Visions In Process
1
Visions in Process
World Summit on the Information Society
Geneva 2003 – Tunis 2005
Editor’s note
Articles and quotations of this publication reflect the state of official documents after the
PrepCom 3 of the WSIS, which was held in Geneva from 15 to 26 September, 2003.
Some articles also provide a reference to the non-paper by the President of the WSIS,
Mr. Adama Samassekou, dated October 24, 2003.
This non-paper was introduced to the resumed session of PrepCom 3 which was not able
to agree on a final version of the Summit Declaration. A high level resumed session of
PrepCom 3 will take place from 5 to 6 December, 2003.
Heinrich Böll Foundation (ed.), Visions in Process,
World Summit on the Information Society, Geneva 2003 – Tunis 2005
© Heinrich Böll Foundation/Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung 2003
Design: SupportAgentur, Berlin
Printing: agit-druck, Berlin
Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire publication or parts of it are permitted in any
medium provided the reference to editor and where applicable to author are preserved.
Nachdruck und Verbreitung von Teilen oder der gesamten Publikation sind unter Nennung
des Herausgebers und des Autors bzw. der Autorin in allen Medien gestattet.
This publication can be downloaded via
http://www.worldsummit2003.de/download_de/Vision_in_process.pdf
Contents
5
Preface
7
The Charter of Civil Rights for a Sustainable Knowledge Society – A Vision with
Practical Consequences
9 A Human Rights Perspective on the Word Summit on the Information Society
15 WSIS: The Industry View
19 Gender and the WSIS Process: War of the Words
24 On the Question of Financing at the World Summit on the Information Society
31 How Public is the Public Domain?
35 Fighting Intellectual Poverty: Who Owns and Controls the Information
Societies?
39 Internet Governance : ICANN vs ITU?
43 National Security or Civil Liberties? WSIS Debate on Security Issues in Deadlock
50 Grassroots Communication for a People-Centered Information Society: Commu-
nity Media is at the Centre of Civil Society Efforts at the WSIS
54 Why are Communication Rights so Controversial?
59 Annex: Biographies / Civil Society Essential Benchmarks for WSIS
Preface
For at least two years international civil society has put significant efforts into the
preparation of the first part of the UN World Summit on the Information Society
(WSIS) that will take place in Geneva in December 2003.
The WSIS is devoted to the development of a vision of a global society and to
finding ways to realise that vision through the use of information and communica-
tion technologies (ICT). Such technologies, if properly deployed, have the potential
to contribute to the solution of the planet’s most pressing problems. These problems
and aims were agreed upon by the international community in the Millennium
Declaration of 2000, which declared as its highest priorities: the fight against
hunger and poverty, the improvement of health services and of the education
system, and the promotion of environmental sustainability. However, the world has
changed since 2000. Conflicts between North and South – as well as between coun-
tries of the respective regions – have increased considerably. This has resulted in
frictions during WSIS negotiations that are similar to those that emerged during,
and led to the failure of, the WTO talks in Cancun in September of this year.
Different paths of development always pose the question of whether or not the high-
tech societies of the West, along with their social systems and values – free markets,
technology as intellectual property, individualism, and consumerism – may become
globalised.
Civil Society members from all over the world welcomed the WSIS as an oppor-
tunity to meet the challenge and worked together on contributing their share to a
common vision for the Information Society. Civil society’s approach encompasses a
broader reflection of the potential inherent in the combination of technology and
knowledge. It aims at shaping the common vision of a Knowledge Society which
– recognises that knowledge is the heritage and the property of humanity and thus
a “common good” that must be accessible for all under fair conditions and that
must be preserved in all media formats for future generations;
– denies the privatisation and commercial exploitation of the knowledge commons
and knowledge and which encourages instead the sharing of knowledge as a
means to achieve sustainable development and societal innovation fostering
people’s creativity and the public domain worldwide;
– empowers all people, especially women and marginalised, to participate in public
affairs, communicating self-determined and freely and having the right to in-
form themselves through all public resources and independent media without
interference, manipulation or control;
– offers equal opportunities to all to access to education as well as access to all
media and ICTs enabling a self-determined life based on and assuming respon-
sibility for human rights, a lived democracy, and sustainable development.
Civil society’s input has had no essential impact though. Now, that the end of the
official negotiations is drawing near, civil society is forced to acknowledge that
governments have been reluctant to consider essential proposals and marginalised
5
key issues. At the present stage of negotiations even the governments amongst
themselves seem unable to agree on taking necessary measures for bridging the
digital divide. Moreover, they are unwilling to agree upon rights and values the inter-
national community had endorsed in various international conventions and declara-
tions in previous years. Any expectations that the World Summit would develop a
broader vision towards an inclusive, sustainable and people-centred society, have
proven to be too ambitious. Faced with this situation, international civil society
groups have opted to voice their own ideas by presenting an alternative vision at the
World Summit.
At least some procedural progress has been made in WSIS. New ways of partici-
patory political action have been promoted; for the first time, a multi-stakeholder
approach through the inclusion of all stakeholders, the private sector as well as civil
society is being implemented. This is no small step. The postulation that informa-
tion society should be inclusive implies that the means to that end must also be
inclusive. Obviously we are still at the beginning of a long process. The difficulties
and the disappointments that have hitherto emerged in the preparations of this sum-
mit make clear that we are in the very early stages of a possible transformation of the
UN decision-making procedure, of the possible development of a new model of glo-
bal governance which could have repercussions on national politics.
Although there has been much controversy between governments and inter-
national civil society, there have been some positive examples, too. Some European
governments, e.g. those of Switzerland, Denmark Germany and Finland, have ex-
hibited an openness to a dialogue with civil society; and they did include observers
of civil society, along with those from industry, in their delegations. Still, official
documents of the WSIS show very little impact of the ideas and demands of civil
society.
This publication compiles contributions presenting the civil society approach on
key issues of the WSIS Declaration drafts. The authors from Germany, Denmark,
and Switzerland have participated since the beginning in the preparatory process
and in the national and international debates of civil society. Contributions were
solicited from German industry and the German government, too.1
WSIS will not end in 2003. This publication wants to summarise arguments and
points of disagreement in order to further the debate on the path to Tunis 2005.
Ralf Fücks, Executive Board
Olga Drossou, Senior Officer New Media Desk
Heinrich Böll Foundation
Berlin, November 2003
1
The promised contribution of the German Government did not arrive unfortunately in time
for publication.
6
The Charter of Civil Rights for a Sustainable Knowledge
Society – A Vision with Practical Consequences
By Rainer Kuhlen
The information society needs to become a sustainable knowledge society where the
objectives of inclusiveness, fairness, and justice can be achieved. A knowledge socie-
ty calls for the unhampered and non-discriminatory use of knowledge and informa-
tion based on the principle of sustainability.
This is the main message of the Charter of Civil Rights for a Sustainable Knowledge
Society that, after a long, intensive debate at meetings and in discussions forums
among members of different German civil societies groups was passed as of early
summer 2003.
The charter is the essential contribution of German civil society to the World
Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) and a major step towards a vision which
is needed to bring together the heterogeneous interests, needs, and wishes of people
and states in the world.
A vision for the information society
The two official documents of WSIS, the “Declaration” and the “Plan of Action,” can
only expect to gain broader acceptance of people worldwide through a comprehen-
sive, critical, and positive vision of what information society should become.
It is the people who have the right to decide in which society they and future gene-
rations want to live, and it is the governments’ duty to bring these dreams and
visions into reality. It is only civil society, i.e. those who live in the new electronic envi-
ronments and who have the knowledge and the skill and the moral legitimacy to
build the information society, that is capable to formulate the vision for the infor-
mation society.
We therefore hand this “Charter of Civil Rights for a Sustainable Knowledge So-
ciety” to the governments of the world and expect them to transform the ideas,
rights, and freedoms embedded in this charter into real plans of action. Whatever
will be planned, whatever will be done as an outcome of WSIS needs to be justified
according to the principle of sustainability.
We accept that not everything is feasible in a short period of time but, having
based this charter on the principle of sustainability, we see the development of
information society in a broader perspective. The WSIS 2003 in Geneva is only the
beginning of a long process.
Main focus – the idea of a sustainable knowledge society
The charter is coherent in its message. It has as its focus the idea of a sustainable
knowledge society. It is this focus that can bring together the different and, on face
value, conflicting interests. The following sums up the main characteristics of a
sustainable knowledge society.
7
Basic rights
The charter combines nine basic rights and values that are fundamental to a people-
centred information society, i.e. one that reflects the interests and needs of the
people.
With respect to the principle of free access, the charter holds that knowledge must
remain permanently accessible to the public. Knowledge is a common good and has,
in the hierarchy of social values, a higher status than the protection of private claims
– albeit the latter, insofar as they mind social responsibilities, are of course also legi-
timate.
Access to knowledge must be possible for present as well as for future genera-
tions, for all peoples, at all times, in all places, and under fair conditions. The one
universal human right of an information society is the principle of universal access
to knowledge and information; from this right all other rights can be derived, such
as, among others:
– the right to privacy in the use of knowledge and information,
– the right of citizens to gain information through publicly available resources, the right
of unhampered, unfiltered access to documents of public organisations
– the right that human dignity will be protected in work environments where access to
information and communication systems of organisations must be provided for
all employees
– the right and the duty to preserve and promote the heterogeneity of cultures and lang-
uages as a precondition for the individual and social development of present and
future generations
– the right to freedom of communication as the right to participate in all kinds of com-
munication processes
– the right to free and open software development and self-determined communication
Practical consequences
Such a view of information society has practical consequences.
– What is needed is a reform of the framework of the media. Public service media
and public access points, controlled by democratic institutions, will have to play
an important role, both in developing and developed countries.
– What is needed are new co-operative forms and new organisational models for
the production, distribution, and usage of knowledge and information in all
areas, i.e. science, administration, art, and entertainment. Here again, open
access has to be the guiding principle.
Above all the bridging of the digital divide must be recognised as a political objective
of the highest priority. There will be no freedom of information in the world, no
freedom in general, as long as the discrimination of the majority of the world’s popu-
lation continues. Information society cannot be sustainable, if it excludes, now and
for the foreseeable future, a sizeable portion of the world’s population from the
benefits of information and communication technologies.
Information society, or as civil society groups prefers to call it, “knowledge socie-
ty,” will not be a paradise on earth. There will still be conflicts. Such conflicts may
not be solved through power; they can only be solved with knowledge and informa-
tion and by means of free communication.
8
A Human Rights Perspective on the Word Summit on the
Information Society. The Human Rights Framework
By Rikke Frank Jørgensen
The World Summit on the Information Society has the modest goal of developing a
common global vision for the information society. Coming from a human rights per-
spective it seems obvious that such a vision should have as its basis the human rights
principles already agreed upon by a majority of the world’s nations.
The General Assembly proclaims this Universal Declaration of Human Rights
as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the
end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration
constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect
for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and
international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and ob-
servance …
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948
When the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights (UDHR) on December 10, 1948, it was the first time in history that
an international organisation had agreed on a joint statement on human rights –
thereby making questions of human rights a central tenet of international politics.
Today, the UDHR with its 30 operative articles, still guides the standards and the
monitoring activities of the United Nations in the field of human rights. Together
with the two (legally binding) international covenants on civil and political rights,
and economic, social, and cultural rights, the UDHR constitutes the backbone of
human rights; jointly they are commonly referred to as “the international bill of
human rights.”
At present, even though the standards spelled out in the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights are far from realised in all parts of the world, human rights prin-
ciples are increasingly being used to measure the performance and legitimacy of
governments, as well as the rights and freedoms of their citizens.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was drafted and adopted against the
background of World War II and laid the groundwork for a broad consensus of a
new world order based on legal standards. This new vision was formulated by the
US-President Franklin D. Roosevelt who defined “four freedoms” as the basis for the
future world order, namely freedom of expression, freedom of faith, freedom from
want, and freedom from fear. Accordingly, the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights places civil, political, and cultural rights on the same level as social, econo-
mic, and cultural rights. This long disputed approach was reaffirmed in the Vienna
Declaration adopted by the 1993 World Conference on Human Rights, where it is
9
stated that all human rights are universal, indivisible, interdependent, and inter-
related.
