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

[Ralf Bendrath]

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.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: WSIS-CS-summit-statement-18-12-2005-en.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 192512 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/pipermail/plenary/attachments/20051219/ba2507dd/WSIS-CS-summit-statement-18-12-2005-en.doc