this year to travel to Ba’Kelalan on a nine-hour journey along roads cut through the forests initially by logging companies.

The knowledge fair consisted mainly of a series of workshops that placed as much emphasis on the views of the inhabitants of Ba’Kelalan and other isolated communities in Malaysia as they did on the experiences and knowledge of outside academics.  Great credit is due to the Co-Chairs of EBKF6, Narayanan Kulathu Ramaiyer and Roger Harris, and their team, for having brought together an amazing group of people.  The pictures below hopefully capture something of the refreshing energy and excitement of these workshops (link here to the official video).  Many things impressed me about them, not least the commitment of all involved to work together collaboratively to focus on delivering solutions to the needs and wants of people living in these very isolated communities, and ensuring that “development” does not irrevocably damage the essential elements of life that they wish  to maintain.  It was also very impressive to see three community healthworkers present, who were offering a free service of health checks (blood pressure and blood sugar levels) for those participating.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

The most important feature of the Sixth e-Borneo Knowledge Fair for me was that it was all about working with isolated communities rather than for them.  I came away  I am sure very much more enriched by the experience than will other participants have been by my keynote!  For those interested in what I had to say, though, the slides from my keynote are available here: Safeguarding the interests of the marginalised: rhetoric and reality of global ICT4D initiatives designed to deliver the SDGs.

Thanks again to everyone involved for making this such a special event!