[Ct-drafting] Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] new version of WSIS CS statement

[l.d.misek-falkoff falkoff]

How very kind

and so soon ...

thank you Rikke, and call on me/us for anything we can do also.

Best wishes, Linda.


On 12/1/05, Rikke Frank Joergensen <rfj at humanrights.dk> wrote:
>
>  Dear Linda and all,
>
>
>
> Pls find below the full text.   Best Rikke
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *WSIS Civil Society Statement DRAFT V3.1*
>
> last change: 30/11/2005 18:52 CET
>
>
>
> *I. Introduction – Our perspective after the WSIS process*
>
>
>
> The WSIS was an opportunity for a wide range of actors to work together to
> develop principles and prioritise actions that would lead to democratic,
> inclusive, participatory and development-oriented information societies;
> societies in which the ability to access, share and communicate information
> and knowledge is treated as a public good and takes place in a ways that
> strengthens the rich cultural diversity of our world.
>
>
>
> Civil society entered the Tunis Phase of WSIS with these major goals:
>
>
>
> ·        Agreement on financing mechanisms and models that will close the
> growing gaps in access to information and communication tools, capacities
> and infrastructure that exist between countries, and in many cases within
> countries.
>
> ·        Ensuring that our vision of the 'information society' is
> human-centred, framed by a global commitment to human rights, social justice
> and inclusive development.
>
> ·        Achieving a sea change in perceptions of participatory
> decision-making. We wanted the WSIS to be a milestone from which the
> inclusion of civil society participation would become more comprehensive and
> integrated at all levels of governance and decision making at local,
> national, regional and global levels.
>
> ·        Agreement on strong commitment to the centrality of human rights,
> especially the right to access and depart information and to retaining
> individual privacy.
>
>
>
> Civil society wants to affirm that it has contributed positively to the
> WSIS process, a contribution that could have been greater if our
> participation was allowed to be more comprehensive. Our contribution will
> continue beyond the Summit. It is a contribution that is made both through
> constructive engagement and through challenge and critique.
>
>
>
> *[Note: This paragraph still could be more comprehensive and better
> summarize the issues below]*
>
> While we value the process, and the outcomes, we believe more could have
> been achieved.  Each of the issue of greatest concern to civil society is
> discussed in sections II and III of this statement. For most of the items,
> the results were mixed with some small success but with much remaining to be
> done. Some of the greatest concerns involve people centred issues such as
> the attention paid to human rights and freedom of expression, financial
> mechanisms to promote the development that was the impetus for the WSIS
> process, and support for capacity building.
>
>
>
>
>
> *II. Issues addressed during the **Tunis** phase of WSIS*
>
> * *
>
> *Social Justice, *Financing* and People-Centered Development*
>
>
>
> WSIS had the official mandate of addressing long-standing development
> problems in new ways that have opened up with the ICT revolution. The summit
> was expected to identify and articulate new development possibilities and
> paradigms made possible in the information society, and to evolve public
> policy options for enabling and realising these opportunities. WSIS in
> general has failed to live up to these expectations. Especially the Tunisphase which was presented as the "summit of solutions" did not provide
> concrete achievements to meaningfully address development priorities.
>
>
>
> The summit did discuss the importance of new financing mechanisms for ICT
> for Development (ICTD), however it failed to recognize that ICTD financing
> presents a challenge beyond that of traditional development financing. It
> requires new means and sources and the exploration of new models and
> mechanisms.
>
>
>
> Investments in ICTD - in infrastructure, capacity building, appropriate
> software and hardware and in developing applications and services – underpin
> all other processes of development innovation, learning and sharing, and
> should be seen in this light. Though development resources are admittedly
> scarce and have to be allocated to with care and discretion, ICTD financing
> should not be viewed as directly in competition with financing of other
> developmental sectors.
>
>
>
> Financing ICTD requires social and institutional innovation, with adequate
> mechanisms for transparency, evaluation, and follow-up. Financial resources
> need to be mobilised at all levels – local, national and international,
> including through realization of ODA commitments agreed in the Monterrey
> Consensus.
