As ICANN Grows, time to focus on Emerging Markets

By Vika Mpisane and Andrew Mack

[NB, this article, co-written with my friend and colleague Vika Mpisane from South Africa, is currently awaiting publication in Johannesburg]


Today, ICANN -- the international group responsible for managing Internet governance -- is growing and taking on more responsibility than ever before. However, as we saw at the recent ICANN meeting in Mexico City, the system is changing fast. The time is now for ICANN to take a more serious look at the changes, to make sure they don’t disproportionately hurt companies and consumers in developing countries.

For example, the organization is proposing to allow a significant increase in the number of generic Top Level Domains or gTLDs (like .com or .org). On the face of it, good news for consumers. Still as we talked with African and Latin American friends, business owners and consumers in Mexico, they expressed concerns about risks from increased consumer fraud, as criminals hijack trusted brand names, send phishing lures and scams using the new, untested gTLDs. They cited risks from the so-called domainers, who by registering well-known brands in the new gTLDs may force brand owners to pay substantial amounts to protect their brands. And there’s the issue of local country code operators (like .za here in South Africa), who fear that the introduction of a large number of new gTLDs could create a wave of competition they could not survive.

Mexico City participants also shared concerns about the introduction of new internationalized domains, the so-called IDNs. Arabic-speaking delegates and others using non-Latin script expressed concern that their languages were not fully available on the web. They questioned ICANN’s plans to move forward quickly with governments while not moving equally fast in translating the existing gTLDs such as .org or .com. They asked openly if ICANN was taking their languages seriously enough.

Finally, there is the issue of accountability. ICANN is working to become more independent and trying to set its declaration of independence from oversight for the coming year. However, we remain very concerned that independence without oversight is a recipe for disaster. Oversight from the US Department of Commerce is no long term solution, but neither is supervision through the UN – which moves slowly and has no real technical capacity. We need true governance that helps the system grow and works to help everyone harness the educational and economic power of the net.

In Mexico we heard some encouraging talk from Africa’s only Board Member, Katim Touray, about creating a working group specifically focused on the issues of developing nations. This is long overdue. And to be clear, our goal is not to slow down the process of gTLDs or of IDNs – quite the contrary. But we need to get serious. ICANN recently unveiled its study of the economic impact of new gGTLDs… and it doesn’t even mention Africa or Latin America. Clearly, we’ve got to do better.

The Internet is indeed a big part of our future, and it is time for ICANN to pay serious attention to countries like South Africa. They must do the homework to understand the economic and security impact of proposed changes for our citizens and companies. Take our voice into account. Otherwise, all this change will – unwittingly perhaps – serve only to increase the digital divide.

Vika Mpisane is a General Manager at the .za Domain Name Authority, a Board member of the African Top Level Domains (AfTLD), and a new member of the ccNSO Council.

Andrew Mack is Founder and Principal of AMGlobal Consulting, a US-based firm working with companies, governments, and donors, specializing in work with new technologies, technology policy and Africa.

ICANN – Confidence Campaign or Just a Con Game for Emerging Markets?

I work in Washington, and a week and a half ago the ICANN Confidence Campaign came to town.

As theater, it was a pretty impressive event. A near capacity crowd gathered in the hallowed halls of the National Press Club to hear Peter Dengate-Thrush, Paul Twoomey and various ICANN luminaries talk about the group’s plans to improve institutional confidence. The audience – mostly lawyers and policy types – rose one by one to ask about their particular interest areas. The event lasted for hours, bleeding substantially over the allotted time. Certainly the image of “participation”…

However, as the ICANN staffers and advisors explained their plans for the future, I was struck by one overriding question: What does this have to do with the real people who use the Internet for work around the world, especially the small businesses I work with in Emerging Markets?

The answer? Unfortunately, practically nothing.

