[WSIS CS-Plenary] Re: [WSIS-CT] almost final version 4.3 of WSIS CS statement

[Hiroshi Kawamura]

Dear Ralf and others:

As I attached in the body of my posting to CS Plenary List on 19th November, 
the Disability Caucus adopted the Tunis Declaration.
Since the Caucus held two major events on 15th and 18th November in Tunis, I 
am afraid that none of the Caucus members could effectively commit the 
process of CS Statement development.
I really appreciate CS members who are working on this very difficult work 
to create a consensus and formulate a CS Statement.

At the last stage of CS Declaration, I must admit that there is still a 
serious issues to be dealt with among those health professionals and 
disability caucus regarding the language being used in the "almost final 
version 4.3". As a matter of fact, the concern expressed by Sylvia Caras, 
was also expressed by her at the Global Forum on Disability in the 
Information Society in Tunis during the summit and she received no 
objections on her contributions. Of course there was no voting but I sense 
that there was positive understanding on her statements in general.

Quotation from the posting of Sylvia Caras on 15 December:

I'd be pleased to see, if that pharse "physical and mental" were deleted, an 
explanation that "health includes biological, emotional, social, spiritual 
and vocational well-being"  which seems to me would embrace all aspects of 
health and thus not reuqire carving out mental health.

--end of quotation.

As the CSB Focal Point on Disability, I must address the fact that there is 
a serious disagreement on the language used in the WSIS CS Statement clearly 
expressed by Sylvia as quoted above. Even though Elizabeth Carl reported 
that there were only one objection among the Caucus on Health and ICT, I 
have to point out that the feeling of the Global Forum in Tunis was in 
support of Sylvia and she addressed the concerns to the WSIS-CT list on 
behalf of all attendees of the Global Forum in Tunis.

In addition, there was no disability specific active input to the CS 
Statement due to the fact that WSIS Disability Caucus was focusing on its 
own declaration which was adopted on 18th November based on all disability 
specific WSIS process since 2002, I would like to ask the editors of the CS 
Statement to refer to the Tunis Declaration as attached as one of the 
delarations and statements of CS that may be listed or attached to the CS 
Statement rather than inserting paragraphs or sentences at this stage.

Best regards,

Hiroshi Kawamura
WSIS CSB Disability Focal Point

PS  I attach both Tunis Declaration of Disability Caucus as well as the 
Draft CS Statement for the convenience of those who have difficulties to 
open attachment files in Word format.

[ Attached document 1]

<Tunis Declaration on Information Society for Persons with Disabilities, 
November 18, 2005>

Recalling the historic success of the first Global Forum on Disability and 
the over all first phase of WSIS; Being encouraged and moved by the spirit 
of the Geneva Declaration on Inclusive Information Society, WSIS Declaration 
of Principles and Plan of Action;

Noting, however, with great concern the difficulty of transforming words on 
paper into real actions/implementation, given the fact that the concept of 
"inclusiveness" in general often leaves disability aspects out, causing 
persons with disabilities to be excluded, marginalized, forgotten and left
behind;

Having high hope and confidence in the ultimate power of the united force, 
among persons with disabilities, our representative organizations our 
friends and our empathetic allies of all sectors around the world, to work 
for the true inclusive information society,

Therefore, we, participants of the Second Global Forum on Disability in the 
Information Society, held during the second phase of WSIS, on the 18th day 
of November 2005, in the City of Tunis, Republic of Tunisia:

1. Call upon all governments, private sectors, civil society and 
international organizations to make the implementation, evaluation and 
monitoring of all WSIS documents, both from the first and second phase, 
inclusive to persons with disabilities;

2. Strongly urge that persons with disabilities and our needs be included in 
all aspects of designing, developing, distributing and deploying of 
appropriation strategies of information and communication technologies, 
including information and communication services, so as to ensure 
accessibility for persons with disabilities, taking into account the 
universal design principle and the use of assistive technologies;

3. Strongly request that any international, regional and national 
development program, funding or assistance, aimed to achieve the inclusive 
information society be made disability-inclusive, both through mainstreaming 
and disability-specific approaches;

4. Urge all governments to support the process of negotiation, adoption, 
ratification and implementation of the International convention on the 
rights of persons with disabilities, in particular through enactment of 
national legislation, as it contains strong elements concerning information 
and communication accessibility for persons with disabilities.