>
>
>
> Internet access, for everybody and everywhere, especially among
> disadvantaged populations and in rural areas, must be considered as a global
> public good. Markets may not address the connectivity needs of these
> sections, and these areas. In many such areas, initial priority may need to
> be given to provide traditional ICTs - radio, TV, video and telephony -
> while developing conditions to bring complete internet connectivity to them.
>
>
> * *
>
> While the summit in general has failed to agree on adequate funding for
> ICTD, civil society was able to introduce significant sections in the Tunis
> commitment (paragraph 35) and in Tunis agenda (paragraph 21) on the
> importance of public policy in mobilizing resources for financing. This can
> serve to balance the pro-market orientation of much of the text on
> financing.
>
>
>
> The potential of ICTs as tools for development, and not merely tools for
> communication, should have been realised by all states. Therefore, national
> ICT strategies in developing countries should be closely related to national
> strategies for development and poverty eradication. Aid strategies in
> developed countries must also include clear guidelines for incorporation of
> ICTs. ICT should therefore be integrated in the general development
> assistance and thereby contribute to mobilisation of additional resources
> and increase the efficiency of development assistance.
>
> * *
>
> *Human Rights*
>
> * *
>
> The Information Society must be based on human rights as laid out in the
> Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This includes civil and political
> rights, as well as social, economic and cultural rights. Human rights and
> development are closely linked. There can be no development without human
> rights, no human rights without development.
>
>
>
> This has been affirmed time and again, and was strongly stated in the
> Vienna World Conference of Human Rights in 1993. It was also affirmed in the
> WSIS 2003 Declaration of Principles. All legislation, politics, and actions
> involved in developing the global information society must respect, protect
> and promote human rights standards and the rule of law.
>
>
>
> Despite the Geneva commitment to an Information Society respectful of
> human rights, there is still a long way to go. A number of human rights were
> barely addressed in the Geneva Declaration of Principles. This includes the
> cross-cutting principles of non-discrimination, gender equality, and
> workers' rights. The right to privacy, which is the basis of autonomous
> personal development and thus at the root of the exertion of many other
> fundamental human rights, is only mentioned in the Geneva Declaration as
> part of "a global culture of cyber-security". In the Tunis Commitment, it
> has disappeared, to make room for extensive underlining of security needs,
> as if privacy were a threat to security, whereas the opposite is true:
> Privacy is an essential requirement to security. The summit has also ignored
> our demand to ensure the privacy and integrity of the vote if and when
> electronic voting technologies are used.
>
> * *
>
> Other rights were more explicitly addressed, but are de facto violated on
> a daily basis. This goes for freedom of expression, freedom of information,
> freedom of association and assembly, the right to a fair trial, the right to
> education, and the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and
> well-being of the individual and his or her family.
>
>
>
> Furthermore, as the second WSIS phase has amplified, one thing is formal
> commitment, another one is implementation. Side events open to the general
> public were organised by civil society both at the Geneva and Tunis
> Summit, in line with a long tradition of UN summits. The Citizens' Summitin
> Tunis was prevented from happening. At the Geneva Summit, the "We Seize"
> side event was closed down and then reopened. This is a clear reminder that
> though governments have signed on to human rights commitments, fundamental
> human rights such as freedom of expression and freedom of assembly can not
> be taken for granted in any part of the world.
>
> * *
>
> The summit has failed define mechanisms and actions that would actively
> promote and protect human rights in the information society. Post WSIS there
> is an urgent need to strengthen the means of human rights enforcement in the
> information society, to enhance human rights proofing of national
> legislation and practises, to strengthen education and awareness raising on
> rights-based development, to transform human rights standards into ICT
> policy recommendations; and to mainstream ICT issues into the global and
> regional human rights monitoring system – in summary: To move from
> declarations and commitments into action. Toward this end, an independent
> commission should be established to review national and international ICT
> regulations and practices and their compliance with international human
> rights standards. This commission should also address the potential
> applications of ICTs for the realization of human rights in the information
> society.
