[WSIS CS-Plenary] Re: [WSIS-CT] WSIS Civil Society Summit Statement - final version for publication

[Rik Panganiban]

Ralf, Karen, et al,

Congrats on this mind-breaking work!

I have uploaded the statement for easier dissemination to the CONGO  
website in various formats:

	.doc format	http://www.ngocongo.org/ngomeet/WSIS/WSIS-CS-statement- 
final1205.doc
	.rtf format	http://www.ngocongo.org/ngomeet/WSIS/WSIS-CS-statement- 
final1205.rtf
	.html format	http://www.ngocongo.org/ngomeet/WSIS/WSIS-CS-statement- 
final1205.htm
	.pdf format	http://www.ngocongo.org/ngomeet/WSIS/WSIS-CS-statement- 
final1205.pdf

Rik Panganiban
CONGO

On Dec 19, 2005, at 1:41 AM, Ralf Bendrath wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> attached (and also as an ASCII copy after the end of this mail)  
> find the
> final version of the Civil Society Statement on the WSIS. We have  
> finished
> it exactly a month after the closure of the summit, after a lenghty  
> global
> online consultation process. We went through ten different  
> versions, and
> only I was exchanging around 500 emails with people from different
> caucuses, backgrounds and regions. In the end, sometimes my job was to
> make everybody involved in special parts equally unhappy, but to  
> make most
> of us happy about the overall statement.
>
> I want to thank everybody who has contributed to it. Many people from
> different caucuses sent their input, were patient and understanding  
> about
> changes we had to make, discussed with others, and in the end  
> understood
> the limitations and the responsibility of the drafting team.
>
> Special thanks go to the translators from the CONGO team - Alejandra
> Mendoza, Philippe Dam, and Adina Fulga Radi, as well as Katitza  
> Rodriguez
> and Phol Paucar from CPSR Peru. (Feel invited to and thanked for  
> doing new
> translations of the final version now!) Many thanks also go to Michael
> Gurstein for proofreading and copy-editing the whole document. And  
> thanks
> to everybody else who suggested changes and improvements to different
> parts of the statement - among them Sally Burch, Bertrand de La  
> Chapelle,
> Parminder Jeet Singh, Avri Doria, Tracey Naughton. And of course great
> thanks to Karen Banks who was my co-facilitator and drafter for pretty
> much of the time. Forgive me for not listing everybody here - again, I
> exchanged about 500 mails around this thing in the last month...
>
> We can be proud of this pretty elaborated and differentiated  
> document. It
> will be submitted to the WSIS Executive Secretariat as Civil Society's
> official contribution to the summit. It will also be online at
> www.worldsummit2005.org in the next few hours. Please spread it widely
> among everybody interested in the summit or its issues.
>
> I would be glad if somebody could provide a pdf version of this  
> statement.
> Please send it to me directly.
>
> Best regards, and hope to see you all somewhere soon!
>
> Ralf
>
> --------------------------
>
> “Much more could have been achieved”
>
> Civil Society Statement
> on the
> World Summit on the Information Society
>
> 18 December 2005
>
> 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. We have taken a month after the closure  
> of the
> Tunis Summit to discuss the outcomes and the process of WSIS. We  
> built on
> our Geneva 2003 Civil Society Summit Declaration “Shaping Information
> Societies for Human Needs”, and we evaluated the experiences and  
> lessons
> learned in the four years of WSIS I and WSIS II. This statement was
> developed in a global online consultation process. It is presented as
> Civil Society’s official contribution to the Summit outcomes.
>
> 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. 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.
>
> Internet access, for everybody and everywhere, especially among
> disadvantaged populations and in rural areas, must be considered as a
> global public good. 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
>
> 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 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 health and the prevention and treatment of 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.
>
> <WSIS-CS-summit-statement-18-12-2005-en.doc>



===============================================
RIK PANGANIBAN       Communications Coordinator
Conference of NGOs in Consultative Relationship with the United  
Nations (CONGO)
web: http://www.ngocongo.org
email: rik.panganiban at ngocongo.org
mobile: (+1) 917-710-5524

* Information on the WSIS at http://www.ngocongo.org/wsis
* Submit NGO Events to http://www.ngoevents.org


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/pipermail/plenary/attachments/20051219/93fd244d/attachment.html