[ Attched document 2 ]

<WSIS Civil Society Statement 2005 - DRAFT Version 4.3 last change: 
18/12/2005 16:26 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 at 
the local, national and international levels; societies in which the ability 
to access, share and communicate information and knowledge is treated as a 
public good and takes place in ways that strengthen 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 and that will enable opportunities for effective ICT uses.
.Agreement on a substantively broad and procedurally inclusive approach to 
Internet governance, the reform of existing governance mechanisms in 
accordance with the Geneva principles, and the creation of a new forum to 
promote multi-stakeholder dialogue, analysis, trend monitoring, and capacity 
building in the field of Internet governance.
.Ensuring that our human-centred vision of the 'Information Society', framed 
by a global commitment to human rights, social justice and inclusive and 
sustainable development, is present throughout the implementation phase.
.Achieving a change of tide in perceptions and practices of participatory 
decision-making. We saw the WSIS as a milestone from which the voluntary and 
transparent participation of Civil Society would become more comprehensive 
and integrated at local, national, regional and global levels of governance 
and decision making.
.Agreement on strong commitment to the centrality of human rights, 
especially the right to access and impart information and to individual 
privacy.

Civil Society affirms that, facing very limited resources, it has 
contributed positively to the WSIS process, a contribution that could have 
been even greater had the opportunity been made available for an even more 
comprehensive participation on our part. Our contribution will continue 
beyond the Summit. It is a contribution that is made both through 
constructive engagement and through challenge and critique.

While we value the process and the outcomes, we are convinced much more 
could have been achieved. The issues of greatest concern to Civil Society 
are addressed in sections II and III of this statement. For most of these 
items, minor achievements in the outcomes from WSIS were offset by major 
shortcomings, with much remaining to be done. Some of our greatest concerns 
involve what we consider to be insufficient attention or inadequate 
recommendations concerning people-centred issues such as the degree of 
attention paid to human rights and freedom of expression, the financial 
mechanisms for the promotion of development that was the original impetus 
for the WSIS process, and support for capacity building. In section IV, we 
lay out the first building blocks of Civil Society's "Tunis Commitment". 
Civil Society has every intention to remain involved in the follow-up and 
implementation processes after the Tunis summit, both through constructive 
engagement and through challenge and critique. We trust governments realize 
that our participation is vital to achieve a more inclusive and just 
Information Society.

II. Issues addressed during the Tunis phase of WSIS

Social Justice, Financing and People-Centred Development

The broad mandate for WSIS was to address the long-standing issues in 
economic and social development from the newly emerging perspectives of the 
opportunities and risks posed by the revolution in Information and 
Communications Technologies (ICTs). The summit was expected to identify and 
articulate new development possibilities and paradigms being made possible 
in the Information Society, and to evolve public policy options for enabling 
and realising these opportunities. Overall, it is impossible not to conclude 
that WSIS has failed to live up to these expectations. The Tunis phase in 
particular, which was presented as the "summit of solutions", did not 
provide concrete achievements to meaningfully address development 
priorities.

While the summit did discuss the importance of new financing mechanisms for 
ICT for Development (ICTD), it failed to recognize that ICTD presents a 
challenge beyond that of traditional development financing. Nor did the 
Tunis fully comprehend that new means and sources of financing and the 
exploration of new models and mechanisms are required.

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 with care and discretion, ICTD financing 
should not be viewed as directly in competition with the financing of other 
developmental sectors. Financing ICTD should be considered a priority at 
both national and international levels, with specific approaches to each 
country according to its level of development and with a long-term 
perspective adapted to a global vision of development and sharing within the 
global community.

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 the realization of ODA commitments agreed to in the 
Monterrey Consensus and including assistance to programs and activities 
whose short-term sustainability cannot be immediately demonstrated because 
of the low level of resources available as their starting point.