>
> * *
>
> Internet Governance
>
> * *
>
> Civil society is pleased with the decision to create an Internet
> Governance Forum (IGF), which it has advocated since 2003. We also are
> pleased that the IGF will have sufficient scope to deal with the issues that
> we believe must be addressed, most notably the conformity of existing
> arrangements with the Geneva Principles, and other cross-cutting or
> multidimensional issues that cannot be optimally dealt with within those
> arrangements. However, we reiterate our concerns that the Forum must not be
> anchored in any existing specialized international organization, meaning
> that its legal form, finances, and professional staff should be independent.
> In addition, we reiterate our view that the forum should be more than a
> place for dialogue. As was recommended by the WGIG Report, it should also
> provide expert analysis, trend monitoring, and capacity building, including
> in close collaboration with external partners in the research community.
>
>
>
> We are concerned, however, about the absence of details on how this forum
> will be created and on how it will be funded. We insist that the modalities
> of the IGF be determined in full cooperation with civil society. We
> emphasize that success in the forum, as in most areas of Internet
> governance, will be impossible without the full participation of civil
> society. By full participation we mean much more than playing a mere
> advisory role. Civil society must be able to participate fully and equally
> in both plenary and any working group or drafting group discussions, and
> must have the same opportunities as other stakeholders to influence agendas
> and outcomes.
>
>
>
> The Tunis Agenda addressed the issue of political oversight of critical
> Internet resources. This, in itself, is an achievement. It is also important
> that governments recognized the need for the development of a set of
> Internet-related public policy principles that would frame political
> oversight of Internet resources. These principles must respect, protect and
> promote the civil and political rights protected by international human
> rights treaties, ensure equitable access to information and online
> opportunities for all, and promote development.
>
>
>
> It is important that governments have established that developing these
> principles should be a shared responsibility. However, it is very
> unfortunate that the Tunis Agenda suggests that governments are only willing
> to share this role and responsibility among themselves, in cooperation with
> international organisations. Civil society remains strongly of the view that
> the formulation of appropriate and legitimate public policies pertaining to
> Internet governance requires the full and meaningful involvement of
> nongovernmental stakeholders.
>
>
>
> With regard to paragraph 40 of the Tunis Agenda, we are disappointed that
> there is no mention that efforts to combat cybercrime need to be exercised
> in the context of checks and balances provided by fundamental human rights,
> particularly freedom of expression and privacy.
>
>
>
> To ensure that Internet governance and development take place in the
> public interest, it is necessary for people who use the Internet understand
> how the DNS is functioning, how IP addresses are allocated, what basic legal
> instruments exist in fields like cyber-crime, Intellectual Property Rights,
> eCommerce, e-government, and human rights and promoting development. The
> responsibility of creating such awareness should be shared by everyone,
> including those at present involved in the governance and development of the
> Internet and emerging information and communication platforms.
>
> * *
>
> *Global governance*
>
> * *
>
> A world that is increasingly connected faces a greater number of common
> issues which need to be addressed by global governance institutions and
> processes. While civil society recognises that there are flaws and
> inefficiencies in the United Nations system, we believe strongly that it
> remains the most democratic intergovernmental forum, where rich and poor
> countries have rights to speak and participate and make decisions together.
>
>
>
> We are concerned that during the WSIS it emerged that many governments, especially
> from the North, lack faith in, and appear to be unwilling to invest
> authority and resources in the existing multilateral system.
>
>
>
> In our understanding summits take place precisely to develop the
> principles that will underpin global public policy and governance
> structures; to address critical issues, and decide on appropriate responses
> to these issues. Shrinking global public policy spaces raises serious
> questions of the kind of global governance that we are headed towards, and
> what this signifies for people who are socially, economically and
> politically marginalised: people who most rely on public policy to protect
> their interests.