At the heart of the human rights framework is the moral status of every human
being; human beings are born free and equal in dignity – and hence, in rights. In
this sense, the Universal Declaration on Human Rights is in itself a visionary docu-
ment by means of which nations declared their commitment to promote social pro-
gress and better standards of life in a widening sphere of freedom. It is a vision in
which the recognition of the inherent dignity and the equal rights of all humans is
the foundation for freedom, justice, and peace.
It is important to note that the human rights documents not only proclaim
human rights but also call for progressive measures at both a national and inter-
national level to secure that these rights can be enjoyed in practice.
A human rights perspective on WSIS
Applying the human rights framework to the World Summit on the Information
Society (WSIS) process implies that the WSIS “Declaration of Principles” and “Plan
of Action” take human rights standards as their point of departure. This means that
dignity and the equal rights of all humans have to be the starting point; they may not
be sidelined by purely technological considerations. Such a vision, anchored in the
human rights framework, would have to address the challenge of bringing people
and countries closer to the standards outlined in the human rights documents. Such
standards have to address, among other points, the liberty and security of the per-
son, the protection against discrimination, the right to work and to have a standard
of living adequate to the health and well-being of the person, the right to participate
in the government of one’s country, the freedom to hold opinions and express them,
the freedom from arbitrary interference in one’s privacy, the right to freely partici-
pate in the cultural life of the community, and the right to – at least basic – free edu-
cation. Such standards are, in many part of the world, still far from being accom-
plished, yet they have to be addressed in the context of WSIS as guiding principles
for a future information society.
If we fail to address the basic values which should guide the development of the
information society, we risk ending up with documents resembling an information
and communication technology (ICT) implementation plan addressing the many
levels of ICT design and infrastructure but lacking any people-centred vision at its
core. For this simple reason, it is crucial that we invest in the difficult and sensitive
task of translating human rights standards into an information society context. The
challenge is to utilise ICTs as a means to facilitate the realisation of human rights –
and where ICTs represent new challenges, to address these challenges up front.
10
We, the representatives of the peoples of the world, assembled in Geneva
from 10-12 December 2003 for the first phase of the World Summit on the
Information Society, declare our common desire and commitment to build a
people-centred, inclusive and development oriented information society,
where everyone can create, access, utilize and share information and know-
ledge, enabling individuals, communities and peoples to achieve their full
potential in promoting their sustainable development and improving their
quality of life, premised on the principles enshrined in the Charter of the
United Nations and in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Art. 1, non-paper of the president of WSIS,
Mr. Samassekou, October 24, 2003
A human rights perspective also implies that basic principles such as equal rights
and non-discrimination are safeguarded on all levels of information and commu-
nication technology policies and action plans, internationally and nationally. A
commitment to the principle of dignity and non-discrimination would, in a WSIS
context, call for a stronger focus on non-discrimination, empowerment, self-deter-
mination, and integrity – not least for vulnerable and marginalized persons and
groups, nationally, internationally, and regionally.
We the representatives of the peoples of the world, assembled in Geneva from
10–12 December 2003 for the first phase of the World Summit on Informa-
tion Society, declare our common desire and commitment to build an infor-
mation and communication society based on human rights and human dignity.
With the Charter of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of
Human rights as our foundation, we reaffirm the universality and the indi-
visibility of all human rights – civil, political, economic, social and cultural –
and we recognize their centrality to democracy, the rule of law and sustain-
able development. Our challenge is to harness the potential of the information
and communication society to ensure that human needs are met and that all
human rights are realized. We are determined to meet this challenge.
Proposed by the HR Caucus at the intersessional meeting in Paris, July
15–18, 2003. Supported by the EU, Canada and the US at PrepCom 3.
A human rights approach would further imply that the improvement of human
rights standards such as human and social development, democracy, and participa-
tion are being used as focus points for the setting of goals and measures for the deve-
lopment of the information society. So far the proposed measures for progress as
they are presented in the most recent draft on the WSIS plan of action have concen-
trated on infrastructure with little emphasis on, for instance:
– human development (measures to improve health, education, livelihood, and
integrity)
– social and cultural development (measures to enhance economic opportunities
11
and employment, and on diversity, including cultural and linguistic diversity)
– democracy (measures to further the freedom of expression, the access to infor-
mation, media pluralism, transparency, participation in decision making, and
local capacity building)
Lastly, it is important to stress that for human rights to have a practical effect, we
need to ensure a regulatory environment respectful of human rights, both national-
ly and internationally. In other words, it should be clearly affirmed that ICT regula-
tions (and other relevant legislation) must comply with human rights standards.
This would, in the WSIS “Plan of Action,” call for an international mechanism to
ensure that national and international regulation is compliant with human rights
standards. Up till now the WSIS draft “Declaration of Principles,” in its section on
an enabling environment, is formulated in such a way as to let “national realities”
prevail over a commitment to human right standards.
Specific principles and rights
Apart from representing a general framework that should guide the vision and the
standards of an information society, human rights also pose specific challenges
when translated into an information society. Some of the rights and principles that
continue to cause controversy in the WSIS process are the principle of non-discri-
mination, the right to development, the right to freedom of expression, the notion of
a right to communicate, the right to privacy, and the right to freely participate in the
cultural life of the community.
Non-discrimination
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights reaffirms and expands the principle of
equal rights and non-discrimination stipulated in the UN Charter. The principle of
non-discrimination has been confirmed by subsequent human rights instruments
such as the “Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women,”
and the “Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.”
In the WSIS documents, the principle of non-discrimination is still not affirmed
as a principle that should both guide the vision and the concrete activities at an inter-
national as well as national level. For the information society to be inclusive, margi-
nalized groups such as elderly people, people with disabilities, indigenous people,
refugees, minorities, or the very poorest must be empowered. Likewise, the discri-
mination against women must be addressed and measures have to be taken to en-
sure gender equality in all spheres of society.
The right to development
The “Vienna Declaration” reaffirms the right to development, as established in the
declaration on the right to development, as an integral part of human rights. The
declaration states that individuals are the central subjects of development, including
future generations, and stresses that while development facilitates the enjoyment of
all human rights, lack of development may not be invoked to justify an abridgement
of human rights. It also underlines the fact that the progressive realisation of the
right to development requires effective development policies at the national level, as
well as a favourable economic environment at the international level. A reference to
12
the right to development was included in the WSIS documents at PrepCom 3, yet it
is still uncertain whether this reference will stay in the final text (which is rather iro-
nic given the important linkage between development policies and the development
of the information society).
Freedom of expression and rights to communicate
The new means of communication is one of the essential features of information
society, one closely linked to democratic development, transparency, and participa-
tion. The internet not only gives the freedom of expression and the access to infor-
mation a new reality, but also provides new ways of restricting this freedom. It is
therefore crucial that the WSIS documents present a clear statement of political will
to protect and promote online freedom of expression, including access to public
information. Whether governments are willing to make this commitment, and make
a clear reference to article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, still
remains to be seen.
A related debate taking place in the WSIS process concerns the right to commu-
nicate. Seen from a human rights perspective the right to communicate should not
be conceived as a new and independent right but rather as an umbrella term, encom-
passing a group of related existing rights. The right to freedom of expression alrea-
dy includes a positive element, placing upon states the obligation to take measures
that guarantee that the right is being respected. Courts have started to elaborate on
the nature of this positive obligation. This could serve as an input towards a more
detailed definition of the right to communicate, one covering not only the freedom
of expression but also the right to privacy, the freedom of movement, the freedom of
assembly etc.
A key positive element of the right to freedom of expression and a crucial foun-
dation of the right to communicate is the obligation put on governments to create an
environment of diverse, independent media, thereby satisfying the public’s right to
receive information from a variety of sources.
Privacy
The right to privacy is challenged by the information society since online communi-
cation radically changes the means and scope of data retention, mining, and moni-
toring. It is therefore essential to have a clear statement from governments stating
that all national and international regulations should be consistent with the right to
privacy. During the WSIS process the discussions on ICT security have shifted from
the need for infrastructure integrity to a politicised agenda, characterised by milita-
ry language and a stress on safeguards against possible terrorist threats. The present
WSIS draft “Declaration of Principles” contains in its section on security several
unresolved issues and continues to be dominated by national security concerns rat-
her than by concerns for the protection of privacy standards.
13
The right to privacy is a human right and is essential for free and self-deter-
mined human development in the knowledge society. Respect for privacy
allows for both participation and detachment in regard to social activities and
opportunities. Every person must have the right to decide freely whether and
in what manner he/she wants to receive information and communicate with
others. The possibility of receiving information anonymously, irrespective of
the source, must be ensured for everyone. The power of the private sector and
of governments over information increases the risk of manipulative access and
surveillance and must be kept to a legally legitimised minimum. The collec-
tion, analysis and release of personal data – no matter by whom – should
remain under the control of the individual concerned.
Charter of Civil Rights for a Sustainable Knowledge Society
Cultural rights
Article 27 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights balances the rights of
authors with the rights of all people to participate in cultural life, to enjoy the arts,
and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits. In the WSIS context this is
particularly controversial with regard to intellectual property rights (which many civil
society groups prefer to address as rights related to patents, copyrights, and trade-
marks) and the free public access to information and knowledge. So far the WSIS
documents only reaffirm existing agreements on intellectual property rights and
have not dared to look for new means to enhance the free access to information and
knowledge; this is a paradox, as it is precisely the access to knowledge that is at the
very core of the information society.
14
WSIS: The Industry View
By Rainer Händel
Industry’s background
The recent advancements in information and communications technology (ICT) are
marked by a global re-ordering of our individual lifestyles, business models, and
socio-economic relationships. Information has become a very important economic
resource, especially for nations that have little or no access to traditional commodi-
ties. This holds true for both developed and developing countries. The intellectual
capital boom fostered by advancements in ICT has enabled many countries to make
strides that would have been considerably more difficult in a traditional economy.
To truly promote an information society accessible to all peoples, the special
interests of particular sectors of society need to be recognized and addressed
as appropriate. The information society must be equally available to men and
women, and the empowerment, education and training of men, women, unem-
ployed, disabled, underprivileged people, migrants and refugees, elderly, indi-
genous peoples and minorities, and those living in rural and remote areas
should be promoted. Young people constitute a significant proportion of the
world’s population, and they are the workforce of the future. They must be
educated, trained, and given opportunities to innovate and create.
Paragraph for the Declaration of Principles suggested by the
Coordinating Committee of Business Interlocutors, August 27, 2003
The ICT industry is strongly committed to the creation of an environment where, to
the benefit of all parties involved, ICT can be used in the most adequate way.
Industry, manufacturers, network operators, and service providers, have to know
their customers’ wishes and to meet their needs – otherwise there is no sustainable
business. As ICT networks are global, so is industry’s business theatre. All major
ICT companies are global players; Siemens, for example, has regional organisations
in about 190 countries and manufactures in more than 50 countries. Our informa-
tion and communication branch offers complete networks and solutions for both
carrier and enterprise networks. Our current R&D focus is on next generation
(IP/telephony convergence) and third generation mobile networks and applications.
R&D efforts are high in ICT, product cycles are short, and markets are, at pre-
sent, sluggish; so any business requires careful assessment of potential markets and
sales regions. A stable political and legal framework is indispensable to attract poten-
tial investors.
For manufacturers, the following market conditions are highly desirable:
– barrier-free market access
– globally accepted product certification (“once tested, accepted everywhere“), pre-
15
ferably conformity assessment by supplier’s declaration of conformity
– technical regulations limited to essential needs of states and customers (safety,
privacy and security, disability access, etc.); self-regulation as far as possible
– acceptance of international standards:
– created in organisations open to all relevant players
– consensus-based
– fitting actual market needs
– fair treatment of intellectual property rights issues impacting on standards
Industry engagement in WSIS and objectives
We have actively participated in the national and international preparation of WSIS
through German government meetings, EU bodies, industry organisations, the ITU,
the UN ICT task force, and WSIS prepcoms. The industry position on WSIS docu-
ments such as the “Declaration of Principles” and the “Plan for Action” has conti-
nuously been discussed with the government and NGOs. During this process the
concerns of all parties involved became clear and mutual understanding improved.
