[WSIS CS-Plenary] draft WSIS CS press statement for feedback
Adam Jantunen
adam at takingitglobal.org
Fri Nov 14 13:58:04 GMT 2003
Specific changes to the latest CS Statement:
3. Yet SOME countries have demanded sweeping changes...
Last paragraph of II - replace with "The whole process has shown that,
because of major political divisions, governments have not been able to
create a common vision for the information society."
2nd paragraph of III: replace with "Because some governments fear the power
of new technologies to threaten their interests, the political will does not
exist to agree on a common vision." I think the "5 minutes" line goes way
too far and doesn't reflect political realities.
Go with the first paragraph on "north/south divide."
Adam Jantunen
--------- Original Message --------
From: plenary at wsis-cs.org
To: plenary at wsis-cs.org <plenary at wsis-cs.org>
Subject: Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] draft WSIS CS press statement for feedback
Date: 14/11/03 12:34
>
> Thanks Adam(s),
>
> I also think we should not alienate some countries who are more
affirmative
> for civil society/private sector initiatives on Internet maagement
matters.
>
> I want to add: "some" before governments at the 3rd point:
>
> Yet some countries have demanded sweeping changes to how the Internet is
> administered.
>
> best,
>
> izumi
>
> At 16:14 03/11/14 +0900, Adam Peake wrote:
> >Ralf,
> >
> >
> >3. Internet Governance: We all acknowledge the Internet is the
platform
> on which information society is being built. Yet countries have demanded
> sweeping changes to how the Internet is administered. Ill-considered and
> un-explained --unexplainable?-- changes, made with no regard to their
> disruptive consequences. This narrow focus has meant that WSIS has
ignored
> addressing the problems of many significantly more important policy forums
> and processes where the views of the South are usually absent. A great
> opportunity has been wasted.
> >
> >Sorry, makes the text longer.
> >
> >Adam
> >
> >
> >
> >>Hi all,
> >>
> >>Here we are at 2 in the morning having just finished a draft
statement
> >>we hope to be able to read tomorrow. It is quite a different
statement
> >>to those weエve produced in the past in that it focuses
more on a macro
> >>anlaysis of the state of play in the WSIS process, which has
moved to a
> >>situation of near dead-lock this past week. It would be used as
the
> >>basis of a press briefing rather than a press conference, along
with our
> >>CS Essential Benchmarks document.
> >>
> >>Could you please send comments (substance, edits) by 0900 CET
tomorrow
> >>morning and remember to quote only the text you need to.
> >>
> >>we will have some time tomorrow, after a good nightエs
sleep, to craft a
> >>revised version.
> >>
> >>All the best from the Geneva madhouse.
> >>
> >>Ralf
> >>
> >>------------------------------------
> >>
> >>Civil Society Statement
> >>at the End of the Preparatory Process
> >>for the World Summit on the Information Society
> >>Geneva, November 14, 2003
> >>
> >>I. Where do we stand now?
> >>
> >>We have come to the last day of PrepCom 3a. This was an extra
full week
> >>put in because governments were not able to finalize work in
Prepcom 3
> >>in September. And this last day the situation is what it is, a
deadlock
> >>on the very first article of the declaration. Where they are not
able to
> >>even agree on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted
in 1948
> >>as the common foundation of this declaration.
> >>
> >>We observe three main problematic areas impeding progress in the
WSIS:
> >>
> >>1. The North-South divide: The rich part of the world - the part
that
> >>has been profiting from unequal trade relations for the whole
20th
> >>century - is not even willing to agree on a voluntarily funded
attempt
> >>to bridge the digital divide. This is a shame, as the summit
process has
> >>started two years ago with exactly this goal.
> >>
> >>2. The struggle over human rights. They are not able to reach a
common
> >>agreement on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as the
basis for
> >>the Information Society. They are not willing to commit to basic
human
> >>right standards, most prominent here the freedom of expression.
> >>
> >>3. Internet governance
> >>
> >>II. Old world or new vision?
