[WSIS CS-Plenary] Text version of compilation

[Sally Burch - ALAI]

Comments on the Draft non-paper of the President of the WSIS 
Prepcom on the declaration of principles 

Building the Information Society: A global challenge in the new 
Millennium
(version of October 24 2003)

Produced by: the Civil Society Working Group on Content and 
Themes (drafting group)
October 30, 2003


Note: The present document is a compilation of proposals received 
from 
civil society caucuses on the non-paper presented by Mr 
Samassekou on 
October 24.  While it reflects the consensus reached among a 
broad range 
of civil society organizations on many issues during the WSIS 
preparatory process, given the short time-line it does not include all 
the comments civil society may wish to make on the document.


Paragraph 1
We request a reference to the principle of "non-discrimination" in 
Sections A. We suggest it be included in paragraphs 1 or 2. 

Justification: It is crucial that the principle of non-discrimination be 
affirmed to stress that all (women, young people, people with 
disabilities, elderly people, minorities etc.) should have equal rights 
in the information society.

Paragraph 3
We support the reference to the Right to Development.

Paragraph 4
We strongly support the reference to Article 19 of the Universal 
Declaration of Human Rights.
We suggest that article 19 be quoted in full length: "Everyone has 
the 
right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes 
freedom 
to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and 
impart 
information and ideas through any media and regardless of 
frontiers."

Paragraph 5
We request removal of the second sentence "and our shared 
values as well 
as religious, family, cultural, social, and linguistic interests and 
ethical principles protected". 

Justification: The concept of shared values, interest and ethical 
principles is too broad and vague, and opens for possible misuse 
for 
instance in terms of censorship.

Paragraph 20
Insert "community centres, libraries" after "schools". 

Justification: specific attention and support should be given to 
community-based initiatives.

Paragraph 21
We strongly support the affirmation that: "the ability for all to 
access 
and contribute information, ideas and knowledge is essential in an 
inclusive information society."

We propose to add:  "We recognize that sharing of traditional 
knowledge 
of Indigenous Peoples is guided by their own culturally defined 
procedures. 

Paragraph 22
Replace the words "removing barriers to equitable" by the words 
"promoting open access".  Replace the words "facilitating access 
to 
public domain information" by the words "promoting equitable 
access to 
information for   commercial, economical, industrial and financial 
activities"

Justification:  The word "open access" refers to the free access to 
information that has been created  by authors that do not seek 
financial 
compensation. The best example is scientific authors.  This 
information 
should be freely available and not be resold by publishers at a very 
high  price, therefore creating yet another digital divide. As a 
conclusion the word "open access" refers to non-commercial and 
public 
domain information.

The word "equitable access" refers to the "equitable trade" 
("commerce 
equitable" in French)  movement that promotes a fair financial 
compensation between economical actors with unequal bargaining 
power. 
Therefore the word "equitable" seems correct, but  as long as it 
used 
within a trade context. This word is fitted for commercial 
transactions  
related to commercial information. It should not be used to replace 
"Open  Access" because it would imply that scientific information, 
public domain information and any other information  that is created 
for 
free, should be subjected to trade rules.

Paragraph 23
We request replacement of the words "free and equitable access" 
in the 
last sentence by "open access".

Justification: see note on paragraph 22.


We request replacement of "and other community-based access 
points" with 
"and other community-based information centres".

Justification: in this section the issue is about information 
resources, 
not Internet access.  (In contrast with paragraph 20 which relates 
to 
infrastructure). 

Paragraph 24
The new version of §24 deviates far from the consensus about  
different 
"software models" found at PrepComIII. Most notably, it fails to 
recognize the role of Free Software as a fundamental  building 
block of 
all areas of the information society.  

Paragraph 25
The question of how to encourage the building of the rich public 
domain 
should be strongly addressed. 
We propose to add following sentence:

"Any research, especially those funded by public bodies, should 
enrich 
the public domain. This must be ensured by the promotion of 
efficient 
models for self-publication, open content contributions and other 
altenative models for the production, publication and sharing of 
scientific knowledge and the use of non-proprietary formats".

We propose to add the word "free" before "sharing of research 
results" 
and to replace the words: "universal access with equal oportunities 
for 
all to scientific knowledge and the creation and dissemination
" 
with 
the words: "open access to scientific knowledge and promoting the 
creation, with equal opportunities for all
".

Justification: see note on paragraph 22.

Paragraph 27 
We request to add "and Indigenous peoples" after "vulnerable 
groups".

Paragraph 32
We request removal of the term "information security" and to use 
only 
"network security".

Justification: Information security implies regulation of content and 
can be used to legitimize censorship and surveillance measures.

Paragraph 33
We strongly suggest deletion of paragraph 33. However, if the 
paragraph 
is kept, we demand that the phrase "consistent with the need to 
preserve 
the free flow of information" stays in the sentence. The competing 
proposal "in accordance with the legal system of each country" is 
unacceptable. We also request deletion of the bracketed language 
"[in 
both civil and military fields]".