Different players with quite different objectives have proved a major problem for
WSIS; often the selection of the topics to be covered seemed a bigger issue than the
discussion of the issues themselves.
The WSIS event itself should be used to exchange views between political and
industrial leaders and ICT users (e.g. through round table discussions) in order to
create the necessary awareness of the needs of a future information society. Industry
can mainly contribute by providing knowledge about ICT infrastructures and appli-
cation scenarios. From political leaders, industry expects a commitment to create a
legal and commercial framework that stimulates investment in information society
infrastructure and contents. This should be boosted by the adoption of a worldwide
agreed, concise, and realistic action plan based on the “Declaration of Principles” of
the information society.
A culture of security should be promoted through cooperation and coordina-
tion by governments, business, civil society and IGOs. Security and cybercrime
are separate and distinct issues, and must be treated as such. Effective
privacy protection of personal data and measures to promote consumer con-
fidence are also important elements in enhancing the development of the
information society. Measures to achieve such protection and confidence
should not create barriers to information flows or trade.
Paragraph for the Declaration of Principles suggested by the
Coordinating Committee of Business Interlocutors, August 27, 2003
An important point of discussion during the WSIS preparation was the governance
of the internet and its future development. To which degree should states regulate
the internet? This is a rather controversial debate, currently with no substantial con-
clusion. The discussion mainly dealt with the internet as it exists today. Future deve-
lopments will however produce communication networks that merge internet and
16
telephony features and technologies. The so-called “IP-converged carrier-grade net-
works” aim to offer public services of high reliability, privacy, and security, and the-
refore will have to fulfil regulatory requirements for such applications such as emer-
gency services or lawful interception. We support IP network/service regulations
that take into account the needs of users and society as long as they do not impede
the evolution of new applications. Technology-neutral regulation for public telecom-
munication services as foreseen by the EU is considered to be the right framework.
International discussions on this issue must be stimulated, and a far-ranging con-
sensus on this issue must be sought right now.
How industry supports the WSIS goals
Industry has done a lot to disseminate knowledge to its partners all over the world.
This comprises the exchange of information with customers, between colleagues in
joint ventures, or in international organisations such as the ITU and their regional
agencies.
Assisting network operators and service providers through information, educa-
tion, case studies, network planning, etc. also helps to create a vast knowledge base.
To take up local needs and to consider how they can become part of an international
ICT standardisation is a further means of support. Occasionally we do make dona-
tions, too.
Here are a few examples of recent or current Siemens activities that contribute
to the information society:
– Our office in Kabul, Afghanistan, co-ordinates all local activities and enables us
to offer local IC solutions to meet the war-torn nation’s many distinctive chal-
lenges thereby making use of local knowledge. Similarly, our support of the UNI-
CEF initiative “back to school” in Afghanistan is an investment in the future of
the global information society – another bridge across the digital divide. The
campaign enables more than three million children to attend school.
– Enhancing the standard of school education in South Africa: The focus is on pro-
viding much needed resources for disadvantaged learning institutions, especial-
ly rural and township schools, which have high pupil/classroom ratios. Siemens
contracts local suppliers to manufacture tables, desks, and other furniture, and
projects are funded appropriately.
– Tele-education project for GSM operators in Africa (together with ITU-D)
– Siemens is a founding member of “Econsense – A forum for sustainable develop-
ment,” which was created by representatives of the German economy. This orga-
nisation is made up of leading German and global companies and organisations
that have integrated sustainable development into their corporate strategies.
– We participate in the Global eSchools & Communities Initiative, an UN ICT task
force initiative, which comprises deployment of ICT solutions (hardware, soft-
ware, connectivity), content, user training and support, technical support and
maintenance, monitoring and reporting
– In Cabo Verde, previously an isolated island chain off Africa’s Atlantic coast,
Siemens joined forces with Cabo Verde Telecom, the local carrier. Together we
recently completed a fibre optic network linking all the tiny islands of the archi-
pelago, thus improving their connection to the global network.
17
– In Vietnam, over 60% of the country’s communities are linked by communal
cultural points. These provide information and communication free of charge to
even the most rural areas of the country. People may use postal and telecommu-
nications services or simply read online books and newspapers from around the
world. Siemens donated 100 PCs to Vietnam.
Outlook to WSIS part II in 2005
In our opinion it would be crucial to start the implementation of the “Action Plan”
immediately after WSIS I and to continuously assess its progress. Rather than to cre-
ate new funding mechanisms, existing ones should be employed. The continual
exchange of expertise and experiences made in the implementation process is cru-
cial.
We hope that the currently controversial issues such as internet governance,
access to software, or intellectual property rights will be resolved, or that they will, at
least, not impede the progress needed to create the necessary infrastructure and ser-
vices required by the global information society.
18
Gender and the WSIS Process: War of the Words
By Heike Jensen
How are positions of political, economic, cultural, and social dominance maintained
without the use of violence directed at those who are subordinated and marginali-
zed? They are consolidated into structures; and they are maintained with the help of
words, concepts and discourses. Dominant positions are either presented as neces-
sary or normal and natural, or they are made to disappear from conscious thought
altogether.
What is gender mainstreaming? – ”It is a strategy for making women’s as
well as men’s concerns and experiences an integral dimension of the design,
implementation, monitoring and evaluation of policies and programmes in all
political, economic and societal spheres so that women and men benefit
equally and inequality is not perpetuated. The ultimate goal is to achieve gen-
der equality.“
ECOSOC Agreed Conclusions 1997/2
In politics, as in other contexts, one way to accomplish this vanishing trick is to talk
solely about “issues” and to omit any reference to people. This strategy works as long
as people assume that an issue similarly affects everyone and that there is no need
to see who will be affected in particular ways.
It is this strategy that the gender mainstreaming approach tries to counter with
respect to the dimensions of gender inequality and women's subordination. Gender
mainstreaming calls for an analysis of the ways in which gender disparities and hier-
archies affect the issue under scrutiny. It also calls for a more detailed assessment of
what groups of women and men are affected in which ways, because different kinds
of unequal power relations intersect in complex ways with those of gender.
Gender mainstreaming has become a global strategy in the wake of the Forth UN
World Conference on Women in Beijing in 1995. The “Beijing Declaration and
Platform for Action” promotes gender mainstreaming as part of a dual strategy. The
other, complementary strategy consists in targeted interventions to remove particu-
lar structural barriers to gender equality. Neither gender mainstreaming nor targe-
ted intervention on their own can bring about women’s equality with men; both stra-
tegies have to be brought together to generate a sustainable impact.1
19
Selected UN Meetings: Mapping the Gender Dimension for WSIS
– UN Division for the Advancement of Women (DAW): Pan-European Region-
al Ministerial Meeting, Round Table “Building a Gender-sensitive Information
Society” (Bucharest, Rumania, November 7-9, 2002).
– UN Division for the Advancement of Women (DAW): Expert Group Meeting
on Gender and ICTs “Information and Communication Technologies and their
Impact on and Use as an Instrument for the Advancement and Empowerment
of Women” (Seoul, Rep. of Korea, November 11-14, 2002).
– UN Division for the Advancement of Women (DAW): Expert Group Meeting
on Gender and Media “Participation and Access of Women to the Media, and
the Impact of Media on and Its Use as an Instrument for the Advancement
and Empowerment of Women” (Beirut, Libanon, November 12-16, 2002).
– 47th Session of the UN Commission on the Status of Women (CSW): “Par-
ticipation and Access of Women to the Media, and Information and Com-
munications Technologies and their Impact on and Use as an Instrument for
the Advancement and Empowerment of Women” (New York, USA, March 3-
14, 2003).
In preparation for WSIS, a number of high-level UN meetings on gender and media
took place. These established crucial dimensions of gender mainstreaming and tar-
geted interventions. Both global and local media issues were considered; the mass
media in general and the new information and communication technologies (ICTs)
in particular were taken into account. Many other events generated additional expert
assessments of the gender dimensions of the mass media and ICTs.
During the WSIS preparatory process, the gender dimension and targeted inter-
ventions to achieve gender equality have consistently been promoted by two internal
organisational entities: the WSIS Gender Caucus (GC, www.genderwsis.org), which
is a multi-stakeholder group, and the NGO Gender Strategies Working Group (NGO
GSWG, www.genderit.org). These groups have been active in virtual space as well as
in the convention centres of the prepcoms and the intersessional.
Within civil society as represented in caucuses and families working towards
WSIS, the gender approach has found some allies outside the NGO GSWG, yet it
has by no means been supported throughout civil society. Within governmental
delegations, the Canadians have most consistently championed this approach. In
sum, it appears that the majority of representatives – be they from governments, civil
society, or business – favour a minimum of references to targeted interventions in
limited contexts on behalf of girls and women over gender mainstreaming.
The following paradox has arisen from the overall neglect of gender mainstream-
ing in the context of its continuing and forceful articulation by well-organised groups
and individuals throughout the WSIS preparatory process: Gender mainstreaming
does not form part of the overall framework of the draft documents, as this approach
is by definition designed to do, but is at best relegated to individual paragraphs. In
fact, during the intersessional in Paris, there was even a moment in which all refe-
rences to women had suddenly disappeared from the draft documents. This, how-
ever, created such forceful protests that references to women and gender equality
20
have subsequently been reincorporated. As it stands, the battle for women’s em-
powerment in the information society is now being waged on the level of individual
paragraphs and sentences. I will illustrate this “war of words” over the modalities of
women’s and girls’ inclusion in the information society with examples of texts pro-
duced for various versions of the “Draft Declaration of Principles.”
A focus on the gender dimensions of ICTs is essential not only for preventing
an adverse impact of the digital revolution on gender equality or the perpe-
tuation of existing inequalities and discrimination, but also for enhancing
women's equitable access to the benefits of ICTs and to ensure that they can
become a central tool for the empowerment of women and the promotion of
gender equality. Policies, programmes and projects need to ensure that gen-
der differences and inequalities in the access to and use of ICT are identified
and fully addressed so that such technologies actively promote gender equa-
lity and ensure that gender-based disadvantages are not created or perpetu-
ated.
Paragraph 11a proposed by Canada during the intersessional
in Paris in July 2003
During the intersessional in Paris, the Canadian delegation proposed a gender para-
graph 11a that reflects findings and strategies discussed at the expert group meet-
ings. It combines gender mainstreaming with concerns to do with targeted inter-
ventions. Yet this paragraph never made it into an intersessional draft document.
The NGO GSWG decided to lobby for the inclusion of this paragraph in an innova-
tive way during PrepCom 3. Apart from the routine ways of lobbying delegates and
urging the plenary to include the paragraph, the NGO GSWG had T-shirts printed
with the paragraph on the back and the information “DRAFT WSIS DECLARATION
HAS A MISSING PARAGRAPH ’(SEE BEHIND)’” on the front. This lobbying strategy
created a lot of attention, but the aim of including paragraph 11a was not reached.
We affirm that development of ICTs provides enormous promise for women,
who must be an integral part of the information society. We are committed to
ensuring that our information society fosters the emancipation and empower-
ment of women, promotes gender equality and portrays women fairly and
respectfully.
Paragraph 9 in the Draft Declaration of Principles (19/9/03)
In fact, after almost a week of lobbying in favour of the inclusion of gender concerns,
a new version of the “Draft Declaration of Principles” appeared that was even weak-
er in its gender language than the document that had come out of the intersessional.
Not only did the new document contain only one reference to women; the paragraph
in question was vague in its promises to women, and it seemed to suggest that
21
women would rather profit passively from acts of others/men than to be able to exer-
cise their rights to shape the information society for themselves.
Women are key actors in the information society. We are committed to en-
suring that the information society enables women’s empowerment and their
full participation on the basis of equality in all spheres of society and in all
decision-making processes.
