these networks in England (GreenNet) and the United States (PeaceNet and EcoNet), and
then later Sweden (NordNet), Canada (Web), Brazil (IBASE), Nicaragua (Nicarao), and Australia (Pegasus). In 1990, the networks jointly founded the Association for Progressive Communications (APC), a global umbrella network that still exists as a coordinating and advocacy NGO
with a significant presence in Internet governance forums throughout the world today.
Perhaps the earliest demonstration of the Internet’s facilitation of civic networks’ organizational and networking capacities can be found at the 1992 U.N. Earth Summit in Rio de
Janeiro. The Earth Summit was a unique event involving the extensive and official participation
of numerous NGOs from around the world. Leading up to the summit, the U.N. and the APC
established a network to facilitate communications among NGOs and disseminate official
summit information. As Rory O’Brien and Andrew Clement note: ‘‘Backgrounders to the
issues, draft policies, country briefings, and logistical bulletins were posted by the UN to a
set of computer conferences shared internationally on all APC networks. This allowed several
thousand civil society groups around the world to be kept informed at very little cost to the
UN.’’
7 The global, distributed nature of the NGO participation—in other words, the fact that
groups not physically present at Rio nonetheless were able to participate—was instrumental
in the formulation of the several ‘‘alternative treaties’’ that were put forth from the parallel NGO
summit, called ‘‘the Global Forum,’’ held simultaneously with the Earth Summit.
The type of civic networking demonstrated at the Earth Summit recurred throughout the
1990s, having a tangible impact on local, regional, and international rule-making forums. For
example, according to scholarly observations and those of the participants themselves, the
Internet played a critical role in the International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL).
8 Although the campaign did not employ computer networks in any substantial sense until about
1995, from that point on the Internet was vital to collecting and disseminating information and
forming strategy in the ICBL across its membership in more than seventy countries. The networks were, according to participants, crucial in lowering organizational costs and integrating
into decision-making structures members from poorer, developing countries. More importantly, it dramatically augmented the intellectual capacity of the ICBL-member NGOs, who
were able to bring analytically and empirically informed analyses to the table when meeting
with states on the landmines issue. It also knit the diverse participants together into a relatively
coherent unit, particularly with regard to the ICBL strategy.
9
Although perhaps the most prominent, the ICBL was not the only instance of global civic
networks being empowered by the Internet, nor was the model it supplied—working within
legitimate processes of political participation, albeit in very novel, challenging ways—
generalized elsewhere. Indeed, the 1990s also saw the Internet employed by a growing number of resistance networks—anarchist, antiglobalization, environmental justice, and political
opposition movements.
10 In the landmark case of the opposition to the Multilateral Agreement
on Investment (MAI) negotiations, for example, civic networks organized a multipronged campaign of resistance and protest across numerous countries and involving hundreds of loosely
126
Ronald Deibert and Rafal Rohozinski
then later Sweden (NordNet), Canada (Web), Brazil (IBASE), Nicaragua (Nicarao), and Australia (Pegasus). In 1990, the networks jointly founded the Association for Progressive Communications (APC), a global umbrella network that still exists as a coordinating and advocacy NGO
with a significant presence in Internet governance forums throughout the world today.
Perhaps the earliest demonstration of the Internet’s facilitation of civic networks’ organizational and networking capacities can be found at the 1992 U.N. Earth Summit in Rio de
Janeiro. The Earth Summit was a unique event involving the extensive and official participation
of numerous NGOs from around the world. Leading up to the summit, the U.N. and the APC
established a network to facilitate communications among NGOs and disseminate official
summit information. As Rory O’Brien and Andrew Clement note: ‘‘Backgrounders to the
issues, draft policies, country briefings, and logistical bulletins were posted by the UN to a
set of computer conferences shared internationally on all APC networks. This allowed several
thousand civil society groups around the world to be kept informed at very little cost to the
UN.’’
7 The global, distributed nature of the NGO participation—in other words, the fact that
groups not physically present at Rio nonetheless were able to participate—was instrumental
in the formulation of the several ‘‘alternative treaties’’ that were put forth from the parallel NGO
summit, called ‘‘the Global Forum,’’ held simultaneously with the Earth Summit.
The type of civic networking demonstrated at the Earth Summit recurred throughout the
1990s, having a tangible impact on local, regional, and international rule-making forums. For
example, according to scholarly observations and those of the participants themselves, the
Internet played a critical role in the International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL).
8 Although the campaign did not employ computer networks in any substantial sense until about
1995, from that point on the Internet was vital to collecting and disseminating information and
forming strategy in the ICBL across its membership in more than seventy countries. The networks were, according to participants, crucial in lowering organizational costs and integrating
into decision-making structures members from poorer, developing countries. More importantly, it dramatically augmented the intellectual capacity of the ICBL-member NGOs, who
were able to bring analytically and empirically informed analyses to the table when meeting
with states on the landmines issue. It also knit the diverse participants together into a relatively
coherent unit, particularly with regard to the ICBL strategy.
9
Although perhaps the most prominent, the ICBL was not the only instance of global civic
networks being empowered by the Internet, nor was the model it supplied—working within
legitimate processes of political participation, albeit in very novel, challenging ways—
generalized elsewhere. Indeed, the 1990s also saw the Internet employed by a growing number of resistance networks—anarchist, antiglobalization, environmental justice, and political
opposition movements.
10 In the landmark case of the opposition to the Multilateral Agreement
on Investment (MAI) negotiations, for example, civic networks organized a multipronged campaign of resistance and protest across numerous countries and involving hundreds of loosely
126
Ronald Deibert and Rafal Rohozinski