> >>
> >>The old world of governments and traditional diplomacy
confronting new
> >>challenges and realities in the 21st century:
> >>
> >>We recognize the problems governments face in trying to address a
range
> >>of difficult, complex and politically divisive issues in two
documents.
> >>
> >>This reflects power struggles that we are seeing around the
world. A
> >>number of governments are getting nervous and stubborn, because
they
> >>realize that a lot is at stake. They have noticed that they can
not
> >>control media content or transborder information flows anymore,
nor can
> >>they lock the knowledge of the world in the legal system of
intellectual
> >>monopolies that are misleadingly called property rights.
> >>
> >>They are afraid.
> >>キ fear of power of new technologies, and the way people
are using them
> >>to network, form new forms of partnerships and collaboration,
sharing
> >>eperiences and knowledge etc
> >>キ fear and uncertainty of past few years compounds this
uncertainty and
> >>is played out in the WSIS process
> >>
> >>But:
> >>Do we want to base our vision of the information society one of
fear and
> >>uncertainty or on curiosity and the spirit of looking forward and
living
> >>up to the new challenges?
> >>
> >>The WSIS process has slowly but constantly been moving from
> >>"information" to "society". It was started as
a technocratic idea in the
> >>ITU and we are proud to say that we were crucial in bringing back
the
> >>idea that in the end, the information society is about humans,
the
> >>communication society is about social processes, or the knowledge
> >>society is about society's values.
> >>
> >>The whole process shown a lack of interest in forming a common
vision
> >>for the information society among governments. It is not clear if
it was
> >>ever the agenda - probably governments are just not prepared to
draft a
> >>common society vision anyway. They are not good at that.
> >>
> >>IV. How do we come up with a true vision for the information
society?
> >>
> >>This is the first time that civil society has participated in
such a way
> >>in a summit preparation process. We have worked very hard to
include
> >>issues that some did not expect to be included. We have had some
small
> >>successes, while in a number of areas we were not heard or even
listened
> >>to.
> >>
> >>If the governments want to agree, they can agree in 5 minutes. We
have
> >>the feeling that there is no political will to agree on a common
vision.
> >>
> >>Therefore we will now stop giving input to the intergovernmental
> >>documents. Whether they agree or not, they won't be able to say
that
> >>civil society is endorsing their lowest common denominator in
December -
> >>if there will be anything like that. This process is going so
badly, we
> >>need to see how we can save it from destruction caused by
governments.
> >>
> >>We have produced essential benchmarks - governments risk
overlooking key
> >>issues in the process of negotiations.
> >>
> >>We are the people. We don't need governments's permission. We
take our
> >>own responsibility. Someone has to take the lead, if governments
won't
> >>do it, civil society will do it.
> >>
> >>We have now started to draft our own vision document. our vision
> >>document: the result of a two-year, bottom-up, online and offline
> >>policy-development process. We will present our vision at the
summit.
> >>There we will invite all interested parties to discuss with us,
in a
> >>true multi-stakeholder process.
> >>
> >>This shows that new mechanisms and structures are possible to
resolve
> >>these impasses and work together globally and inclusively.
> >>
> >>V. What about implementation and the two years leading us to
Tunis?
> >>
> >>There is no real Action Plan so far. But there is a draft agenda
with a
> >>list of interesting issues.
> >>
> >>Not only is the declaration of principles in danger, but the
mechanisms
> >>to implement the action plan are not prepared.
> >>If there is an implementation mechanism, we have to be included
or its
> >>dead.
> >>
> >>Civil society reaffirms that governments alone can not implement
> >>whatever action plan they come up with: Implementation mechanisms
that
> >>do not associate closely civil society and other stakeholders
will
> >>simply be not acceptable but also will just not work.
> >>
> >>We will continue what we have been doing all the time: Doing our
work,
> >>implementing our vision, working together in bottom-up processes
and
> >>thereby shaping the shared knowledge society.
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>Plenary mailing list
> >>Plenary at wsis-cs.org
> >>http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Plenary mailing list
> Plenary at wsis-cs.org
> http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
More information about the Plenary
mailing list