As you may know, much of ICANN’s justification for “independence” from the US Government (and its strategic plan) is centered around making the institution more international AND more accessible to a wide international audience. Given this, I expected to hear a different tune, maybe even a more practical one as relates to the BILLIONS of future Internet users.

I expected to hear about practical steps to prepare for and bring in the new businesses and consumers around the world that will someday soon be using the Internet. I expected to hear about progress on Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs), the ability to use non-Roman characters such as Chinese script after the dot (as in the Chinese characters for .org). I expected to hear about increased Emerging Market participation in ICANN events, maybe even about ICANN support for Internet Governance activities in places like Africa, where most interested parties simply can’t afford the price of attending ICANN’s thrice-annual jamborees. Finally, and crucially, I expected to hear how ICANN was going to take its successful private sector focus to the next level, building out beyond the OECD to actively address the hopes of small business persons around the globe.

Instead, most of what I heard was, well, crickets… Of the dozens of comments, only ONE about the interests of the users that will make up the future of the net. Hmm…

So, a small businessperson myself, nearly alone amongst the lobbyists, I asked about an issue important to small businesses like mine wanting to work in Emerging Markets, the introduction of new IDN TLDs. It was a simple question: Can ICANN guarantee that IDN gTLDs (the Arabic version of .com or .biz or .edu) would be available at the same time as the IDN ccTLDs (the .eg for Egypt)?

I asked because stuff like this matters to small business. I have friends who have .net or .com in the name of their business. I have friends that have had to go through the administrative nightmare of setting up a web presence in 10+ jurisdictions in Europe, each with its own different regulations and hassles, and simply don’t have the time or money to set up shop in a dozen Arabic-speaking nations just to do online business there. What they want is to compete for the Arabic version of their .com so they can do business with the entire Arabic-speaking world from a single website.

Finally, on a broader level, I asked because, having worked in economic development for many years, I want to see an open, growing e-commerce space, not one dependent on the whims of often business un-friendly governments.

So I asked my question, and as I got ready to ask the ICANN brain trust the broader point about how exactly ICANN’s plans will help the “Rest of the World”… I got cut off. There were other lawyers in line. I got no answer.

In the end, I can’t tell you what will happen with IDN TLDs. And though outreach to the wider world – which I took to mean, silly me, the actual wider world – is supposed to be a major part of the ICANN 5 point plan, I can’t tell you what exactly they’re planning to do, short of trying to set up a “legal presence” in Europe and an office in DC.

They asked for our feedback, and I was trying to give feedback. I suppose it could be worse – if ICANN were not even asking. But I still remain concerned. ICANN’s focus on building its administrative structure seems well-suited to address the needs of its staff. But setting up offices in OECD capitals to help lobby the US and other Governments is a long way from real outreach to the next billion users. And, as I sat in the room with all the suits, I felt farther and farther away from the small businesses that gave – and hopefully will continue to give – the net its vibrancy.

Last week, one week later, I was asked to speak at the Corporate Council on Africa’s Africa Infrastructure Conference – by coincidence just a block or so from the National Press Club. Our panel was all about the explosion of broadband connectivity on the continent, and we discussed, among other things, what changes access will bring to businesses and government.

The panel – composed of government and business leaders – was unanimous: Prices for service are coming down. New tools from low-power, low-cost computers to hopped up cell phones are making access easier every day. High oil prices and poor physical infrastructure make the logic of Internet based growth compelling. And tens of billions of dollars in planned investment suggest that smart investors see a real future for Internet-enabled business in Africa. The Internet is coming to Africa in a big way, and to other parts of the Rest of the World. It will be THE tool for economic and social development in the 21st century.

If ICANN isn’t interested, they should be.