Paragraph 9 as suggested by the WSIS GC and the NGO GSWG (22/0/03)
In a renewed lobbying effort, the GC and the NGO GSWG suggested a reformula-
tion of this paragraph. This reformulation acknowledges women as existing, impor-
tant contributors, and it affirms that they are entitled to take part in and shape all
contexts. The political issues addressed in the last sentence are taken from Article 13
of the “Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action.” The strategy of including par-
tial quotes without mentioning this document was chosen because of an understan-
ding that no references to UN-related commitments other than the UN Charter, the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the Millennium Declaration, or the
Millennium Development Goals would make it into the document. Still, a vision of
gender equality and sustainable development would undoubtedly have been invigo-
rated by an acknowledgment of the “Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Discrimination against Women” (CEDAW), the “Beijing Declaration and Platform
for Action,” and other authoritative international documents.
The current version of paragraph 9 constitutes a compromise between the ear-
lier wording and the suggested replacement. The discussion will begin anew when
the “resumed session of PrepCom 3” starts on November 10, 2003.
We affirm that development of ICTs provides enormous opportunities for
women, who should be an integral part of and should be key actors in the
information society. We are committed within the information society to en-
able women's empowerment and their full participation on the basis of equa-
lity in all spheres of society and decision-making processes, and to ensuring
that they are portrayed fairly and respectfully.
Paragraph 9 in the Draft Declaration of Principles (26/9/03),
as altered from the version of 19/09/03
What can we expect from this new round of negotiations and from WSIS in
December of 2003? It seems that the major battle has already been lost. The findings
and recommendations of the gender experts, as well as the lobbying efforts of the
gender advocates, have largely been ignored in the WSIS preparatory process. Con-
sequently, the process has failed to make gender mainstreaming one of its central
tenets, and this in turn suggests that the summit itself will fail to articulate a truly
people-centred vision of the information society. Concurrently, no consistent vision
22
and plan of action has been conceived to bring about sustainable and gender-equita-
ble development in the context of the information society. Instead, strife for political
power and economic advantages has pervaded the discussion of single issues, from
internet governance to intellectual property rights, and from proprietary software to
media beyond ICTs.
Yet the stakes are still high: Should WSIS result in nothing but weak commit-
ments to particular areas of targeted intervention on behalf of gender equity, then
none of the root structures that devalue women and their concerns will be addres-
sed. Conceivably, such commitments would only give a few groups of women the
fleeting chance to become more skilled users/consumers. What has to be gained are
powerful commitments to alter existing structures – thus to finally empower women
to become leading actors in a world in which they constitute the majority of inhabi-
tants. What is needed therefore are clearly defined far-reaching developmental tar-
gets as well as mechanisms to regularly monitor progress or setbacks.
The war of the words, thus, is neither over nor entirely lost. If nothing else, the
determined involvement of gender specialists and advocates in the WSIS process
has made it much harder for the powers that be to use their vanishing tricks and so
pretend that talking about issues without any reference to people and their highly
divergent positions and needs is natural and should satisfy every woman and every
man all over the world.
1
The information on gender mainstreaming is taken from the brochure Gender
Mainstreaming: An Overview, edited by the Office of the Special Adviser on Gender
Issues, Department of Economic and Social Affairs (New York: United Nations,
2002). The quote in the box is reproduced on page 1 of the brochure and cited from
the ECOSOC Agreed Conclusions 1997/2
23
On the Question of Financing at the World Summit on the
Information Society
By Chantal Peyer
Pain pour le prochain
My thanks to Jean-Louis Fullsack (csdptt)
The question of financing is at once one of the major stakes at all UN summits and
the most controversial. It is also among the most neglected, with the result that the
good intentions expressed in the declarations of principles and the plans of action
are seldom followed up by action, for lack of political engagement and adequate
financing
The World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) does not escape this
judgement. Indeed, the plan of action proposes ambitious objectives and figures to
reduce inequalities in the area of access to means of communication. However, if
there is agreement at the WSIS on these objectives, there is a difference of opinion
as to the means. At the close of PrepCom 3, which took place in Geneva from 15–28
September, 9 out of 13 sentences from the chapter on financing, renamed the “Di-
gital Solidarity Agenda,” appear in parentheses1. This signifies that no consensus
could be found, and reflects a clear hardening of the positions surrounding the
question of financing.
Reducing the digital divide must be recognised as a political objective of high
priority. The digital divide – that is, the division of the population into groups
that have access to the new media and groups that are excluded – has deve-
loped along traditional, for the most part social, ethnic and gender divisions.
The existing unjust distribution of opportunities for all is increased by unequal
access to information and communication technologies. This is a global pro-
blem which affects the relations between countries and within societies. It is
essential to enable all citizens access to old and new media. Overcoming un-
equal access opportunities must take into account local conditions and speci-
fic needs and must proceed according to sustainable principles. The establish-
ment of public-access points and the furtherance of information and media
competence will enable people both in developed and developing countries to
find their bearings in the world of media information, to evaluate the content
on offer, to produce their own content and to profit from information for their
own personal pursuit of well-being.
Charta of Civil Rights for a Sustainable Knowledge Society
24
1 The Frame of Reference of the Governmental Debates on Financ-
ing at the WSIS
The Monterrey Consensus
The frame of reference of the negotiations of the inter-governmental “finance”
group at PrepCom 3 was clearly set out from the beginning: it was about the
Monterrey Consensus, the outcome of the UN conference of March 2002. This con-
sensus rested on six pillars: the mobilisation of national resources, direct foreign
investment, international commerce, public aid to development, the restructuring of
debt, and better co-ordination of international financial and economic institutions 2.
At the WSIS, the western countries – led by the European Union and the United
States – only defended the first three pillars of the consensus. The opening and libe-
ralisation of markets and the establishment of transparent and non-discriminatory
regulatory frameworks were the keywords of a position that views direct foreign
investment and public/private partnership programmes as the magic formula for
overcoming the “numerical divide.” In terms of its discourse, this position is strik-
ingly unnuanced; furthermore – and above all in the Declaration of Principles – any
sentences referring to the limits or risks of the liberal model of development were
struck from the text during PrepCom 3. Thus point 4A of the declaration (version of
07-18-03) stipulated: “If left strictly under the influence of market forces, ICTs may
actually deepen social inequalities within countries, and widen the gap between
developed and developing nations.”
At the level of public aid for development, the European Union, but also the
United States and Switzerland, were reluctant to cite any precise objectives or figu-
res. In other words, they wanted to avoid any reference to the 0.7% GDP which the
“developed” countries had nevertheless pledged to devote to the co-operation for
development since the Rio Summit.
As regards debt, the conclusion is the same: While the regulation of the servicing
of debt is of crucial importance to poor countries, numerous delegations to the WSIS
refused to refer to this problem. The results of the WSIS therefore mark a step back-
ward with regard to previous UN accords on financing.
Numerical Solidarity Fund
The proposition of the Senegalese president Abdoulaye Wade to create a Numerical
Solidarity Fund (NSF) was the second main theme of debate surrounding financing.
The mechanism is based on a model close to the old monetary ”serpent” which regu-
lated European currencies within the EMS. It distinguishes between two threshold
levels of “internet connectivity,” a higher and a lower one, in terms of which coun-
tries can be classified: those that are above the high level of connectivity – that is, the
industrialised countries – would finance the connectivity needs of the countries
beneath the lower level. The resources would derive from voluntary contributions by
purchasers of computers or of Internet equipment (from 1 to 5 dollars per unit); the
purchasers could be individuals or businesses, or even groups or administrations 3.
Although the Senegalese delegation had obtained broad support from the
African continent and from large countries like India and Brazil, the European
Community and most of the Northern countries are firmly opposed to the creation
25
of such a fund. For the latter, the current financing mechanisms are sufficient, and
rather than create new funds, one should better co-ordinate existing initiatives.
Above all they reject any new financial commitments.
Within the framework of the negotiations, this confrontation resulted in an
ambiguous situation: the Senegalese concept of “numerical solidarity” has in a sense
been accepted but minus its content; or rather, with a completely different content.
Hence the propositions of the plan of action related to financing were all regrouped
under point 11D, entitled the “Numerical Solidarity Pact” (NSP). For the European
Union and the countries of the North, this term does not refer to the creation of a
new international solidarity fund.
We commit ourselves to strengthening cooperation to seek common respon-
ses to the challenges and to the implementation of the Plan of Action [to be
henceforth referred to as the ‘Digital Solidarity Agenda’] which will realize
the vision of an inclusive information society based on the key principles
incorporated in this declaration.
Declaration, version of 26. 09. 03, point 50
2 The Positions of Civil Society on Financing at the WSIS
Globally, the actors in civil society believe that the debate at the WSIS on financing
does not respond in a satisfactory manner to three essential questions: through what
mechanisms are the additional resources to be created? How are the funds gathered
to be managed and for what projects are they earmarked? The answers to these ques-
tions are, moreover, all the more sensitive as the volume of needs – notably for the
financing of infrastructures – is immense.
Criticism of the Monterrey Consensus
It is difficult for civil society to support a plan of action that calls into question the
commitments made by governments at Monterrey; most notably, on the two crucial
points, which are public aid for development and the question of debt. It is therefore
clearly incumbent upon “developed” governments that they reaffirm their com-
mitment to devote 0.7% of GDP to the co-operation for development, as well as to
incorporate a separate point into the WSIS plan of action concerning debt reduction.
[For those developing countries facing unsustainable debt burdens, we welco-
me initiatives that have been undertaken to reduce outstanding indebtedness
and invite further national and international measures in that regard, includ-
ing, as appropriate, debt cancellation and other arrangements.] [Thus relea-
sing more potential resources for financing ICT for development projects]
Proposition of an amendment to the Draft Plan of Action, section D:
financing and implementation, 26.09.03 4
26
However, civil society is equally critical of the very presuppositions of the Monterrey
Consensus, which views liberalisation, direct foreign investment and Public Aid for
Development (PAD) as the main sources of financing for development. Two reasons
lie behind this:
a) Processes of privatisation:
Without implementation of voluntary measures, the market economy risks accentu-
ating the inequalities in the area of access and appropriation of ICTs. Indeed, diverse
experiences have shown that in developing countries, private operators have no in-
terest in developing infrastructures and services in disadvantaged regions, where
profitability is weak or questionable and where the purchasing power of the popu-
lation is low. The obligation of public services and the study of the negative conse-
quences of processes of privatisation are therefore a prerequisite for any develop-
ment policies of the information society.
b) Public Aid for Development:
According to a study by Oxfam, it would take nearly 88 billion additional US dollars
per year to realise the objectives of the Millennium Summit 5 … not counting the rela-
tive objectives in the ICT sector. In this current political context, especially the lack
of will on the part of “developed” countries to respect their commitments6, it would
therefore be illusory to regard PAD as the only source of public financing for deve-
lopment.
Numerical Solidarity Fund
At the close of PrepCom 3, international civil society drafted a position that supports
the principle of a solidarity fund. However, it underlines that the fund would not
constitute the only response to the “numerical divide.” It adds a number of cautio-
nary measures to the Senegalese proposition. The latter relate to management –
demands are made for transparency and for the full participation of all the actors –
but also on the allocation of resources 7 and on financing mechanisms. Indeed,
without a public debate on these mechanisms, the fund risks become a dead letter,
like the “African Telecommunications Fund”8 proposed back in 1998 by Nelson
Mandela, or the “World Solidarity Fund”9, created in the wake of the Millennium
Summit.
Moreover, the very principle of the fund perpetuates a traditional vision of aid to
development which does not allowed for the resolution of the structural problem of
the economic divides between North and South.
27
Civil Society from the North joins Civil Society from the South in supporting
a solidarity approach to the overall discussion of information society. For pur-
poses of this statement, we addressed ICT actions and initiatives for global
development. We believe that an appropriate funding approach is one that
links social solidarity to digital solidarity, both for existing as well as new
funding mechanisms. For both new and existing mechanisms, we believe that
serious consideration should be given to the following concerns:
1. Mechanisms for the distribution and implementation of such funds must be
fully transparent and accountable, and ensure that the funds will reach the
people who need them. The cost of administering the fund need to be kept to
a minimum.
2. Fair rules for distributing international telecom charges based on solidari-
ty must be re-established.
3. Funding must not lead to further indebtedness and dependency to unequal
trade relations, nor to privatisation and deregulation. Funding must not to
further reinforcing private and public monopolies.
4. Contributions to any newly established fund must reflect a multi-stake-
holder participation, providing contributions from governments and the priva-
te and commercial sector as well as from citizens.