>
>
>
> Participation
>
>
>
> In the course of four years, as a result of constant pressure from civil
> society, improvements in civil society participation have been achieved,
> including speaking rights in official plenaries and sub-committees and
> ultimately rights to observe in drafting groups. The UN Working Group on
> Internet Governance created an innovative format where governmental and
> civil society actors worked on an equal footing and civil society actually
> carried a large part of the drafting load.
>
>
>
> Due to the pressure of time and the need of governments to interact with
> civil society actors in the Internet Governance field, the resumed session
> of PrepCom3 was in fact the most open. We would like to suggest *[better
> formulation?]* that this openness, against all odds, contributed to
> reaching consensus.
>
>
>
> WSIS has demonstrated beyond any doubt the benefits of interaction between
> all stakeholders. The innovative rules and practices of participation
> established in this process will be fully documented to provide a reference
> point and a benchmark for participants in UN organizations and processes in
> the future.
>
>
>
> Civil society thanks those governments that greatly supported our
> participation in the WSIS process. We hope and expect that these
> achievements are taken further and strengthened, especially in more
> politically contested spaces of global policy making such as intellectual
> property rights, trade, environment and peace and disarmament.
>
>
>
> We note that some governments of the South were not actively supportive of
> greater observer participation as they believe it can lead to undue
> dominance of debate and opinions by international and northern civil society
> organisations and the private sector. We believe that to change this
> perception, they should engage in efforts to strengthen the presence,
> independence and participation of civil society constituencies in and from
> their own countries.
>
>
>
> As for the period beyond the summit, the Tunis documents clearly establish
> that the soon-to-be created Internet Governance Forum, and the future
> mechanisms for implementation and follow-up (including the revision of the
> mandate of the ECOSOC Commission on Science and Technology for Development)
> must take into account the multi-stakeholder approach.
>
>
>
> We want to express concern at the vagueness of text referring to the role
> of civil society. In almost every paragraph talking about multi-stakeholder
> participation, the phrase "in their respective roles and responsibilities"
> is used to limit the degree of multi-stakeholder participation. This
> limitation is due to the refusal of governments to recognize the full range
> of the roles and responsibilities of civil society.  Instead of the reduced
> capabilities assigned in paragraph 35C of the Tunis Agenda that attempt to
> restrict civil society to a community role, governments should have referred
> to the list of roles and responsibilities assigned to civil society by the
> WGIG report. These are:
>
>
>
> -         Awareness raising and capacity building (knowledge, training,
> skills sharing);
>
> -         Promote various public interest objectives;
>
> -         Facilitate network building;
>
> -         Mobilize citizens in democratic processes;
>
> -         Bring perspectives of marginalized groups including for example
> excluded communities and grassroots activists;
>
> -         Engage in policy processes;
>
> -         Bring expertise, skills, experience and knowledge in a range of
> ICT policy areas contributing to policy processes and policies that are more
> bottom-up, people-centred and ­inclusive;
>
> -         Research and development of technologies and standards;
>
> -         Development and dissemination of best practices;
>
> -         Helping to ensure that political and market forces are
> accountable to the needs of all members of society;
>
> -         Encourage social responsibility and good governance practice;
>
> -         Advocate for development of social projects and activities that
> are critical but may not be 'fashionable' or profitable;
>
> -         Contribute to ­shaping visions of human-centred information
> societies based on human rights, sustainable development, social justice and
> empowerment.
>
>
>
> Civil society has reason for concern that the limited concessions obtained
> in the last few days from countries that refuse the emergence of a truly
> multi-stakeholder format will be at risk in the coming months.
>
>
>
> Civil society actors therefore intend to remain actively mobilized. They
> need to proactively ensure that not only the needed future structures be
> established in a truly multi-stakeholder format, but also that the
> discussions preparing their mandates are conducted in an open, transparent
> and inclusive manner, allowing participation of all stakeholders on an equal
> footing.
>
> * *
>
> * *
>
> *III. Issues addressed in the **Geneva** and **Tunis** phases*
>
>
>
> *Gender Equality*
>
>
>
> Equal and active participation of women is essential, especially in
> decision-making. This includes all forums that will be established in
> relation to WSIS and the issues it has taken up. With that, there is a need
> for capacity building that is focussed at women's engagement with the
> shaping of an information society at all levels, including policy making on
> infrastructure development, financing, and technology choice.