Scrabulous, Scrabble, and Economic Development in South Asia

First published in The Progressive Bangladesh By Andrew Mack

Friday, 25 April 2008

In February I made my first visit to the Subcontinent, in Delhi, for the regional meeting of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, ICANN. In the main hall there were business and government leaders from around the region. At one of the side events an innovative new registry, dot asia, was launched. Everything about the event spoke of economic dynamism and to me, of the benefit of an economic system – and longer term economic growth – built on a strong foundation of Intellectual Property (IP) rights. But most entrepreneurs in South Asia and other Emerging Markets (EMs) are still not fundamentally interested in the IP debate. They do see themselves as authors, or artists, or techies, but they don’t see themselves as IP entrepreneurs. Personally I think this is a tremendous missed opportunity, with long-term implications for economic development. The rolled eyes phenomenon Of course if you get into a discussion of IP protection, many people will roll their eyes. Issues of IP are seen in the negative, largely defined by our nearly universal dislike – and this seems to be a global phenomenon – of lawyers. Add to this the general skepticism about the functioning of the courts in South Asia – and most people back away from IP. However, to my eyes the IP protection debate is not about lawyers at all, but about the very entrepreneurs on whom so much hope is placed. I take as an almost frivolous example the case of the brothers from Calcutta that produced Scrabulous... The Calcutta brothers who made Scrabulous Now in the interest of full disclosure, I am a big Scrabble fan. I love playing. I have the computer game on my PC, and I play a lot. I know enough of the two letter words and obscure words beginning with Q that few of my friends will even play with me any more. The blurring of IP boundaries may not be good for development So you’d think that something like Scrabulous would have real appeal for me. But I think they should close down the program, and the sooner the better. There are a number of reasons, of course, starting most obviously with the idea the brothers are hawking, which isn’t theirs to sell. The fact that Scrabulous is for fun and not for profit is irrelevant. It’s no different than piracy of any sort. If I write a book, it’s mine to sell, or license, or give away as I see fit. Next, you have to consider the Scrabulous phenomenon and ask yourself – is Scrabulous really creating any real value for India? True, in the short term there might be some work for a few lawyers and a PR firm or two. But a few billable hours do not an economic powerhouse make… Plain fun vs economic value Compare Scrabulous with the original board game. Scrabble (the idea, using IP protection) has provided value for 50 years. The developers licensed the name to Hasbro, and again to Mattel. Money made, taxes paid, employment provided—the seeds of economic growth. From there the game spread around the world, long before the existence of the Internet. Again, people were hired in manufacturing and promotion in different countries. The game entered into the world’s consciousness. It was a good idea, made possible in part because of IP protection. Scrabulous, on the other hand, will likely be gone within the year. Not much economic value there for India or the world. There are many in Emerging Markets that get caught up in arguments around the high cost of IP. And its true, some IP – whether music, or film, or software, or whatever – can be costly. However, if we are really focused on building long-term opportunity in Emerging Markets, a short-term focus on the cost of IP misses the point. I often hear that Bill Gates or Madonna (or in the case of Scrabulous, Hasbro) won't miss a few rupees if their IP is pirated. Maybe so. However, there is something much larger at stake. Emerging Markets entrepreneurs and government officials talk frequently about their desire to promote investment and growth and protect their own IP and CP (cultural property). They decry the lack of available finance for growth, and complain that they don’t get the best and latest goods and products. From value to development South Asia, as well as other Emerging Markets, can't seek to create an environment that will promote rapid, information-based, high-skill economic growth while tolerating loose IP standards. Experience shows that you simply can't have it both ways. Why? They simply won’t attract as much investment in the long term. They won’t have the same ability to retain good talent. They won’t be able to build wealth. They won’t build competitiveness. And they won’t be able to and create alliances with companies that can give them access to global markets. So, Emerging Markets need to recognize the role that IP protection can play in economic development, from creating employment, to strengthening the middle class, to ensuring economic independence and cultural preservation. Requisite for the next IP entrepreneur South Asians need to demand the kind of business environment that will help them thrive, and the improvements to the courts that will help them protect and leverage their country’s good ideas. In the words of Sourabh Gupta, a Washington, DC-based Indian trade and development analyst, they need to build “a body of case law that is pro-innovation and pro-IP protection to help underpin their aspirations of upward mobility.” It’s not about today’s Bill Gates. It’s about tomorrow’s Bill Gates, the one who might come from India or Bangladesh or any other Emerging Market. And as Gupta says, the opportunity “will only be as strong as the energies invested by those most materially affected – the vast multitude of small entrepreneurs.” In the end, if we are truly serious about what we claim to want so badly – investment, jobs, to be taken seriously on the world economic stage, to become economic drivers, not just followers – then we need IP protection. Because unlike Scrabble, economic development is no game.