5. Funds must be managed and administered by people of the South.
6. Gender parity must exist in all such mechanisms and all spheres and in all
levels of decision-making and implementation.
7. Funding mechanisms – Should not be established under the simplistic
notion that digital divides can be redressed mainly by addressing issues of
infrastructure or connectivity. They must be accompanied by funding for edu-
cation, applications, content, and dissemination. – In order to ensure that the
funds actually reach the most marginalized, mechanisms need to be set up to
ensure distribution of these funds take into account intersectionality of race,
class gender, ethnicity and other lines of discrimination. – Must address tra-
ditional and community media, not only the Internet. It should take into full
account low-end but appropriate technology, including indigenous know-
ledges. – Must also be used to promote cultural and linguistic diversity. – Must
support technological sustainability, including the use and production of free
software and the fostering of user-centred technology development practices.
Content and Themes Subcommittee with inputs from those present at
the South-South and Friends of the South Meeting WSIS PrepCom 3,
September 25, 2003
Other mechanisms of financing
In view of the limits of the classical propositions for the financing of development
and the volume of needs, it is urgent to broaden the framework of ideas and to recon-
sider the mechanisms – for example, taxes – that might allow for a better distri-
bution of the benefits of the information and communications sector. In the domain
of the information society, such a mechanism once existed: the system of tax distri-
bution.
28
Indeed, until 1998, the system of the distribution of taxes provided an important
source of revenue for developing countries – between 5 and 10 billion dollars per
year, according to estimates by the International Telecommunications Union (ITU).
This accord, negotiated within the ITU, foresaw that for every act of international
telecommunication, the country from which the call is placed pays half of the tax to
the recipient country. In 1998, however, under pressure from the large telecommu-
nications companies, the American government decided to unilaterally abandon this
system and to reduce its payments by half. For certain poor countries, this decision
resulted in the loss of essential resources for the maintenance and development of
the national telecommunications network. In the case of Ethiopia, for example‚ the
lost earnings were estimated at nearly 22.5 million US dollars; that is to say, 30% of
the telecommunications receipts 10.
As a result, civil society demands a re-evaluation of the system of tax distribution:
this would send a strong signal of solidarity, real and effective, as it meets all the
needs of the ad hoc structure.
To provide the necessary resources for the financing of investments, particu-
larly in infrastructure, […] the following points are to be considered:
– The return to a system of tariffs by reparation such as was practised before
the 1998 reform. The resultant increase in yield will be allocated to an Afri-
can investment fund dedicated to the network infrastructure. According to the
most credible economic experts, this increase in yield lies between one and
two billion dollars annually.
– The progressive ‘recouping’ of inter-African traffic (in proportion to the
development of the African network infrastructures), currently ensured from
outside the continent and which costs African operators on the order of 400
million dollars per year, according to the ITU.
Propositions of the Civil Society Working Group on the
WSIS Plan of Action, section on financing, 17.07.03 11:
Conclusion
In conclusion, civil society could not subscribe to a WSIS plan of action that repre-
sents a backward step in relation to Monterrey. However, for the non-governmental
actors, it is equally urgent to consider the creation of new financing mechanisms. In
the domain of the information society, this means revising the system of tax distri-
bution, but also analysing the possibilities of introducing national taxes. Such meas-
ures would support the development of infrastructures as well as their content.
29
1
See the Plan of Action of 26.09.03, chapter 11, point D.
2
See the Plan of Action of 26.09.03, chapter 11, point D.
3
See the speech of President Wade at PreCom-2 at
www.itu.int/wsis/docs/pc2/visionaries/wade-fr.doc.
4
See www.csdptt.org/news_csdptt2.php.
5
See Jens Martin’s “Ergebnisse und Perspektiven globaler Entwicklungszusammenarbeit
nach der Monterrey-Konferenz”, June 2002. http://www2.weed-online.org/ffd/index.htm
6
88 billion US dollars corresponds to the sum total of ad hoc credit approved by the Ameri-
can Congress last November for the military deployment in and reconstruction of Iraq and
Afghanistan.
7
For further details, see “Civil society statement on information and communication soli-
darity funding mecanisms”, 25.09.03, www.worldsummit2003.de (section “Zivilgesell-
schafts-Dokumente.”
8
See www.itu.int/newsarchive/press_releases/1998/19.html
9
See www.solidarity-fund.org. The creation of this fund, proposed by the Tunesian president
Ben Ali, has yet to take place.
10 See “For richer or for poorer? The impact of telecoms accounting reform on developing
coutries,” Panos Special Briefings, March 1998. www. panos.org.
11 “Financement des infrastructures: quelques pistes,” Intervention in the name of the ple-
num of the Civil Society Working Group, intercessional meeting, Paris, 17 July 2003. See
www.cdsptt.org.
30
How Public is the Public Domain?
By Christoph Bruch
The information and knowledge society is all about access to information and know-
ledge. Demands for an inclusive information society are a call to tear down the walls
that guard information privileges.
There are many barriers that stop information from being disseminated. Of
course poverty and the lack of education that comes with it are the greatest problems
that have to be overcome in order to make the information society all-inclusive.
Next are intellectual property rights – copyrights, patents, and trademarks. Of these
three, copyright claims are the main obstacle to the access to knowledge and cultural
goods.
Access to knowledge must be free. The central objective of a knowledge so-
ciety organised according to the principle of sustainability is that access to all
medial forms of knowledge must be possible for present as well as for future
generations, for all peoples, at all times, in all places and under fair condi-
tions. This applies to all domains of society, not only to science. Only free
access to knowledge and information makes democratic participation in pub-
lic affairs possible and stimulates creativity and innovation in science, busi-
ness and culture. Only democratic control mechanisms can be allowed to limit
the principle of free access.
Charter of Civil Rights for a Sustainable Knowledge Society
But not all information is privately owned. Governments, public administrations,
and public institutions produce and control huge amounts of information. Making
this information freely accessible, and keeping it freely accessible, is of great interest
to all of humankind.
Access to government information
– opens an unrivalled repository of knowledge that can be used for educational
purposes and to satisfy the inquisitiveness that is a defining feature of humans
– is a key tool to hold governments accountable and as such a prerequisite for
meaningful political participation
– empowers individuals in conflicts with government bodies
– helps to fight corruption, which deprives millions of people of badly needed
public services and benefits
– offers resources for private enterprise
31
Control of information flows is also an important instrument of power. No
wonder governments traditionally are not inclined to grant its citizens access
to information held by government institutions. History is permeated with
cases of arbitrary secrecy.
Everyone has an unlimited right of access to the documents of public and
publicly controlled bodies. Access to information and knowledge as well as
free communication are necessary prerequisites for personal development, for
political participation and for the development of humanity as a whole. Free-
dom of information makes political decisions transparent, helps reduce cor-
ruption and improves the management of information in public administra-
tions. Classifying administrative activities as secret must always require legi-
timisation by law and should be kept within a tight legal framework. All citi-
zens have the right to inform themselves through publicly available resources
and to have unhampered, unfiltered access to documents of public and publi-
cly controlled organisations – without manipulation or control. Information
and knowledge in private hands should also be accessible in case of a special
public interest. Governmental and public administration institutions must
commit themselves to the comprehensive electronic publication of all infor-
mation of public interest.
Charta of Civil Rights for a Sustainable Knowledge Society
As an antidote to this deplorable tradition, freedom of information laws have been
passed in many countries all over the world. In many instances the principle of
administrative transparency is even part of a country's constitution.
Although most such laws are of fairly recent origin, there are examples from as
early as the 17th century. A law passed in 1641 in the Colony of Massachusetts esta-
blished:
Every Inhabitant of the Country shall have free liberty to search and view
rolls, records, or registers of any court or office, except the council, and to
have a transcript or exemplification thereof written, examined, and signed by
the hand of the officer of the office, paying the appointed fees thereof.
What began as a struggle to hold governments accountable has much wider impli-
cations today. The vast growth of public institutions makes them by far the most
information rich organisations in the world. To tap this wealth for the good of man-
kind is a central goal of the information society.
At present access to government information is rarely perceived as a human
right. This rebuff is being challenged by the United Nations special rapporteur on
the protection and promotion of the right to freedom of opinion and expression in
his comment on Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights:
32
[...] In this regard, the special rapporteur expresses again his view, and
emphasises, that everyone has the right to seek, receive and impart informa-
tion and that this imposes a positive obligation on states to ensure access to
information, particularly with regard to information held by government in all
types of storage and retrieval systems [...].
Access to information and knowledge at the WSIS
As the representatives of the countries of this world set out to define a framework
for the information society, the right of the people to gain access to information in
the hands of public institutions finally will have to be recognised. However, the
wording of the latest draft of the summit declaration does not reach this benchmark.
23. ( 21 ) A rich public domain is an essential element for the growth of the
information society, creating multiple benefits such as an educated public,
new jobs, innovation, business opportunities, and the advancement of scien-
ces. Information in the public domain should be easily accessible to support
the information society, and protected from misappropriation. Public institu-
tions such as libraries and archives, museums, cultural collections and other
community-based access points should be strengthened so as to promote the
preservation of documentary records and free and equitable access to infor-
mation.
Draft non-paper of the president of the WSIS prepcom on the
Declaration of Principles, October 24, 2003
Not only do the representatives of the governments of this world fail to establish this
right, they plan to use information as a new source of revenue. Commercialisation
of government information is the new buzzword. Information in the public domain
is to be sold to companies. We, the citizens, who have paid for the information are
to be robbed of what's ours.
The Scientific Information (SI) and the Patent, Copyright and Trade working
groups within the WSIS civil society strongly support the inclusion of the phrase
“free and open access” in the WSIS documents. While this was part of the official
documents after the Paris intersessional meeting in July 2003, it was not supported
at the PrepCom 3 in September 2003. The term “open access” refers to the “open
access publishing movement,” and is supported by large parts of the scientific com-
munity. Initiatives such as the “Berlin Declaration of Open Access,” as well as the
Open Library of Science use this phrase. “Equitable access,” on the other side, seems
highly ambiguous. It often relates to commercial transactions, which would only
ensure that everyone could access information for the same amount of money. Civil
society groups hold that scientific knowledge has to be accessible for everyone and
not just to those who can afford to buy expensive scientific journals. This is crucial,
as otherwise the gap between rich and poor would ever widen.
33
Since science has a central role in the production of new knowledge, univer-
sal and open access to scientific knowledge, as well as equal opportunities for
everyone for the creation and sharing of scientific knowledge, are crucial. Any
research, especially that funded by public bodies, should enrich the public
domain. This must be ensured by the promotion of efficient models for self-
publication, open content contributions and other alternative models for the
production, publication and sharing of scientific knowledge and the use of non-
proprietary formats.
CS proposal on Declaration of Principles at PrepCom 3
Civil society will not let this pass. In its “Charter of Civil Rights for a Sustainable
Knowledge Society” German civil society groups have outlined the guiding principle
for information in the public domain.
34
Fighting Intellectual Poverty: Who Owns and Controls the
Information Societies?
By Georg C.F. Greve
The WSIS, the World Summit on the Information Society, should lay the founda-
tions for what some refer to as “information societies,” others as “knowledge socie-
ties.” A discussion of information or knowledge societies should include a debate
about who owns information and knowledge, about who controls the media in which
they reside, flow and develop, and the question who controls the languages we use
within those media. Yet all these issues are addressed ineffectively (open standards),
inconsistently (free software), or not at all. An issue many governmental delegations
would prefer not to deal with at all are so-called "intellectual property rights" (IPR),
a term primarily covering patents, copyright, trademarks, but also business models,
geographic locators, and other things people wish to own.
1. Knowledge is the heritage and the property of humanity and is thus free.
Knowledge represents the reservoir from which new knowledge is created.
Knowledge must therefore remain permanently accessible to the public.
Limitations on public access such as copyrights and patents must be the
exception. Commercial exploitation of knowledge conflicts with the interest
of society in knowledge as a public good. Knowledge as a common good must
have a higher status in the hierarchy of social values than the protection of
private claims.
