Dear All,
After a month after the closure of the summit, and a lengthy global online
consultation process, which led to ten different versions, attached is the final
version of version of the Civil Society Statement on the WSIS (in .pdf format;
(also pasted in text below).
It has been submitted to the WSIS Executive Secretariat as Civil Society's
official contribution to the summit. It will also be online in various Civil
society sites (e.g, www.worldsummit2005.org). Please disseminate it widely to
everybody interested in the summit or its issues.
It raises important issues that were considered crucial from the civil society's
viewpoint. The declaration emphasizes free sharing of knowledge, financing of
ICTs on the public goods principle, promoting free and open software, open
content models and open access (telecom) models. It emphasizes the human rights
and pro-development dimensions of information
society.
The declaration decries the attempt of many governments of the North to
undermine the relatively democratic multi-lateral systems like the UN in all
policy and governance issues related to information society. At the same time it
also criticizes many governments of the South that have been against greater
multi-stakeholder participation in UN processes.
It also underscores the fact that not all civil society constituencies
participated in the WSIS process because of many different reasons, and calls
for reaching out to all the different constituencies for enriching the
information society debates.
If one finds the document at some places too long, and maybe even repetitive or
meandering, please understand that civil society has numerous components, and
many voices, especially of those sections that may not get heard through
mainstream channels. This document has emerged through a long consultative
process among the civil society that had engaged with the WSIS process, and
attempts to catch the viewpoints of many different constituencies.
In behalf of FMA I would like to wish everyone the best of the season...Isang
mapagpalayang Pasko at isang Bagong Taon na puno ng pag-asa (A Liberating
Christmas and a New Year full of Hope...)
Al Alegre
Foundation for Media Alternatives
=======
"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.
(end)