This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 PARIS 001007 
 
SIPDIS 
 
FROM USMISSION UNESCO PARIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
 
E.O. 12958:    N/A 
TAGS: KPAO ECPS ETRD ECON EINT ETTC UNESCO
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