>
>
>
> There is a need for real effort and commitment to transforming the
> masculinist culture embedded within existing structures and discourses of
> the information society which serves to reinforce gender disparity and
> inequality. Without full, material and engaged commitment to the principle
> of gender equality, women's empowerment and non-discrimination, the vision
> of a just and equitable information society cannot be achieved.
>
>
>
> Considering the affirmation of unequivocal support for gender equality and
> women's empowerment expressed in the Geneva Declaration of Principles and
> paying careful attention to Paragraph 23 of the Tunis Commitment, all
> government signatories must ensure that national policies, programmes and
> strategies developed and implemented to build a people-centred, inclusive
> and development-oriented Information Society demonstrate significant
> commitment to the principles of gender equality and women's empowerment.
>
>
>
> We emphasise that financial structures and mechanisms need to be geared
> towards addressing the gender divide, including the provision of adequate
> budgetary allocations. Comprehensive gender-disaggregated data and
> indicators have to be developed at national levels to enable and monitor
> this process. We urge all governments to take positive action to ensure
> institutions and practices, including those of the private sector, do not
> result in discrimination against women. Governments that are parties to
> the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against
> Women (CEDAW) are in fact bound to this course of action.
>
> * *
>
> *Culture, Knowledge, and the Public Domain*
>
>
>
> Each generation of humankind is depending upon its predecessors to leave
> them with a liveable, sustainable and stable environment. The environment we
> were discussing throughout the WSIS is the public domain of global
> knowledge. Like our planet with its natural resources, that domain is the
> heritage of all humankind and the reservoir from which new knowledge is
> created. Limited monopolies, such as copyrights and patents were originally
> conceived as tools to serve that public domain of global knowledge to the
> benefit of humankind. Whenever society grants monopolies, a delicate balance
> must be struck: Careless monopolization will make our heritage unavailable
> to most people, to the detriment of all.
>
>
>
> It has become quite clear that this balance has been upset by the
> interests of the rights-holding industry as well as the digitalization of
> knowledge. Humankind now has the power to instantaneously share knowledge in
> real-time, without loss, and at almost no costs. Civil Society has worked
> hard to defend that ability for all of humankind.
>
>
>
> Free Software is an integral part of this ability: Software is the
> cultural technique and most important regulator of the digital age. Access
> to it determines who may participate in a digital world. While in the
> Geneva phase, WSIS has recognised the importance of Free Software, it has
> not acted upon that declaration and fallen behind it in the Tunis phase.
> In the Tunis Commitment, Free Software is presented as a software model next
> to proprietary software, but paragraph 29 reiterates "the importance of
> proprietary software in the markets of the countries." This ignores that a
> proprietary software market is always striving towards dependency and
> monopolization, both of which are detrimental to economy and development as
> a whole. Proprietary software is under exclusive control of and to the
> benefit of its proprietor. Furthermore: Proprietary software is written in
> modern sweat-shops for the benefit of developed economies, which are
> subsidized at the expense of developing and least-developed countries in
> this way.
>
>
>
> While WSIS has somewhat recognised the importance of free and open source
> software, it has not asserted the significance of this choice for
> development. It is silent on other issues like open content (which goes
> beyond open access to academic publications), new open telecom paradigms and
> community-owned infrastructure as important development enablers.
>
>
>
> The WSIS process has failed to introduce cultural and linguistic diversity
> as a cross-cutting issue in the information society. The information society
> and its core elements - knowledge, information, communication and the
> information and communication technologies (ICTs) together with related
> rules and standards - are cultural concepts and expressions. Accordingly,
> culturally defined approaches, protocols, proceedings and obligations have
> to be respected and culturally appropriate applications developed and
> promoted. In order to foster and promote cultural diversity it must be
> ensured that no one has to be mere recipient of Western knowledge and
> treatment. Therefore development of such cultural elements of the
> Information Society must involve strong participation of all cultural
> communities.