Charter of Civil Rights for a Sustainable Knowledge Society
All of these are very different and usually unrelated areas of law, each with its own
effect on the economy, politics and society. Mixing them is not only unhelpful for a
qualified scientific dispute; the term IPR also advances the notion that thoughts are
property. The meaning of ownership of ideas remains unclear to the sceptical mind.
However, all these concepts have one thing in common: It is both their function and
their purpose to establish limited monopolies on intellectual creativity. In this docu-
ment, “intellectual property rights” (IPRs) will therefore be referred to by what they
are and effect, i.e. as “limited intellectual monopolies” (LIMs).
Who controls what connects us all?
Ever since the first cave paintings and musical instruments, creativity and the
sharing of knowledge and ideas have been the essence of culture, friendship, and
society. Creativity and the sharing of knowledge and what else inspires us are fun-
damental to our humanity.
In 397 AD, St Augustine stated: “Omnis enim res, quae dando non deficit, dum
habetur et non datur, nondum habetur, quomodo habenda est.” (“For if a thing is
35
not diminished by being shared with others, it is not rightly owned if it is only owned
and not shared.”)
When, a millennium after St Augustine, Gutenberg invented the printing press
in 1476, the sharing of knowledge was immensely simplified, yet the channels of
distribution required considerable investment by those who distributed it for us. To
protect them, and for the benefit of society, we invented the limited intellectual
monopoly of copyright.
Now, another half-millennium later, digitalisation and most notably the internet
have made it possible to share knowledge at the speed of light, at virtually no cost,
and with very small investments on behalf of publishers. Every person in possession
of a computer has a perfect (re-) production device and is a potential publisher.
We produce knowledge by learning from each other and from those who came
before us. No one stands alone; we all do stand on the shoulders of giants. The reser-
voir we draw from for the cultural development of mankind, the link that ties us
together as society, is the public domain of knowledge.
This resource is being depleted by privatisation and the expansion of limited in-
tellectual monopolies, such as patents, copyrights and trademarks. Ideas have be-
come nothing but commodities to be bought at a minimal cost from the creative
producers of ideas, in order to sell them at a maximum price to those of us on the
lookout for ideas.
Today, means that were invented to benefit society are often privatised at the
expense of society. Using the words of Louise Szente from South Africa: “Woe is the
life of the modern day student living in ‘darkest Africa’ for obviously we are still
being kept in the slave quarters of the world. Harsh words? My friends, try and live
in a society where such acts as the intellectual property acts of the world impede your
advancement in life.”
Limited intellectual monopolies, of which copyright is the best known, are
powerful tools – and as such they should be used with great care. They were inven-
ted for a different age and with different issues at stake; today’s information socie-
ties should therefore not simply reuse them – they will have to find new and appro-
priate forms.
The simplistic notion that monopolies lead to an increase in creativity – sugges-
ted by statements as the following: “Intellectual property protection is essential to
encourage the innovation and creativity in the information society.” (§ 38, Oct 24,
2003, non-paper by Mr. Samassekou) – ignore the fact that for thousands of years
human creativity fared rather well without monopolies. The WSIS “Declaration of
Principles” describes the current situation as fair and balanced, yet it is characteri-
sed by the hijacking of indigenous knowledge, the digital divide, and by cultural
underdevelopment.
36
33 (39) Intellectual property protection is essential to encourage the innova-
tion and creativity in the information society. However, striking a fair balance
between protection of intellectual property, one the one hand, and its use, and
knowledge sharing, on the other, is essential to the information society. This
balance is reflected by protection and flexibilities included in existing intel-
lectual property agreements, and should be maintained. Facilitating meaning-
ful participation by all in intellectual property issues through awareness,
capacity building and development of legal framework is a fundamental part
of an inclusive information society.
Draft non-paper of the president of the WSIS prepcom on
the Declaration of Principles, October 24, 2003
The Patents, Copyright and Trademarks (PCT) working group of civil society at
WSIS has worked hard to formulate a more neutral statement: “Striking a balance
between limited information monopolies, on the one hand, and the use and sharing
of knowledge, on the other, is essential to the information society.” The central
issues of PCTs and other LIMs is the question: Who runs the information societies
and who owns their intellectual reservoir?
Who controls our cultural techniques?
The other issue the PCT working group has been dealing with is that of software and
open standards. Access to software determines our chances for education, commu-
nication, and employment. In the same way as farming was the cultural technique
of agricultural societies, software is the cultural technique of information societies.
We cannot afford a situation in which minorities control our essential cultural tech-
niques. The PCT group therefore has been working hard to promote free software,
i.e. software that gives everyone the right to use, study, modify, and copy software –
and thereby participate, learn, and share in knowledge as an active member of an
information society.
The most problematic notions in this regard are “technological neutrality” and
“freedom of choice.” Both are very rational principles we support, but both are being
used in a confusing manner so as to imply that the choice between proprietary and
free software is a question of technology. This biased approach also suggests that the
decision for free software would be unfairly one-sided.
40 (35) Standardisation is one of the essential building blocks of the infor-
mation society. There should be particular emphasis on the development of
international standards. The development and use of open, interoperable, non-
discriminatory and demand-driven standards that take into account needs of
users and consumers, [and are based on the principle of technological neutral-
ity,] is a basic element in the development of ICTs and more affordable access
to them, particularly in developing countries.
Draft non-paper of the president of the WSIS prepcom on
the Declaration of Principles, October 24, 2003
37
Indeed free software does not work well for those who seek to gain control over
others and who want to exploit that control in order to increase their economic, soci-
al, or political power. Free software thwarts the monopolisation of the essential cul-
tural technique of information societies.
Free software does go a long way towards making information societies equi-
table, non-discriminatory, inclusive, and open to all.
Who controls our languages?
Communication only works when all parties involved use the same code. In infor-
mation societies such languages are the standards we use for the storage and trans-
mission of data. Proprietary standards transfer the control over those languages to a
single vendor while those using other languages are cut off from communication.
New versions and updates, too, may interrupt our communication with our for-
mer selves – old files may not be intelligible to newer versions of proprietary soft-
ware.
The only way to solve such problems is open standards. Open standards make
the language of information societies transparent and available to all. The impor-
tance of standardisation is widely recognised by all participants in the WSIS:
“Standardisation is one of the essential building blocks of the information society.”
(§ 40, Oct 24, 2003, non-paper by Mr. Samassekou).
So far, unfortunately, none of the WSIS documents guarantee open standards. A
standard can only be open if it is freely implementable and publicly documented.
The PCT working group has been very active to get such standards included in WSIS
declarations in order to make sure that the languages of information societies will be
available to us all.
What are Intellectual Property Rights? – Intellectual property (IP) rights
are the rights awarded by society to individuals or organisations principally
over creative works: inventions, literary and artistic works, and symbols,
names, images, and designs used in commerce. They give the creator the right
to prevent others from making unauthorised use of their property for a limi-
ted period. IP is categorised as industrial property (functional commercial
innovations), and artistic and literary property (cultural creations). Current
technological developments are blurring, to some extent, this distinction, and
some hybrid sui generis systems are emerging.
Integrating Intellectual Property Rights and Development Policy,
report of the Commission on Intellectual Property Rights, London,
September 2002 (www.iprcommission.org)
38
Internet Governance : ICANN vs. ITU?
By Wolfgang Kleinwächter
One of the most controversial issues in the WSIS preparatory process is the question
of internet governance. Internet governance means the administration of the key
resources of the internet’s infrastructure: domain names, IP addresses, internet pro-
tocols, and root servers.
One group, consisting mainly of G 20 governments, and including China, Brazil,
India, and South Africa, wants to transfer the “governance of the internet” to an
intergovernmental UN organisation like the ITU. The US government, on the other
hand, with support from the European Union and the private sector, supports the
idea of “private sector leadership,” as exemplified by the Internet Corporation for
Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), a global, private, non-profit corporation
established in October 1998 under Californian law and regulated, on the basis of a
“memorandum of understanding” valid until October 2006, by the US Department
of Commerce. Civil society groups like the ICT Global Governance Caucus are in
favour of a “multi-stakeholder approach.” While critical of ICANN with its continu-
ing dependence on the US government and the limited role of individual internet
users on the ICANN board of directors, they are also critical of the idea to establish
an intergovernmental control body – as this may result in national rivalries.
The controversy can only be understood by going back in history. The co-ordina-
tion, and, where necessary, the management of the internet’s resources has develo-
ped since the 1970s as a bottom-up process mainly driven by technical developers,
providers, and users. In contrast to telecommunications and broadcasting, where at
an early stage top-down governmental regulation determined the design of the
media in a national context and according to political and economic interests, there
was no such approach with regard to the internet. The standards needed were deve-
loped and adopted by non-governmental organisations such as the Internet
Engineering Task Force (IETF) or the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) along the
principle “running code and rough consensus.” This worked to the benefit of all. The
tremendous growth of the internet is proof that national or international legislation
was not needed.
The domain name system (DNS), too, was developed bottom-up. Until the early
1990s it was overseen by the DNS’ father Jon Postel who did this, with one assistant,
working out of his office in Marina del Rey in California. It was only when, after the
invention of the world wide web, the number of domain names exceeded one mil-
lion, and the Internet became a commercial platform, that the technical co-ordina-
tion of this key resource became more and more of a political and economic issue.
For a long time all governments more or less ignored the internet. The exception
was the United States, which financed research first via the Department of Defence
(DoD) and later via the National Science Foundation (NSF). When in May 1997 the
ITU, in co-operation with Jon Postel, tried to come up with a memorandum of
understanding for generic top level domains (gTLD MoU), a majority of ITU mem-
39
ber states did not actively participate in these negotiations. The 1998 ITU plenipo-
tentiary conference in Minneapolis did not refer to the gTLD MoU, which then was
never implemented.
The US government opposed the ITU approach and proposed an alternative body
– which resulted in the formation of ICANN in 1998. ICANN was based on the prin-
ciples of stability, competition, bottom-up policy development, and global represen-
tation. The last principle was the result of a critical intervention by the European
Commission which wanted to avoid that ICANN would become a purely US organi-
sation.
ICANN’s structure was based on the idea that providers and users of internet
services should be the decision makers, while governments would play an advisory
role. Consequently the board was composed of 19 members chosen from three so-
called supporting organisations for domain names, internet addresses, and IP pro-
tocols, representing providers and developers, plus nine directors to represent the
public at large, i.e. individual internet users. A “governmental advisory committee”
(GAC) open to all governments was formed, the role of which was to advise the
board of ICANN – GAC recommendations were not binding. In October 2000 the
US government planned to hand over all remaining responsibilities, including the
control of the A-root server, to this new corporation.
The idealism of the founding fathers of ICANN did not work in its original sense.
As the internet economy was dominated by the US, ICANN quickly became very US-
oriented with VeriSign (former NSI) as its main player. The idea that nine “at large
directors” should balance the interests of the private internet industry was never
implemented. Up to the present moment the US government still is ICANN’s regu-
lator.
After September 11, 2001 the growing need to guarantee the security and stabili-
ty of the internet led to a reform process of ICANN. Its management structure was
changed, the representation of internet users was reduced, and the role of govern-
ments was strengthened. The original principle remained, yet ICANN became
something like a “public-private partnership.”
When theWSIS process started, a number of governments, mainly form the third
world, began to question the legitimacy of ICANN. They pointed out that the digital
divide was reflected in the distribution of domain names and IP addresses. They felt
that they were unable to participate in ICANN’s decision-making processes. And
they criticised the privileged role of the US government. Some governments sugges-
ted that the internet, like telecommunications and broadcasting, should be regulated
top-down in order to protect national economic and political interests.
The criticism of the non-representative nature of ICANN is understandable; yet
it is a fundamental misunderstanding to perceive of the internet as if it were broad-
casting and telecommunications. While a government can easily control a national
news programme, it is impossible to do the same with the global internet. If one
domain is blocked in one country, this does not necessarily mean that the website
concerned will disappear; if relocated to another domain the website will still be
accessible.
IP addresses are different from telephone numbers. While numbers are num-
bers, it has to be remembered that the allocation of IP numbers (via IANA and Re-
40
gional Internet Registries/RIRs) is totally different from the allocation of telephone
numbers (with country and city codes via national regulatory authorities).