Rio, IGF, and Getting IP Right

About a year ago I attended the first Internet Governance Forum (IGF) meeting in Athens. It was a huge techie jamboree bringing together Internet experts and advocates from around the world. And as I sat there in the audience and listened to the different visions of the future presented from the podium, I recall being pretty stunned by the political focus of the whole thing.

Well, I’m happy to report that to a large extent this year’s IGF in Rio seems much less overtly political than last year’s meeting. The keynote delivered by a Brazilian Minister did start the meeting off on a strange note – he effectively called for the end of ICANN and its replacement with he-didn’t-say-what-exactly – but most of the sessions I’ve attended have kept the polemics manageable.

In Rio I’ve participated in a good session on how to increase the net’s linguistic diversity. I’ve heard some worthwhile discussion of approaches to increasing the participation of Emerging Markets voices in IGF discussions. I even attended one panel where NGOs and large firms talked – cooperatively, constructively – about how they could join forces to work on practical approaches to protecting human rights and privacy in cyberspace.

All of this stands in stark contrast to the sharpest critique I’ve heard in any of the sessions in Rio. It came not from the Cuban or Iranian delegates (as in Athens), but from a US lawyer who complained loudly of all things about the recent free trade agreements (FTAs) signed between the US and countries in Latin America and elsewhere. And, while I can’t speak to all provisions of the treaties (and it would be far above my pay-grade to say that I know better than the Presidents of a dozen or so nations who voluntarily chose to enter into these agreements), the argument did strike me as odd.

The panelist said, in essence, that the US government was forcing other countries to accept fairly strict Intellectual Property (IP) protections as part of these treaties. And that this was unfair.

It was unfair, if I understood correctly, because it helped enshrine US technical standards in Emerging Markets. It was unfair because it disadvantages local Emerging Markets tech developers and providers. It was unfair because it limits the independence and development opportunities of countries signing these accords. And since the opposite of protecting IP would, at least on some level, be not protecting IP (and accepting some level of IP piracy?), let me say that on all counts I beg to differ.

You can say what you want about the price of any good – from virus vaccines to virus scan programs. And it is true, not all firms – whether in the Yangtzee Valley, the Rhine Valley, or in Silicon Valley – play by the rules all the time in the ways we might want. Still, nothing in the FTAs that I’ve seen forces me to buy Guatemala’s coffee (even if it is some of the best in the world) or forces small businesses like mine in Guatemala to buy Adobe Photoshop, MSOffice or any other IP product from the US.

Moreover, if I walk out of the store without paying for my coffee – whether that store is in Guatemala or Washington – that’s called stealing. The medium or size of the firm providing the product doesn’t change the principle. The fact, for example, that it’s easier to copy my band’s CD than it is to grow coffee doesn’t make me any less deserving of reaping the rewards from my work if I wrote the songs. Nor does the size of the popularity of the band have anything to do with it. Britney Spears, as much as she makes me cringe, deserves the same rights we would insist on for the cool undiscovered indie group we hope will make the big time some day. It’s not hegemony to want to be paid for your work, no matter who you are. (Note: Thank you clients for sharing this belief!)