>
>
>
> *[needs agreement / editing from Cultural Diversity and PCT caucuses]*
>
> Indigenous cultures provide for rules and regulations on communicating,
> sharing, using and applying traditional knowledge. WSIS has failed to
> offer solutions on how to protect the traditional knowledge, lore and
> culture of indigenous peoples from exploitation by third parties. It has not
> even considered the problems that arise for Indigenous peoples who cannot
> rightfully access their traditional heritage lest they infringe some private
> company's copyright or patent.
>
>
>
> Education and research
>
>
>
> If we want future generations to understand the real basis of our digital
> age, freedom has to be preserved for the knowledge of humankind: Free
> Software, open courseware and free educational as well as scientific
> resources empower people to take their life into their own hands. If not,
> they will become only users and consumers of information technologies,
> instead of active participants and well informed citizens in the information
> society. Each generation has a choice to make: Schooling of the mind and
> creativity, or product schooling? Most unfortunately, the WSIS has shown a
> significant tendency towards the latter.
>
>
>
> We are happy that universities, museums, archives, libraries have been
> recognized by WSIS as playing an important role as public institutions and
> with the community of researchers and academics. Unfortunately, telecenters
> are missing in the WSIS documents. Community informatics, telecenters and
> human resources like computer professionals, and the training of these, have
> to be promoted, so that ICTs serve training and not training serves ICTs.
> Thus special attention must be paid to supporting sustainable capacity
> building with specific focus on research and skills development.
>
>
>
> Problems of access, regulation, diversity and efficiency require attention
> to power relations both in the field of ICT policy-making and in the
> everyday uses of ICTs. Academic research should play a pivotal role in
> evaluating whether ICTs meet and serve the individuals' and the public's
> multiple needs and interests - as workers, women, migrants, racial, ethnic
> and sexual minorities, among others - across very uneven information
> societies in the world. Furthermore, because power relations and social
> orientations are often embedded in the very designs of ICTs, researchers
> should be sensitive to the diverse and multiple needs of the public in the
> technological design of ICTs. Similarly, educators at all levels should be
> empowered to develop curricula that provide training not only in the uses of
> ICTs as workers and consumers, but also in the critical assessment of ICTs,
> the institutional and social contexts of their development and
> implementation, as well as their creative uses for active citizenship. These
> issues have largely been ignored by WSIS.
>
>
>
> We furthermore have repeatedly underlined the unique role of ICTs in
> socio-economic development and in promoting the fulfilment of
> internationally agreed development goals, including those contained in the
> Millennium Declaration. This is not least true in the reference to access to
> information and universal primary education. To secure the fulfilment of
> these goals, it is of key importance that the issue of ICTs as tools for
> improvement of education is also incorporated in the broader development
> strategies at both national and international levels.
>
> Media
>
>
>
> We are pleased that the principle of freedom of expression has been
> reaffirmed in the WSIS II texts and that they echo much of the language of
> Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. While we are also
> pleased that the Tunis Commitment recognises the place of the media in a new
> Information Society, this should never have been in question.
>
>
>
> In the future, representatives of the media should be assured a place in
> all public forums considering development of the Internet and all other
> relevant aspects of the Information Society. As key actors in the
> Information Society, the media must have a place at the table, and this must
> be fully recognized both by governments and by Civil Society itself.
>
>
>
> While recognizing media and freedom of expression, the WSIS documents are
> weak on offering support for developing diversity in the media sector. They
> specifically neglect a range of projects and initiatives which are of
> particular value for civil society: Community media, telecenters, grassroots
> and civil society-based media. These media empower people for independent
> and creative participation in knowledge-building and information-sharing.
> They represent the prime means for large parts of the world population to
> participate in the information society and should be an integral part of
> implementation of the goals of the Geneva Declaration.