This does not mean that governments should have no role in the governance of
the internet. There is a growing number of public policy issues related to the inter-
net. Yet issues like spam, illegal content, or cybercrime are not on ICANN’s agenda
and have very little to do with the co-ordination of internet resources. Therefore, to
deal with these evils does not imply that the domain name system has to come under
intergovernmental control.
The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus, in one of its statements during
the WSIS process, has therefore argued, that “governance issues related to the inter-
net are a complex challenge which needs a complex answer and which has to include
all stakeholders – civil society, private industry and governments. No single body and
no single stakeholder group alone is able to manage these challenges. This multi-
stakeholder approach should be the guiding principle both for the technical co-
ordination of the internet, as well as for broader public policy issues related to cyber-
space in general.”
As a consequence it added that “the development of policies and frameworks in
this context must continue to be a bottom-up process. This bottom-up policy deve-
lopment process (PDP) should be as inclusive as possible, transparent and open for
participation by all interested parties, in particular for civil society and individual
internet users. In every country, management of internet resources and related
public policy should be advanced in the interest of and in consensus with the natio-
nal internet communities.”
Finally the caucus has stressed that it does not perceive of a need for a new inter-
governmental organisation. Rather there has to be continuous improvement of the
existing structures and mechanisms, more openness and transparency, more parti-
cipation in and democratisation of decision making, the root server system has to be
internationalised, and co-ordination, consultation, and communication have to be
improved.
47. (42) [Internet issues of an international nature related to public poli-
cies should be coordinated: Alternatives:
a) between governments and other interested parties. b) through/by appro-
priate intergovernmental organisations under the UN framework. c) as appro-
priate on an intergovernmental basis. d) through/by appropriate international
organisations. e) through appropriate and mutually agreed international orga-
nisations.]
Draft non-paper of the president of the WSIS prepcom on
the Declaration of Principles, October 24, 2003
41
44. Management of internet names and addresses: The management of inter-
net’s unique identifier systems must occur through open and transparent
means, supporting private sector-led industry self-regulation, while taking
into account the interests of the public sector and civil society, and respecting
multilingualism. To ensure the global interoperability, stability and security of
the Internet, the coordination responsibility for root servers, domain names,
and Internet Protocol (IP) address assignment should rest with a private sec-
tor organization operating in the global public interest. The policy authority
for country code top-level-domain names (ccTLDs) should be co-ordinated at
the global level and should be the responsibility of the government or public
authority and internet communities in those countries, regions or territories.
GLOCOM’s comments on the Draft Declaration of
Principles and Draft Action Plan, May 30, 2003.
44. The Internet provides a key global platform for the information society,
and the good governance of its underlying technical resources is a core issue
on the information society agenda. The international co-ordination of such
resources should be transparent and democratic, with the full participation of
governments, the private sector, civil society and international organisations.
It should promote an equitable distribution of these resources in accordance
with identified technical requirements, facilitate access for all, and ensure the
internet’s stable and secure functioning, taking into account multilingualism.
Comments by the Civil Society Working Group on
ICT Global Governance, November 11, 2003
Open technical standards and open forms of technical and software produc-
tion guarantee the free development of infrastructures and thus self-determi-
ned and free communication forms. Proprietary solutions in regard to proto-
cols and standards in network technology, computer architecture and software
application lead to the formation of monopolies and are detrimental to inno-
vation. When governments hold monopolies on infrastructures and when pri-
vate-sector players have proprietary monopolies on technologies, there is the
additional danger that the power to set standards will affect content and lead
to restrictions in the freedom of information and communication. Only open
technical standards will promote free and open software development and
self-determined communication.
Charter of Civil Rights for a Sustainable Knowledge Society
42
National Security or Civil Liberties? WSIS Debate on Secu-
rity Issues in Deadlock
By Ralf Bendrath
At the WSIS PrepCom 3 there was no consensus between governments on security
issues. There was some agreement on minor points but fundamental questions
could not be resolved. Especially Russia and China disagreed with the broad con-
sensus reached between other participating delegations in insisting on their own
national security needs and in questioning human rights and civil liberties. The
ambiguous term “information security” was introduced into the Draft Summit
Declaration at PrepCom 3 and has, since then, led to yet another blockade of the
whole security working group. Civil society concerns over the curtailment of human
rights and civil liberties such as freedom of speech have also been amplified by refe-
rences to the Council of Europe’s “Cybercrime Convention” and the European
Union’s attempts to strengthen “network and information security.”
Privacy much too weak
Civil society groups in general are concerned about the focus on security in the
WSIS declaration draft. In their view, “security” is a vague political goal that can be
higher or lower on the agenda depending on day-to-day politics. Privacy and other
human rights and civil liberties, on the other hand, are basic democratic rights that
may not be violated for the sake of (or, as is often the case, under the guise of) secu-
rity issues.
Civil society groups therefore have lobbied for the inclusion of a new paragraph
on privacy into the summit’s declaration on “security.” Such a paragraph, preceding
other questions of “security,” would make privacy a priority in information societies
where the trafficking, processing, and misuse of personal information has become
a bigger problem than ever before in the history of human rights.
The right to privacy is a human right and is essential for self-determined
human development in regard to civic, political, social, economic, and cultural
activities. It must be protected online, offline, in public spaces, at home and
in the workplace.
Every person must have the right to decide freely whether and in what man-
ner he or she wants to receive information and communicate with others. The
possibility of communicating anonymously must be ensured for everyone. The
collection, retention, use and disclosure of personal data, no matter by whom,
should remain under the control of and determined by the individual con-
cerned.
Crucial Issues for Privacy and Security Working Group, September 22, 2003
43
This position gained the support of some delegations. Yet the whole debate has been
centred on conflicts to do with security issues, wherefore no delegation wanted to
put to much stress on the issue of privacy. Privacy is now only briefly mentioned,
and not at all in the first part of the declaration that deals with values and principles.
Struggle over “national security” language
At the Paris intersessional conference in July 2003, the working group on security
chaired by the European Union had almost reached an agreement based on previous
proposals by the EU and Switzerland.
The benefits of the Information Society can only be fully harnessed if there is
confidence that the new information and communication technology is relia-
ble and secure. (…) Therefore governments should work in close co-ordina-
tion with private enterprise, civil society and with international expert bodies
in the field of network and information security. Within this global culture of
cybersecurity it is important to strike a balance between, on the one hand,
measures to enhance security and, on the other hand, the need to ensure the
protection of data and privacy, as well as to avoid the creation of new barriers
to trade.
European Union contribution to the Draft Declaration of
Principles received by May 31, 2003
Strengthening the trust framework (security, authentication, privacy, consu-
mer protection) is a prerequisite for the maturation of the information socie-
ty and for inspiring confidence among all users of the internet. It requires the
involvement of all participants.
Swiss contribution to the Draft Declaration of
Principles received by May 31, 2003
Then the Russian delegate showed up late and insisted on having two more para-
graphs included. Because of the use of the terms “military,“ “terrorist,“ and “sover-
eignty,” they were informally called “Chechnya paragraphs.”
The paragraphs had been previously included, on Russia’s initiative, into the
declarations of some regional preparatory meetings like the Pan-European con-
ference in Bucharest in November 2002 or the Asia-Pacific conference in Tokyo in
January 2003. Up till then, the issue of security had not been very prominent, as
most governments perceived of development and inclusion as main issues of the
WSIS. In Bucharest, where this issue first was raised, the Russian delegation refer-
red to the hostage crisis at a Moscow theatre that had taken place just a week earlier.
44
ICTs can potentially be used for purposes that are inconsistent with the objec-
tives of maintaining international stability and security and may adversely
affect the integrity of the infrastructure within states, to the detriment of
their security in both civil and military fields, as well as in relation to the func-
tioning of their economies. It is also necessary to prevent the use of informa-
tion resources or technologies for criminal or terrorist purposes
Bucharest Declaration, Pan-European Regional Conference,
November 2002
The Russian fears are somewhat understandable because, since the 1990s, “infor-
mation warfare” has been an issue in a number of countries. The main proponent
has been the United States military where the “Joint Doctrine for Information
Operations” was issued by the Pentagon in 1998. This has been much criticised by
civil society groups.
The WSIS should also recognize that one of the greatest threats to “infor-
mation security” lies in the militarisation of information space, including the
development and deployment of “infowar” technologies and techniques; the
deployment of military software or hardware against civilian communications
systems; the domination of satellite orbits for military purposes; and the pur-
poseful destruction of civilian communication systems during conflicts in vio-
lation of international law. The WSIS should encourage the foundations for a
future convention against information warfare to address these concerns.
Civil Society Priorities document, August 3, 2003
The potential use of information and communication technologies by terrorists had
been raised before by the Council of Europe at an informal WSIS meeting in Sep-
tember 2002. From the beginning the Council has tried to promote its “Cybercrime
Convention” as a model for an international agreement.
C. Cyberfreedoms and their limits, (…)Proposed subthemes: (...) b. Defining
what is illegal on the Internet (As regards illegal content, the Council of
Europe has already broken new ground by adopting the Cybercrime Conven-
tion, which is the first international agreement in this field, providing defini-
tions of some of the most serious acts which should be declared illegal and
fought in concertation, in particular child pornography and copyright piracy.
(…) Discussions are also under way concerning the opportunity of drafting a
second additional protocol on the use of internet for terrorist purposes.)
Council of Europe statement
45
The “Cybercrime Convention” has been heavily criticised by civil liberties and
human rights groups for a number of reasons, e.g. its extensive range, the lack of
legal protection, as well as for its additional protocols (against xenophobic acts com-
mitted in cyberspace and against terrorist use of the internet) – all of them formula-
tions that can be used to legitimise internet censorship and surveillance. The addi-
tional protocols clearly show that the “Cybercrime Convention” aims to control beha-
viour and communication on the internet, something that cyberrights groups and
privacy watchdogs have warned of for a while.
At PrepCom 3, which took place in Geneva in September 2003, some progress
was made, as the Russians agreed that a redrafted part of their proposal that dealt
with sovereignty issues was switched to the action plan. But they still insisted on the
inclusion of a passage on the danger that information and communication techno-
logies can potentially be used „for purposes that may adversely affect the (…) securi-
ty in both the civil and military fields.” The EU and US delegations, in line with
many others, were strongly opposed to the mention of military matters in the con-
text of WSIS, still the Russian delegation was able to carry its point.
The Civil Society Working Group lobbied on privacy and security and thus con-
vinced a number of delegates of the danger of just mentioning “the use of informa-
tion resources and technologies for criminal and terrorist purposes” without speci-
fying the exact kind of illegitimate use meant. The US and Canadian delegations, in
line with the EU and others, insisted on inserting the phrase “consistent with the
need to preserve the free flow of information.” At this point, China joint forces with
Russia. The Chinese delegation wanted to add the clause “in accordance with the
legal system of each country,” which is the diplomatic term for ‘we do not want to
conform to international human rights standards anyway.’
Some futile attempts were made, in small ad hoc groups, to find a compromise.
But as there is a fundamental contradiction between civil liberties and national secu-
rity, no agreement could be reached. The paragraph remained unchanged during the
informal talks in Geneva after PrepCom 3.
(…) ICTs can potentially be used for purposes that are inconsistent with the
objectives of maintaining international stability and security, and may adver-
sely affect the integrity of the infrastructure within states, to the detriment of
their security [in both civil and military fields]. It is necessary to prevent the
use of information resources and technologies for criminal and terrorist pur-
poses [, consistent with the need to preserve the free flow of information] [in
accordance with the legal system of each country].
Position of the intergovernmental working group at PrepCom 3,
September 2003.
46
“Information security” contested
In addition, Russia insisted on the term “information security,” a point again sup-
ported by China. Both Russia and China have a track record of infringing upon civil
liberties in the name of “national security.” The term “the great firewall of China”
has been coined with reference to the attempt to completely filter and control inter-
net traffic between Chinese citizens and the rest of the world. The control of its the
national information sphere is also part of Russia’s national security doctrine. In the
Russian understanding the concept of “information security” includes not only the
technical reliability of information and communication networks and systems, but
also refers to the content transmitted. China has, for a number of years, been trying
to control the content of internet traffic within and across its borders. The Russian
National Security Concept (2000) states that a serious danger arises from the desire
of a number of countries to dominate the global information space, a trend that
could marginalize Russia on the external and internal information market.