In fact, instead of limiting the options of economies, I would argue – as Rwandan President Kagame has over and over – that IP protection is crucial to development. I have heard many companies complain that the lack of confidence in contracts and in the security of their IP-based products – especially in Emerging Markets – limits their investments in these markets. It limits their local hiring, it limits the time spent developing products for these markets, it limits the taxes they pay in country. So if you want trade, and you want investment, doesn’t it just make sense to include IP protection in any trade accord?

There’s not a lot these days that I can say I agree with coming out of my government – either the White House or the Congress. However, in this case it seems we really do have it right. As a citizen and taxpayer, you bet I want to see the jobs, tax revenues and re-investment that flow to the US from music, movies, and software made in the US. And, as a friend of development I want to see it too, because I know that true integration into the “knowledge economy” is impossible without intellectual property.

I think its time we stopped intellectualizing about protecting the “developing world” in ways we wouldn’t think to protect ourselves. Charity is charity, but no Emerging Markets entrepreneur I’ve ever met would think of signing a contract that says they shouldn’t get paid for their work – whether their product is consulting time, a pound of coffee, or a DVD. Why should they? Why should we?

Making sense on the 'net... after the dot

Sitting here in the dimly lit ballroom of the LA Airport Hilton, I am every day more impressed by the challenges faced by ICANN, the international group that is tasked with making the Internet run. There are issues of safety and security that are at ICANN’s core. And then there are issues of access, issues around the ability to create the online presence you always wanted, about the net as a free speech engine. Monday was all about those issues.

Monday afternoon’s marathon 6 hour session centered the process for approving new general top level domains or gTLDs. You know, the right side of the dot. How should ICANN manage the process if you want to have another word after the dot – instead of .com or .org, perhaps .amglobal? And while not that many people are clamoring for the chance to run the .amglobal universe, the issue is not trivial. In fact, as I learned, it’s pretty tricky in the end.

While many of the original gTLDs like .mil, .edu, .com etc. evolved from early networks on the web, a number of new gTLDs have been approved in recent years. While they may be less well known (like .museum) or nearly unknown (like .aero), there has been a slow, steady movement to open up the space. We have .biz, for example, and .info. And others have been proposed. No one really knows how much demand is out there, but no matter. Some demand exists, so ICANN decided to look into how they could address the issue.

The conversation started with a pretty basic question: What is out of bounds?

While there were a few loud voices arguing that anything should be permitted on “free speech” basis – as always is on any issue in any ICANN meeting – the general sense in the room seemed to be that we’d all prefer a world with some limits. Would the world be better place without a .hitler or .abortion or .pedophile? I’m not a purist. I think so. I can live without .pedophile.

However, when you take away some of the more obvious cases, then what do you do? ICANN is not in the business of making social policy, after all. Even if we know that there are some things over the line, how do we draw that line? Tricky.

The conversation then moved to the issue of competing claims.

Even for supposedly non-controversial strings there is a chance of controversy in many cases. A number of people, for example, might like to own and run a possible .apple or .bank gTLD if it came available. But who would get .apple? Steve Jobs? The Washington State apple producers association? The town of Appleton, Wisconsin? Fiona Apple? Somebody else? Even the hard core free speech shouters agreed that there’s a real need for some dispute resolution mechanism.

Moreover, who would review these objections? And could they do it quickly and efficiently? Also, what mechanism would be used to make the final decision when there’s a conflict – an auction? A lottery? A panel of experts determining appropriateness? Who would sit on this little court? While ICANN has clearly put a lot of time and energy into reaching for consensus, a lot of unresolved issues remain.

Still, in the end, I kept returning to the beginning. The general debate seemed to be missing the point. As I listened to the back-and-forth at the microphone I kept thinking that the simple, underlying question was not really being addressed…

Even if some people want more gTLDs, do we as an Internet community really need them? Is my creativity truly being harmed by the lack of a .mack gTLD? And what role should a gTLD play anyway?