[Waiting for ok from ct-drafting on small editing in this paragraph (first 
two sentences). Deadline is Sunday afternoon 16:00 CET]
Internet access, for everybody and everywhere, especially among 
disadvantaged populations and in rural areas, must be considered as a global 
public interest. The network of networks as a whole can be seen as a global 
public good, as its overall growth is beneficial not just for those who get 
connected, but for all. In many cases market approaches are unlikely to 
address the connectivity needs of particularly disadvantaged regions and 
populations. In many such areas, initial priority may need to be given to 
the provision of more traditional ICTs - radio, TV, video and telephony - 
while the conditions are developed for ensuring the availability of complete 
Internet connectivity. Info-structure and development often require 
attention to the development of more traditional infrastructure as well such 
as roads and electricity.

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 the Tunis Agenda (paragraph 21) on the 
importance of public policy in mobilizing resources for financing. This can 
serve as a balance to the market-based orientation of much of the text on 
financing.

The potential of ICT as tools for development, and not merely tools for 
communication, by now should have been realised by all states. National ICT 
strategies should be closely related to national strategies for development 
and poverty eradication. Aid strategies in developed countries should 
include clear guidelines for the incorporation of ICT into all aspects of 
development. In this way ICTs should be integrated into general development 
assistance and in this way contribute to the mobilisation of additional 
resources and an increase in the efficiency of development assistance.

We welcome the launch of the Digital Solidarity Fund (DSF) in March 2005 and 
take note of the support it got both from the United Nations and the Tunis 
Summit. Nevertheless, taking into account that the DSF was established on a 
voluntarily basis, we are concerned that there are no clear commitments from 
governments and the private sector to provide the needed material support to 
ensure the success of this fund. We invite all partners from the 
governmental and the private sector to commit themselves to the so-called 
"Geneva Principle" where each ICT contract concluded by a public 
administration with a private company includes a one percent contribution to 
the DSF. We particularly encourage local and regional administrations to 
adopt this principle and welcome the relevant statement made by the World 
Summit of Cities and Local Authorities in Bilbao, November 2005, on the eve 
of WSIS II.

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 on Human Rights in 1993. It was also affirmed in the WSIS 
2003 Declaration of Principles. All legislation, policies, 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 for security. The summit has also ignored our 
demand that the principle of the privacy and integrity of the vote be 
ensured 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, a formal commitment is 
one thing, implementation is something else. Side events open to the general 
public were organised by civil society both at the Geneva and Tunis Summit, 
consistent with a long tradition in the context of UN summits. In Tunis, the 
initiative by parts of civil society to organize a "Citizens' Summit on the 
Information Society" was prevented from happening. At the Geneva Summit, the 
"We Seize" 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 to 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, to 
ensure the embedding of human rights proofing in national legislation and 
practises, to strengthen education and awareness raising in the area of 
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 for since 2003. We also are pleased that 
the IGF will have sufficient scope to deal with the issues 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 current 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 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 both in plenary and 
any working 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 in its paragraphs 69 to 71. 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 human rights as laid down in 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 
non-governmental stakeholders.

With regard to paragraph 40 of the Tunis Agenda, we are disappointed that 
there is no mention that efforts to combat cyber-crime need to be exercised 
in the context of checks and balances provided by fundamental human rights, 
particularly freedom of expression and privacy.

With regard to paragraph 63, we believe that a country code Top Level Domain 
(ccTLD) is a public good both for people of the concerned country or economy 
and for global citizens who have various linkages to particular countries. 
While we recognize the important role of governments in protecting the 
ccTLDs that refer to their countries or economies, this role must be 
executed in a manner that respects human rights as expressed in existing 
international treaties through a democratic, transparent and inclusive 
process with full involvement of all stakeholders.

To ensure that development of the Internet and its governance takes place in 
the public interest, it is important for all stakeholders to better 
understand how core Internet governance functions - as for example, DNS 
management, IP address allocation, and others - are carried out. It is 
equally important that these same actors understand the linkages between 
broader Internet governance and Internet related matters such as 
cyber-crime, Intellectual Property Rights, e-commerce, e-government, human 
rights and capacity building and economic 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. Equally it is essential 
that as this awareness develops in newer users of the Internet, older users 
must be open to the new perspectives that will emerge.

Global governance

A world that is increasingly more connected faces a considerable and growing 
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 that require urgent 
reform, we believe strongly that it remains most legitimate 
inter-governmental forum, where rich and poor countries have the same rights 
to speak, participate, and make decisions together.