Justification: The privacy and security discussions have - since the 
Paris Intersessional - shifted from a focus on the need for 
infrastructure integrity to a highly politicized agenda, characterized 
by language referring to the integrity of the military field and the use 
of information resources for criminal and terrorist purposes. 
Definitions of criminal and terrorist purposes in existing and 
emerging 
policies and legislation are ambiguous and prevent the use of 
information resources for legitimate purposes. They threaten rights 
such 
as the right to privacy, freedom of association, freedom of 
movement and 
freedom of expression.

Paragraph 36
We request that it be stressed that the rule of law should comply 
with 
human right standards.

Paragraph 38
We strongly recommend the deletion of this paragraph because it 
is 
confusing and contradicts the concepts expressed in  paras 21-25. 

Justification:  This paragraph is legally and historically based on 
incorrect and contradictory premises.  'Intellectual property rights' 
(as distinct from its component of copyright, patents, trademarks 
etc.) 
is a relatively recent, industry-driven, concept that attempts to 
assert 
that the rights to the use of intellectual products is limited to those 
granted a temporary monopoly by the state.  It suggests others 
have no 
rights.  In fact, this is precisely the opposite of what is intended 
with these concepts.  The right that all people can use intellectual 
products in enshrined in the idea of the Public Domain, a legally 
ancient one and an integral part of all Treaties etc.  There are 
exceptions made to this right, however, the goal of which is to 
ensure 
that (while maximum access is maintained for all) mechanisms are 
also in 
place to ensure that overall social creativity is also optimised.  
These 
exceptions grant a monopoly of use for a period, as a means by 
which 
creative effort can be rewarded.  It therefore makes no sense to talk 
of 
a balance between "intellectual property, on the one hand, and its 
use, 
and knowledge sharing, on the other".

The existing paragraph confuses "the protection of intellectual 
property" with the "granting of temporary monopoly right over the 
use of 
intellectual products", resulting in the erroneous suggestion that 
only 
such temporary 'owners' have any rights at all.
 
An alternative would be to replace para 38 as follows and insert it in 
Section 3 "Access to information" :

"Human knowledge is the heritage and property of all humankind 
and the 
reservoir from which new knowledge is created. The primary goal of 
patents, copyright and trademarks, and other legal and technical 
monopolies on knowledge granted by society, must be to ensure 
maximum 
use of this knowledge and to encourage creativity as widely as 
possible 
within  society. International agreements and treaties, and national 
policies concerning creation, sharing and trade of intellectual goods 
and cultural creations should be aligned according to this principle."

Paragraph 40
We request the inclusion of the words "freely implementable, 
publicly 
documented" after the word "non-discriminatory".

Justification: Although §40 recognizes the significance of open 
standards as "essential building blocks of the Information Society," 
it 
ignores the past 10 years of standardization experience. No 
standard 
will ever be open or interoperable unless it is freely implementable 
and  
publicly documented.

Paragraph 41
We consider it essential to delete, in paragraph 41, the words "of 
legality, with full observance of national laws and regulation as well 
as".

Justification: We oppose any statement through which the UN 
system 
endorses national laws and regulation given the fact that national 
laws 
and regulation have, on numerous occasions, been found to 
contravene 
Article 19 of the UDHR. 


We request to add the following sentence at the end: "It should be 
ensured that vulnerable groups and Indigenous Peoples have 
access to 
radio and TV frequencies."


Paragraph 46
We recommend the deletion of this paragraph.

Justification: National policy issues have to comply with 
international 
human right standards and other international agreements. 

Paragraph 47
We consider it unacceptable that none of the options mentions the 
involvement of Civil Society. 
Of the five available options, we would prefer a).

Paragraph 52
We request that the following bracketed texts be deleted:
[in accordance with the legal system of each country and] 
[particularly on Articles 19 and 29] 
[Individuals and media should have access to available information]

Justification: First sentence opens for national legislation that is 
not 
in compliance with human right standards. Second sentence 
should only 
refer to article 19, which regulates press freedom, or not point to 
specific articles at all.  Third sentence is without meaning, since it 
only addresses access to "available" information.

The Declaration requires a much clearer statement on the media, 
based on 
respect for the provisions of Article 19 of the UDHR and recognising 
the 
importance of a diverse and pluralist media environment including 
public 
service broadcasting and community media. We insist this include 
the 
statement "Public service broadcasting and community media have 
a 
crucial role to play in ensuring participation of all in the Information 
Society"

At the least the following text should be included after the words 
"Traditional media": "including public service broadcasting and 
community media" instead of "in all its forms". 


Paragraph 54
We suggest deletion of this paragraph, or at least of the sentence 
"The 
widest possible protection should be accorded to the family".

Justification: It is to broad and imprecise when speaking of ethics 
and 
the family. It could be misused to legitimize censorship on content. 

We propose the inclusion in this or a new paragraph on ethics, of 
the 
phrase: "We recognize and respect special ethical obligations that 
Indigenous Peoples might have towards the sharing and utilization 
of 
their knowledge and cultural heritage."