The way I look at it, my AMGlobal website is like a car on the road. If I don’t maintain my car well, it’s my problem. If it stops running, my issue. But gTLDs have a different role, and a different set of responsibilities. gTLDs function like the road itself. They are core to confidence in the entire system, and just as we don’t let just anyone build just any road just anywhere, we shouldn’t take lightly the idea of offering up a new gTLD.

The final process that ICANN arrives at for approving new gTLDs will no doubt be imperfect. It will strike many as arbitrary and without question it will be on some level. Some conflicts will be imperfectly resolved. And, in trying to avoid controversy it will without question limit the number of new gTLDs that are approved.

However, the Internet is more than just an inanimate tool, and certainly much more than a debating society. It is on some level a community. And, while it should provide ever growing levels of access and flexibility, we community members must demand first and foremost that it remain stable and reliable.

The conversation I heard on Monday convinced me that ICANN will be ill-equipped to resolve many of the issues presented if a large number of gTLD applications come forward. It also convinced me that any other current entity would do an even worse job in addressing the issue.

Country code TLDs (ccTLDS) – and the effort to build out Internationalized Domain Names (e.g. the .ru in Cyrillic script) – should get on the fast track, as there are few of them and they are crucial to offering access to new communities. These are real roads that need to be built, and have ICANN support.

However, based on what I saw Monday, it is very likely that getting a new gTLD will remain a difficult process taking months and requiring significant commitment and capacity from the requesting party. It will probably mean that there isn’t a .mack or .amglobal any time soon.

Considering the complexity of the issues and the risks to the system, that’s ok by me.

Pop!Tech 2007 - A Blog's eye view: A Conference Retrospective

So, you just got back from an exciting week at Pop!Tech 2007, tell me a bit about your expectations going in?

Honestly, I wasn’t sure what to think going in. I heard that Camden was pretty and that everyone was working on really interesting “over the horizon ideas.” I also heard in the words of the Bostonian, this group was “wicked smaht”. No question, Pop!Tech is an incredible scene.

For most of us that can’t attend Pop!Tech, what’s the feel? The environment? The buzz like at Pop!Tech?

The Pop!Tech environment is built on lots of people who are (and fashion themselves) pretty deep thinkers. There’s a really wide range of attendees, from academics and artists, to inventors, NGO leaders and technology practitioners. The environment is over-flowing, in a good way, with people who really do big ideas for a living.

I also found Pop!Tech to be a place where people think of problems in unusual and unconventional ways. For example, I talked about Chris Jordan in my first blog. The guy is an incredible photographer who uses his compositions to capture the enormous quantities of waste that we produce here in the United States. He displays these photographs as a way of showing scale -like the millions of reams of paper we use every 5 seconds. These really mind boggling images stick in your mind.

Tell us about your Blogging approach at Pop!Tech

First of all, I took a slightly different approach to blogging at Pop!Tech than some of the other bloggers, in part because other top-notch posters like Rob Katz, from NextBillion.net and Ethan Zuckerman were doing such a great – and quick – job of chronicling events. My goal was to step back, looking for patterns and opportunities suggested by the different presentations. We called the blog series “Northwoods Alchemy”, and the idea was to take the presentations and mix them in a proverbial test-tube, to see what came out. I was pretty pleased with some of the pieces.

I also tried very hard to use the metaphors that were implied during the presentations. For example, looking at the speed of change (speed kills, speed saves), perspectives on Africa (looking up, looking down), and the need for a plan to address climate change (saving the bees). It seemed appropriate. There’s a kind of poetry at a place like Pop!Tech.

Was there one thing that really impressed you? An idea or individual? Something that you heard? Chatter in the halls?

There were many things that impressed. As we work a lot in and with technology, I was very interested in a couple of new technologies demonstrated at Pop!Tech that seemed to generate a buzz.

I was fortunate to have a chance to speak with Sheila Kennedy, who leads the Portable Light Project. Sheila and her team have developed cool, flexible solar panels which she is using with communities in Mexico’s Sierra Madre Mountains. Really an interesting new technology with so many uses, and if we can help her knock the price point down a bit, I think an incredible economic opportunity.