We are concerned that during the WSIS it emerged that some governments, 
especially from developed countries, lack faith in, and appear to be 
unwilling to invest authority and resources in the present multilateral 
system, along with concerted efforts to further improve it. We also regret 
that debates on creating private-public partnerships and new 
para-institutions within the United Nations have over-shadowed the overall 
discussion on bridging the digital divide, which in turn has to be linked to 
a deep reform of the UN and the global economic 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 to decide on appropriate responses to these 
issues. Shrinking global public policy spaces raise serious questions 
concerning the kind of global governance toward which we are heading, and 
what this might mean for people who are socially, economically and 
politically marginalised: precisely those 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 in these processes 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 of all. We would like to underline 
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 and international bodies 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 policymaking such as those concerning 
intellectual property rights, trade, environment, and peace and disarmament.

We note that some governments from developing countries were not actively 
supportive of greater observer participation believing that that it can lead 
to undue dominance of debate and opinions by international and developed 
countries' Civil Society organisations and the private sector. We believe 
that to change this perception, efforts should be engaged in 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 at 
minima referred to the list of Civil Society roles and responsibilities 
listed in 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 before the summit, from countries that previously 
refused 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. Civil Society hopes to be given the means to ensure all its 
representatives from different regions, languages and cultures, from 
developed and developing countries, can fully participate.

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 on 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 that 
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 cost. 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 this recognition faded 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 often 
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 in the area of 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 (ICT) 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 a mere recipient of Western knowledge and 
treatment. Therefore development of the cultural elements of the Information 
Society must involve strong participation by all cultural communities. The 
WSIS has failed to recognize the need for developing knowledge resources to 
shift the current lack of diversity, to move from the dominant paradigm of 
over-developed nations and cultures to the need for being open to learning 
and seeing differently.

Indigenous Peoples, further to self-determination and pursuant to their 
traditional and customary laws, protocols, rules and regulations, oral and 
written, provide for the access, use, application and dissemination of 
traditional and cultural knowledge, oral histories, folklore and related 
customs and practices. WSIS has failed to protect these from exploitation, 
misuse and appropriation by third parties. As a result, the traditional 
knowledge, oral histories, folklore and related customs, practices and 
representations have been and continue to be exploited by both informal and 
formal (being copyright, trademark and patent) means, with no benefits to 
the rightful Indigenous holders of that knowledge.

Education, Research, and Practice

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, social 
informatics, telecenters and human resources such as computer professionals, 
and the training of these, have to be promoted, so that ICT serves training 
and not training serves ICT. Thus special attention must be paid to 
supporting sustainable capacity building with a specific focus on research 
and skills development. In order to tackle development contexts training 
should have a sociological focus too and not be entirely technologically 
framed.

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 ICT. Academic research should play a pivotal role in 
evaluating whether ICT meets and serves 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 throughout the world. Furthermore, because power relations and 
social orientations are often embedded in the very designs of ICT, 
researchers should be sensitive to the diverse and multiple needs of the 
public in the technological design of ICT. Similarly, educators at all 
levels should be empowered to develop curricula that provide or contribute 
to training for people not only as workers and consumers using ICT, but also 
in the basic science and engineering of ICT, in the participatory design of 
ICT by communities with computing professionals, the critical assessment of 
ICT, the institutional and social contexts of their development and 
implementation, as well as their creative uses for active citizenship. Young 
people - given their large numbers, particularly in developing countries, 
and enthusiasm and expertise in the use of ICTs - remain an untapped 
resource as initiators of peer-to-peer learning projects at the community 
and school levels. These issues have largely been ignored by WSIS.

The actors that need to be involved in the process of making this vision a 
reality are the professionals and researchers, the students and their 
families, the support services and human resources of the resources centres, 
politicians at all levels, social organizations and NGOs, but also the 
private sector. However, in the teaching profession, it is necessary to 
recognize and accept the need for learning and evolution with regards to 
ICT.

