[WSIS CS-Plenary] SV: [Pwd] Re: [WSIS-CT] almost final version 4.3 of WSIS CS statement
Kicki Nordström
kino at iris.se
Sun Dec 18 19:21:00 GMT 2005
Dear Hiroshi and all,
To take the issue further concerning the language on "physical and mental health", and as Sylvia has pointed out, the International Disability caucus, IDC, working on the new Human Rights convention on disability, will strongly make it clear we would not like to separate physical health from mental health.
Concerning health. We are very well aware that WHO use this language from 1949 as a definition on health. But the objection to this is that it carry lots of old fashion belief of health as being both physical and mental, instead of seeing it as combined and tied together. We must move away from this wrong perspective of health and adopt a modern approach of health and well being beyond the old WHO definition on health.
It is not only IDC, which support Sylvia's opinion, but also the International Disability Alliance (IDA) comprising of all international disability organisations and represent the majority of the disability movement in the world. For me, the opinions of professionals carry little wait since the "consumers" do not share their belief.
Yours
Kicki
Kicki Nordström
World Blind Union
Immediate Past President
c/o SRF Iris AB
122 88 Enskede
Sweden
Tel: +46 (0)8 399 000
Fax: +46 (0)8 725 99 20
Cell: +46 (0)70 766 18 19
E-mail: kino at iris.se
-----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
Från: pwd-admin at wsis-cs.org [mailto:pwd-admin at wsis-cs.org] För Hiroshi Kawamura
Skickat: den 18 december 2005 09:59
Till: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de; WSIS-CT; WSIS CT-Drafting
Kopia: Sylvia Caras; plenary at wsis-cs.org; Pwd at wsis-cs.org
Ämne: [Pwd] Re: [WSIS-CT] almost final version 4.3 of WSIS CS statement
Prioritet: Hög
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.
>
_______________________________________________
Pwd mailing list
Pwd at wsis-cs.org
http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/pwd
More information about the Plenary
mailing list