I also spoke with John Shearer, who presented his company’s radio-wave electricity technology ideas. The basic idea of John’s approach is to use RFID-like signals to send electricity without using wires. Imagine the thought of having a cellphone that was really, truly wireless – one where you also didn’t need to connect to the wall using a charger. My cell is always running out of juice, and I think that would be amazing.

One thing that made headlines was the introduction of the new “Pop!Tech Accelerator” What did you think?

Well, as Andrew Z. said, the Accelerator is still very much a program in development. The idea is to create a kind of project incubator that would help take good Pop!Techie ideas to scale, and of course I think that’s great. Generally speaking, my sense is that the big question on the minds of attendees was, “Is this cutting new ground?” To some extent it’s not – other groups (Ashoka comes to mind) are doing similar types of things. Still, the Pop!Tech community is uniquely high-powered, and in the end I expect work with the Accelerator could be slicker, smarter and better financed than other, more NGO-oriented efforts in the past. Not sure what will happen because one of the big questions about any incubator is how many eggs get hatched and how long does it take to hatch them?

Often people discredit or discount what’s good in Africa. It’s all about corruption, all about oil greed, and conflict and Nigeria is often cited as an example of these problems. Yet, you seemed really impressed with Robert Boroffice. What makes you so sure that Africa can really “look to the sky” and that Nigeria can be “mission control?”

Well, first of all, I would be foolish if I thought that this was going to be a straight line. Nothing happens in a straight line and especially in places and parts of the world that have characteristics like Nigeria. Resource rich countries like the Gulf States, Venezuela, and Bolivia they all seem to have challenges. That said, Nigeria has a lot going for it.

First of all it’s a huge country – last I heard it was over 140 million people – meaning there is a lot of opportunity for business in Nigeria for both Nigerians and others interested to invest. Also, Nigerians that I meet – whether in the north or south, or abroad – seem to have a very entrepreneurial mind-set. And its not just the well trained people you meet at conferences. I’ve met Nigerian taxi-drivers in Lagos and DC that have 2 or 3 businesses on the side and big dreams. You don’t see this in all emerging markets. The big question for Nigeria is whether people will work together…

As far as space agency, I was struck by how Boroffice nonchalantly responded to my first question about demand. People around world and the continent are using this technology, and Africa is adopting the new tech at such a fast pace. He basically said “this isn’t just about our future – we’re using this stuff now”. Moreover, Nigeria is the leader in Africa in this “space." The way I see it, countries that want to accomplish big things need to be looking over the horizon even while they’re focused on the issues of today.

Finally, I wanted to ask about one of your blogs, where you coined the idea of the “Slow Warrior.” Tell us a bit more about what that means.

The idea of a “Slow Warrior” came out of the presentation I saw which looked at our psychological responses to global warming as a looming crisis. Our typical response is to ignore slow moving issues – even if they’re urgent, as in the case of global warming. Then we sound the alarm. Still, after sounding the alarm we need to have a plan. Even Al Gore will tell you – the alarm is not the destination. If a problem is slow in coming and will take time to solve, and just ringing alarm bells may be counterproductive.

If our approach to global warming is just to sound the alarm, then donate a lot of money and hold a lot of conferences, my fear is that we will miss an opportunity to build the kind of long-term alliances – which would include you and me as consumers – that will be necessary to really change things. I remember last year’s focus on bird flu. Billions were spent and the issue dominated the airwaves. Now we hear nothing. Was it crying wolf? Is it still a crisis? Who knows?

A slow warrior, slow activism approach could actually provide greater chances for success long term. It might also help us create a more satisfying and more sustainable activist experience, one defined by long-term engagement (vs. panic), and fitting with the sense of appreciation that characterizes other “slow movements” like those proposing “slow food” and “slow exercise”.