We emphasize the special role that the computing, information science, and 
engineering professions have in helping to shape the Information Society to 
meet human needs.  Their education must encourage socially-responsible 
practices in the design, implementation, and operation of ICT. The larger 
Information Society has an equally important and corresponding role to play 
by participating in the design of ICT. We, therefore, encourage increased 
cooperation between the computing, information science, and engineering 
professions and end-users of ICTs, particularly communities.

We furthermore have repeatedly underlined the unique role of ICT 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 ICT as tools for the 
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 note 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 and 
for avoiding a growing concentration and uniformity of content. They 
specifically neglect a range of projects and initiatives which are of 
particular value for Civil Society and which need a favourable environment: 
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 the public policy implementation 
of the goals of the Geneva Declaration, which refers to the promotion of the 
diversity of media and media ownership.

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 Information WG has problems to decide if to use "physical and mental 
health" or just to use "health" and clarify with saying "Health includes 
biological, emotional, social, spiritual and vocational well-being." Gave 
them a deadline until Sunday 16:00 CET.]
Access to health information and knowledge is essential to collective and 
individual human development and has been identified as a critical factor in 
the public [physical and mental] health care crises around the world. The 
WSIS  process has neglected to recognize that health is a cross-cutting 
issue and that health systems must include a holistic approach which is 
integral to the promotion of  [physical and mental] health and the 
prevention and treatment of [physical and mental] illness for all people and 
to achieve the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).

It is important to recognize that 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 further that 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 health care specialists, practitioners, and consumers 
participate in the development of public policy addressing privacy and 
related issues regarding health information affecting information and 
delivery systems.

Children and young people in the Information Society

In WSIS Phase I, the Geneva Declaration of Principles explicitly 
acknowledged young people, in paragraph 11, as the "future workforce and 
leading creators and earliest adopters of ICTs" and that to fully realize 
this end, youth must be "empowered as learners, developers, contributors, 
entrepreneurs and decision-makers." The Tunis Commitment in paragraph 25 
reaffirmed the strategic role of youth as stakeholders and partners in 
creating an inclusive Information Society. This recognition is further 
supported by paragraph 90 of the Tunis Agenda. However we are concerned as 
to how key decision-makers from Governments, the business community and 
Civil Society will realize this commitment when the existing structures are 
not open for genuine, full and effective participation by youth. None of the 
Tunis documents, specifically in the post-WSIS implementation and follow-up 
parts, clearly defines how youth shall be "actively engaged in innovative 
ICT-based development programmes and . in e-strategy processes," as 
paragraph 25 states. In this regard, we call upon governments, both national 
and local, and the proponents of the Digital Solidarity Fund, to engage 
young people as digital opportunities are created and national e-strategies 
developed. Youth must be tapped as community leaders and volunteers for ICT 
for Development projects and be consulted in global and national ICT 
policy-making processes and formulation.

While we support the great opportunities that ICTs offer children and young 
people, articles 90q of the Tunis Agenda and article 24 of the Tunis 
Commitment outline the potential dangers that children and young people face 
in relation to ICTs. For this reason, article 92 of the Tunis Agenda 
encourages all governments to support an easy to remember, free of charge, 
national number for all children in need of care and protection. However, we 
had hoped that WSIS would have encouraged every stakeholder to support a 
more comprehensive proposal that ensured that every child, especially those 
that are marginalized and disadvantaged, has free access to ICTs, including 
but not limited to, toll free landlines, mobile telephones and Internet 
connection. In this regard, strategies should be developed that allow 
children and young people to reap the benefits that ICTs offer by making ICT 
an integral part of the formal and informal education sectors. There should 
also be strategies that protect children and young people from the potential 
risks posed by new technologies, including access to inappropriate content, 
unwanted contact and commercial pressures, particularly with regards to 
pornography, pedophilia and sexual trafficking, while fully respecting human 
rights standards on freedom of expression. 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, 
to fulfil their rights and true potential to shape the world.

Ethical Dimensions

The Tunis texts would have clearly been stronger if the aspects of the 
Information Society being people-centred, human rights-based and sustainable 
development-oriented were seen as the ethical point of departure in human 
relationships and community building and equally in bodies of international 
agreements. These ethical dimensions are foundational to a just, equitable 
and sustainable information and knowledge society.