>
>
>
> The WSIS documents also mostly focus on market-based solutions and
> commercial use. Yet the internet, satellite, cable and broadcast systems
> all utilize public resources, such as airwaves and orbital paths. These
> should be managed in the public interest as publicly owned assets through
> transparent and accountable regulatory frameworks to enable the equitable
> allocation of resources and infrastructure among a plurality of media
> including community media. We reaffirm our commitment that commercial use of
> these resources begins with a public interest obligation.
>
>
>
> *Health Information*
>
> *[Health and ICTs WG is working on making it more specifically relate to
> the WSIS outcomes]*
>
>
>
> WSIS has failed to recognize the importance of access to health
> information and knowledge as essential to collective and individual human
> development and a critical factor in the public physical and mental health
> care crises around the world.  It is essential that health care systems
> include a holistic approach that addresses the prevention, treatment, and
> promotion of mental and physical health care for all people and to achieve
> the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).
>
>
>
> It is important to recognize that physical and mental health expertise and
> scientific knowledge is essential to aid disease stricken, as well as
> traumatized populations affected by war, terrorism, disaster and other
> events, and the implementation of ICT systems for physical and mental health
> information and services must be a two-way path recognizing cultural and
> community norms and values.
>
>
>
> It is essential that healthcare specialists, practitioners, and consumers
> participate in the development of public policy addressing privacy and
> related issues regarding physical and mental health information affecting
> information and delivery systems.
>
>
>
> *Children and young people in the information society*
>
>
>
> *[Current text is edited Children's Rights Caucus contribution. Youth
> Caucus will submit its part later.]*
>
> We support articles 11, 13 and 16 of the Geneva Declaration of Principles
> and Plan of Action; articles 90q and 92 of the Tunis Declaration and article
> 24 of the Tunis Commitment. In doing so, we encourage the greater inclusion
> of children and young people – as key current and future telecom users and
> creators. We support the great opportunities that ICTs offer children and
> young people and recognize the potential dangers that children and young
> people face in relation to ICTs.  In this regard we had hoped that WSIS
> supports our proposals on children's rights, participation and protection in
> the information society. These include, inter alia, making ICTs and
> connectivity available to all children; making ICTs an integral part of the
> formal and informal educational sectors; protecting children and young
> people from the potential risks posed by using new technologies, including
> access to inappropriate content, inappropriate or unwanted contact and
> commercial pressures; fighting the use of ICTs to exploit and abuse
> children. Through this, we are committed to work in the WSIS follow-up
> process towards a world where telecommunication allows children and young
> people to be heard one-by-one and through their voices, fulfil their rights
> and true potential to shape the world.
>
>
>
> *Ethical Dimensions*
>
>
>
> Values and ethics should be held as the ideal vision to underpin all
> aspects of individuals and organizations. Both should be regarded as central
> and thematic when evaluating ICTs as tools to enable just and peaceable
> conditions for humanity. The ethical dimensions are overarching and
> imperative and not value-added dimensions. These dimensions are clearer and
> stronger in the Geneva Declaration than the Tunis texts.
>
>
>
> The Tunis Agenda and Commitment are commendable in that they affirmed the
> Geneva Declaration's emphasis on a people-centred, sustainable
> development-oriented and human rights-based information society. But WSIS in
> Tunis failed to restate what Geneva considered acts inimical to the
> information society such as racism, intolerance, hatred, violence and
> others.
>
>
>
> Geneva lifted the ethical values of respect for peace and the fundamental
> values of freedom, equality, solidarity, tolerance, shared responsibility,
> and respect for nature as enunciated in the Millennium Declaration. Tunisshould have improved on these by including the principles of trust,
> stewardship and shared responsibility together with digital solidarity.
>
>
>
> The strong emphasis on technology in the Tunis texts must not eclipse the
> human being as the subject of communication and development. Our humanity
> rests in our capacity to communicate with each other and create community.
> The technologies we develop, and the solidarities we forge, must build
> relationships, trust, and cohesion. It is in the respectful dialogue among
> peoples and in the sharing of values among peoples, in the plurality of
> cultures and civilizations that meaningful and accountable communication
> thrives. The Tunis texts do not give clear indications on how this can
> happen.