Right now we’re stressed out, rushing to solve the various crises around the world, and not doing a very good job of it. Perhaps adding “slow activism” to our vocabularies would help.

For information about Pop!Tech and see photos from the event visit: http://poptech.com/conferences

Northwoods Alchemy IV – Africa is looking up.

Africa is looking up. Believe it.

After years of being fed a constant diet of bad news about the continent, most Americans are all too ready to assume nothing but the worst stories come out of Africa. Sometimes it seems that CNN has a special slot reserved just for a weekly feature on pestilence, war and famine. At least in the US media, you really have to look hard to find anything approaching good news about Africa, anything you might think of “looking up” to.

So it’s not altogether surprising that most Americans might snicker if you suggested they talk with the head of the Nigerian Space Agency. To most US citizens – whose knowledge of Nigeria is unlikely to extend much past oil and email scams – Nigeria’s space aspirations might sound more like a skit from the Daily Show or an article from the Onion. Except that it’s serious stuff. Nigeria, I was told yesterday, is serious about space.

Don’t believe me if you don’t want. But there’s no denying the conviction of Robert Boroffice. Boroffice, who I spoke with at some length yesterday after his presentation at an afternoon Pop!Tech session, is Director General of NASRDA, the National Space Research and Development Agency. And he’s passionate about what space can do for Nigeria and Nigerians.

We started our conversation with something I suppose I should have guessed, but I never really stopped to consider. In a sense, Nigeria has been “in space” for a while already. Getting, using, analyzing satellite data; working to plan responses to natural and man-made disasters, training a cadre of local scientists and technicians to manipulate the signals bouncing down from above. Boroffice was clear: Nigeria already had experience in space.

But in recent years the program has really – apologies for the pun – taken off, with the launch of the country’s satellites. Nigeria now has multiple satellites in orbit and has plans for more, producing high resolution images for census mapping, and low resolution pictures to help plan the course of railways planned to link the north and south of the country.

Moreover, in addition to the more than 200 Nigerians from all parts Government, academia and the private sector that have received training in recent years, technicians from over 20 other African nations have studied as part of the Nigerian program in Nigeria. There is, as it turns out, a lot of interest in space science in other parts of Africa, and Nigeria is determined to establish itself as the continent’s “mission control”.

Boroffice was also quick to point out that the impact is not limited to Nigeria or even Africa’s issues. With no small pride, he told me yesterday about how a Nigerian satellite was the first to broadcast images of the impact of Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans, data that was shared with the US Geological Service – data that should have been available to FEMA (though who knows if they were paying attention). Similarly, Nigeria’s satellite images helped the EU plan its response for victims of the big tsunami a few years back.

NigeriaSat2

And while countries – especially the US – move to limit their satellite cooperation on national security grounds, Nigeria is pushing for more cooperation, to be a good “space citizen” if you like, to be a contributor to the global data pool.

So what’s the long term for this new agency? I asked Boroffice to paint me the biggest picture of the future, the success he dreams of. And he was quick to respond: “I want to create an agency that is sustainable, with a critical mass of its own engineers and scientists. And I want to help Nigeria make the most of its water resources – for irrigation, drinking water, and power.” He’s convinced Nigeria’s satellites can help. I was convinced too.

We look out at Africa from our positions around the world – both Africans and non-Africans alike – and it’s easy to look down.

We often see the continent in terms of earth and the things that flow from the earth – the focus on agriculture, mining and mineral resource development, forestry. We also think of the groundedness of life in the village, of a sense rootedness that hearkens back to a bygone era.

But Africa, where many people will never in their lives even see a land line, Africa is today the fastest growing cellphone market in the world. Internet cafes are booming and wi-fi, and wi-max are expanding at a breakneck pace. The continent is re-defining itself and its economic and technological options in ways we never thought possible before. And the continent’s future – in some significant ways – is tied to the sky. Which is just fine with Robert Boroffice.

Africa is looking up. Believe it.