Geneva identified 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. Tunis should have improved on these by including the principles 
of trust, stewardship and shared responsibility together with digital 
solidarity. The technologies we develop, and the solidarities we forge, must 
build relationships and strengthen social cohesion

Human rights conventions, for example, are critically important in 
evaluating ICTs so that they are tools to enable just and peaceable 
conditions for humanity. But Tunis failed to point in this direction. It did 
not, for example, restate what Geneva considered as acts inimical to the 
Information Society such as racism, intolerance, hatred, violence and 
others.

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 to create 
community. It is in the respectful dialogue and sharing of values among 
peoples, in the plurality of their cultures and civilizations, that 
meaningful and accountable communication thrives. The Tunis texts did not 
give clear indications on how this can happen.

In an age of economic globalization and commodification of knowledge, the 
ethics and values of justice, equity, participation and sustainability are 
imperative. Beyond Tunis, all stakeholders must be encouraged to weave 
ethics and values language into the working on semantic web knowledge 
structures. Communication rights and justice are about making human 
communities as technology's home 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 its 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

The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus will actively participate in 
and support the work of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), and is 
exploring ways to enhance its working methods and its engagement with 
relevant stakeholders, especially the research community, to these ends. In 
addition, the caucus is considering the creation of a new Working Group that 
will make recommendations on the IGF, and other Civil Society caucuses, and 
individual Civil Society Working Groups will develop ideas for and 
participate in the IGF as well.

Element three: Involvement in follow-up and implementation

In order to ensure that 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 of and participation in the implementation of the 
Geneva Plan of Action and the Tunis Agenda at the national level;
.a structured interaction with all UN agencies and international 
organisations and regional as well as national mechanisms for follow-up, to 
ensure that they integrate the WSIS objectives in their own work plans, and 
that they put in place effective mechanisms for multi-stakeholder 
interaction, as mentioned in paragraphs 100 and 101 of the Tunis Agenda;
.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 change significantly its 
mandate and composition to adequately address the need for being an 
effective follow-up mechanism for WSIS while re-affirming its original 
mission of developing science and technology, in addition to ICT, 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 related 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 in 
obtaining ECOSOC status and summit accreditation, and to ensure that 
national governmental recognition of Civil Society entities is not the basis 
for official recognition in the UN system; and
.ensuring that all future summit processes be multi-stakeholder in their 
approach, allowing for appropriate 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 actors that actively participated in the WSIS process are 
conscious that the Information Society, as its name suggests, is a 
society-wide phenomenon, and that advocacy on Information Society issues 
need to include every responsible interest and group. We therefore commit 
ourselves in the post-WSIS period to work to broaden our reach to include 
different Civil Society constituencies that for various reasons have not 
been active in the WSIS process; may have shown scepticism over the role of 
ICT in their core areas of activity; or for other reasons have remained 
disengaged from the Information Society discourse.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ralf Bendrath" <bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de>
To: "WSIS-CT" <ct at wsis-cs.org>; "WSIS CT-Drafting" <ct-drafting at wsis-cs.org>
Sent: Sunday, December 18, 2005 11:19 AM
Subject: [WSIS-CT] almost final version 4.3 of WSIS CS statement


> Hi all,
>
> attached find version 4.3 of the WSIS CS Statement. I will have to finish
> it and send it out on Sunday night, and I will be traveling in the
> afternoon. Therefore the deadline for very very last final minor editing
> input is Sunday 16:00 CET.
>
> The exact wording has changed on several occasions, because Michael
> Gurstein did a great job copy-editing the whole document in a few hours,
> and Sally Burch also suggested some editing for the introduction, as did a
> few others for smaller parts here and there.
>
> So: This version is just for you all to check if I have forgotten or
> overlooked any changes that we had agreed upon in the last few days. Let
> me know if I have, and send me the agreed changes in that case.
>
> I won't be able to go into opening up new issues and engaging in further
> drafting and discussions. (There are two open issues left, which are
> marked in the text, and where I am waiting for feedback until the 
> deadline.)
>
> Best, Ralf
>
> PS: Don't get confused by the numbering: Version 4.2 was an internal one
> after the copy-editing from Michael and which I then took as the basis for
> incorporating the inputs and changes for version 4.1.
>