>
>
>
> Beyond Tunis, we must encourage all stakeholders to weave ethics and
> values language in working on semantic web knowledge structures. This can
> help balance current dominant market values and the commodification of
> knowledge and attendant business logic. Communication rights and justice is
> about making human communities as the home of technology and human
> relationships as technology's heart.
>
>
>
>
>
> *IV. Where to go from here – our **Tunis** commitment*
>
> * *
>
> Civil society is committed to continuing its involvement in the future
> mechanisms for policy debate, implementation and follow-up on information
> society issues. To do this, civil society will build on the processes and
> structures that were developed during the WSIS process.
>
>
>
> *Element one: Evolution of our internal organization*
>
>
>
> Civil society will work on the continued evolution of the current
> structures. This will include the use of existing thematic caucuses and
> working groups, the possible creation of new caucuses, and the use of the
> Civil Society Plenary, the Civil Society Bureau, and the Civil Society
> Content and Themes Group. We will organise at a date to be determined to
> launch the process of creating a Civil Society charter.
>
> * *
>
> *Element two: Involvement in the Internet Governance Forum*
>
>
>
> In specific reference to the Internet Governance Forum, in addition to
> continuing to develop the consensus notion of the CS Internet Governance
> caucus, discussions are under way to create a new working group that will
> focus on making recommendations on the modalities of the new forum.
>
> * *
>
> *Element three: Involvement in follow-up and implementation*
>
>
>
> In order to ensure that the future implementation and follow-up mechanisms
> respect the spirit and letter of the Tunis documents and that governments
> uphold the commitments they have made during this second phase of the WSIS,
> civil society mechanisms will be used and created to ensure
>
> ·        the proactive monitoring at the national level of the
> implementation of the Geneva Plan of Action and the Tunis Agenda by
> governments;
>
> ·        a structured interaction with all UN agencies and international
> organisations to ensure that they integrate the WSIS objectives in their own
> work plan, and that they put in place effective mechanisms for
> multistakeholder interaction;
>
> ·        that the information society as a complex social political
> phenomenon is not reduced to a technology-centred perspective. The ECOSOC
> Commission on Science and Technology for Development will have to
> significantly change its mandate and composition to adequately address the
> needs for being an effective follow-up mechanism for WSIS whilst
> re-affirming its original mission of developing science and technology, in
> addition to ICTs, for the development objectives of poor countries;
>
> ·        not only that the reformed Commission on Science and Technology
> for Development becomes a truly multi-stakeholder commission for the
> information society, but also, that the process to revise it's mandate,
> composition and agenda is done in a fully open and inclusive manner.
>
>
>
> *Element four: Lessons learned for the UN system in general*
>
>
>
> We see the WSIS process as an experience to be learned from for the
> overall UN system and processes. We will therefore work with the United
> Nations and all stakeholders on
>
> ·        developing clearer and less bureaucratic rules of recognition for
> accrediting civil society organisations in the UN system, for instance on
> obtaining ECOSOC status and summit accreditation, to ensure that national
> governmental recognition of civil society entities is not the premise for
> official recognition in the UN system;
>
> ·        ensuring that all future summit processes be multi–stakeholder in
> their approach, allowing for due flexibility. This would be achieved either
> by recognition of precedents set in summit processes, or by formulating a
> rules of procedure manual to guide future summit processes and day-to-day
> civil society interaction with the international community.
>
>
>
> *Element five: Outreach to other constituencies*
>
>
>
> The civil society constituency that closely associated with the WSIS
> process is conscious that the information society, as its name suggests, is
> a society-wide phenomenon, and advocacy on Information society issues need
> to include every interest and every group. We therefore commit ourselves in
> the post-WSIS period to work to broaden our reach to different civil society
> constituencies that for various reasons have not been active in the WSIS
> process, may have shown scepticism over the role of ICTs in their core areas
> of activity, or for other reasons have remained disengaged from the
> information society discourse.
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/pipermail/plenary/attachments/20051201/96bdb1cf/attachment.html