As the civil society working group on privacy and security has stated at the wor-
king group meetings and in plenary at the WSIS preparatory meetings in June and
September 2003 this can and will be read by a number of governments as a legiti-
misation of censorship and state control of information access. Civil society groups
have therefore suggested to generally replace the term “information security” with
“dependability.”
The German delegation, after some discussions with civil society groups, sup-
ported this suggestion, as did the US delegation after China had decided to support
the Russian proposal. Some countries like Lebanon prefer the term “network secu-
rity.” At the moment the term “network and information security” still is in square
brackets, i.e. not agreed upon.
Security, dependability, or trust?
The phrase “culture of cybersecurity” prominent in the paragraph quoted below is
taken from a UN General Assembly resolution. This term is very unusual for ICT
security experts, yet it describes the fact that technical security has to be created by
the interaction of producers and users, technology and organisation, ethics and per-
manent re-assessment.
The General Assembly (…) 4. Invites member states and all relevant inter-
national organisations to take, inter alia, these elements and the need for a
global culture of cybersecurity into account in their preparations for the World
Summit on the Information Society, (…) Annex-Elements for creating a glo-
bal culture of cybersecurity: (a) Awareness. (b) Responsibility. (c) Response.
(d) Ethics. (e) Democracy. (f) Risk assessment. (g) Security design and
implementation. (h) Security management. (i) Reassessment.
United Nations General Assembly resolution 57/239:
Creation of a Global Culture of Cybersecurity, December 20, 2002
47
The General Assembly resolution was adopted as a preparation for WSIS, and it has
been the only one explicitly relating to WSIS, which again shows the precarious
focus on security in the whole process.
Civil Society’s working group on privacy and security has asked for “security” to
be replaced by “dependability,” as the term security is inherently vague and ambi-
guous and creates the potential for misuse. “Dependability” on the other hand is the
established technical terminology for ICT systems that can withstand cyber attacks
and other external events. It is already officially used in the European Union’s
Dependability Development Support Initiative (DDSI). Unfortunately this has so far
not had any impact on the intergovernmental negotiations.
The OECD has introduced the term „trust“ into the WSIS process. The OECD is
mainly worried about the slow progress of online commerce due to users’ concerns
about privacy of their personal data such as credit card numbers.
Create an environment of security and trust in which all users can engage in
online transactions with confidence.
OECD statement, WSIS prepcom 1, July 2002
The privacy and security working group has suggested that the term “trust” in the
headline of the “security” paragraph should be replaced with “transparency.” In their
view “trust” is currently associated with technically immature industry initiatives
like the “trusted computing group” or Microsoft’s “trustworthy computing” cam-
paign. The World Summit Declaration should not raise the impression of being a
marketing measure for these controversial technologies. In contrast to blind trust in
marketing slogans, transparency concerning infrastructures and ICTs mechanisms
can insure stability. Transparency boosts the fight against bugs and the closing of
backdoors. Experts have known this for long, as witnessed by the saying “no securi-
ty through obscurity.”
This argument has been very successful in informal talks with delegates from a
number of governments. It seems that nobody really had thought of the possibility
that this phrase can and will be hijacked by some major computer and software cor-
porations. Even a member of the Swiss delegation, which had introduced the phrase
“strengthening the trust framework” at the WSIS intersessional conference in June
2003, confessed that the idea was completely new – but still very convincing – to
him. Unfortunately the other problems in the security issues working group drew
too much attention, wherefore nobody wanted to open up another debate.
Conclusion
The work on the security paragraph in the summit declaration has been characteri-
sed by three problems. The first is a political conflict that has been around for a
while: Some governments insist on the priority of “national security,” while others,
at least in principle, want to defend internationally agreed human rights and civil
liberties. Here, the civil liberties’ defenders mainly focus on the concept of the “free
48
flow of information,” which is easily done considering the hegemony of the inter-
national mass media.
The second problem is the low priority accorded to privacy and data protection in
the general WSIS process. Some governments have attempted to argue the impor-
tance of these issues, yet generally the focus of the debate has been on security
issues.
The third problem is good will followed by bad results – as in the case of the
European Union’s decision to agree on “information security,” without noticing the
problematic connotation this term has in some countries. The one sentence that was
most used by delegates in the working group’s meetings was “I am not an expert on
this.” This is understandable, as the delegates often have to work on a number of dif-
ferent issues and are not able to be an expert on every detail. What is less underst-
andable, though, – especially in the “multi-stakeholder” WSIS process – is the fact
that civil society experts were not allowed to take part in the discussions.
(November 9, 2003)
49
Grassroots Communication for a People-Centred Informa-
tion Society: Community Media is at the Centre of Civil
Society Efforts at the WSIS
By Arne Hintz
At the third preparatory conference PrepCom 3, civil society organisations agreed on
a statement expressing their concerns on the latest version of the draft “Declaration
of Principles.” In this statement they specified community media as the single most
important issue neglected in the WSIS process. All reference to community media
has been eliminated from the draft declaration. For civil society groups this omission
expressed “a complete disregard of the value of such alternative media.” Thus
community media suddenly moved from the margins to the very centre of the WSIS
process.
Why community media? Civil society has repeatedly criticised the WSIS agenda
for its technocratic approach, its disregard for the special needs of marginalized and
disadvantaged people, and its lack of a people-centred vision. Community media
represent a prime example for a different approach, a different vision of an inclusive
and participatory information society.
Community media are thus a vital means to enable public participation, to
strengthen cultural and linguistic diversity, to promote gender equity and to
bring about a more just and equitable information society that includes the
voices of the poor and the marginalized. We urge this be reflected in the
WSIS Declaration and Action Plan.
Statement on the Draft Declaration and Action Plan endorsed by
numerous CS groups, such as CAMECO, AMARC et al.
In a world where nearly one third of the population still do not have reliable access
to electricity, where one fifth lacks basic literacy skills, and where for many radio
remains the only reliable medium, the sophisticated communication infrastructure
discussed at WSIS must seem like a message from outer space. Community radio,
television, and print media represent basic, but highly effective means to bridge the
information and communication divide, as they apply appropriate local technology
and knowledge to development and poverty reduction. As a community-driven and
empowerment-oriented approach, they offer fundamental characteristics of a suc-
cessful development strategy.
Furthermore, most community, alternative, and non-profit media represent an
interactive and participatory approach to communication, something distinctly dif-
ferent from many of the programmes envisioned at the WSIS. They are about peo-
ple sharing information and taking information into their own hands rather than
waiting for corporate or state information providers to do so for them. Community
media are thus a vital means for enabling public participation, to give a voice to the
50
marginalized and disadvantaged, and to issues and opinions otherwise excluded
from public discourse.
In so doing, they offer a direct response to many of the questions and issues
which the WSIS claims to highlight but has in fact side-stepped during the
preparation process. They strengthen cultural and linguistic diversity through
local content and community involvement, they often remove obstacle for the
participation of women and promote gender equity, and most importantly they
create networks of a people-centred information society. Media diversity and
the availability of information from independent sources are essential for the
maintenance of an enlightened public. Media and their content are in-
creasingly controlled by only a few global media conglomerates. It is a public
responsibility to support existing and new forms of media participation. Non-
profit media and those public service media that are controlled by democra-
tic structures must be extended. The rights to freedom of opinion and to a free
press must be supplemented by general rights to freedom of communication.
The right to communication must include the right to participate in all kinds
of communication processes and to contribute actively to the media.
Charter of Civil Rights for a Sustainable Knowledge Society
Community media representatives and organisations supporting community media
have, in the WSIS preparation process, formed a community media working group
to make sure that issues related to community media appear in the WSIS debates.
Led by the World Association of Community Broadcasters (AMARC), the group has
issued a number of statements to support constructive debates both within civil
society and between governments. As a sub-group of the media caucus, the working
group has consistently argued for a pluralist and diverse media environment, recog-
nising both public service broadcasting and community media as fundamental gua-
rantees for social and cultural objectives.
52. (47) The existence of [independent pluralistic and free] media [in accor-
dance with the legal system of each country and] based on the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights [particularly on articles 19 and 29] is crucial to
any conception of the information society. [Individuals and media should have
access to available information]/[Freedom of access to and use of information
for the creation, accumulation and dissemination of knowledge are important
principles of the information society.] [Pluralism of information and diversity
of media ownership should be encouraged]. Traditional media in all its forms
will continue to have an important role in the information society and ICTs
should play a supportive role in this regard. [Formulation of professional and
ethical standards in journalism is the responsibility of media professionals.]
Draft non-paper of the president of the WSIS prepcom on the
Declaration of Principles, October 24, 2003
51
Frequency allocation is one of the fundamental issues for community media. In
many countries independent media are systematically excluded from legal broadca-
sting. The groups have therefore called on WSIS to reserve radio frequencies as well
as satellite capacity for community and non-commercial broadcasting, and to fur-
thermore recognise radio frequencies as a natural resource belonging to all huma-
nity. The latter demand particularly taps into current debates within civil society on
how to secure and extend the global information commons and the public domain.
The working group has also proposed a community media fund to support new com-
munity media projects, thus promoting a resource-friendly and target-oriented
means to bridge the knowledge divide and to secure cultural diversity.
We propose the Action Plan should include a commitment to establish a
Community Media Fund by 2006. The fund would support new community
radio development and community media content including projects that
make provision for the poorest communities, for cultural and linguistic diver-
sity and for the equal participation of women and girls. The fund should also
support community projects that combine the use of traditional media and
new communication technologies. The fund should be established through a
donor – civil society partnership involving leading community media organi-
sations and civil society organisations working in this field.
Statement on the Draft Declaration and Action Plan endorsed by
numerous CS groups, such as CAMECO, AMARC et al.
Many governments are rather hostile towards the media, and especially community
media. Keeping this in mind, two demands were finally formulated as “non-nego-
tiables.” First, the working group insisted that the statement “public service broad-
casting and community media have a crucial role to play in ensuring participation of
all in the information society” should be included in the declaration. Secondly, it
rejects the explicit endorsement of national legislation in WSIS documents, as natio-
nal laws and regulation have, on numerous occasions, been found to contravene the
freedom of expression as specified in article 19 of the UDHR.
Cultural diversity is a prerequisite for individual and social development.
Culture is realised in languages, customs, social behaviour patterns, norms and
ways of life, but also in human artefacts (such as arts, crafts and technology).
The emergence of the global knowledge society must not be allowed to lead
to cultural homogenisation. Instead, the creative potential of current infor-
mation and communication technologies must be used to preserve and pro-
mote the heterogeneity of cultures and languages as a precondition for the
individual and social development of present and future generations. A dialo-
gue of cultures can only be realised in a climate of diversity and equal rights.
Charter of Civil Rights for a Sustainable Knowledge Society
52
Community media are fundamental to creating an influential and socially respon-
sible civil society. They represent a set of values different from those brought into
the debate by governments and businesses. Highlighting their central role in this
conflict of visions, community media groups, at the end of PrepCom 3, called on
United Nations secretary general Kofi Annan to ensure that WSIS gives priority to
empowerment, participation, and poverty-reduction, and addresses the fundamental
barriers of literacy and equipment costs that exclude the world’s poorest people.
Radio and television remain the most widespread communication technologies and
the most accessible channels of information. The fact that the WSIS has so far cho-
sen to ignore these media says a lot about its approach and its priorities. The
Community Media Working Group, AMARC, the Latin American Association of
Radio Education (ALER), Bread for all, the Catholic Media Council (Cameco), and
the Swiss Catholic Lenten Fund will organise, parallel to the summit, a “Community
Media Forum” on December 12, 2003. There, examples from all over the world will
show that community media are a powerful means to further community involve-
ment and poverty reduction. Concrete steps towards the legal recognition of com-
munity media will be discussed. More information on the programme:
www.amarc.org and www.cameco.org (English), www.ppp.ch (French) and
www.aler.org.ec (Spanish).
(…) New information and communication technologies will strengthen the
important role of traditional media, such as broadcasting and print press.
Legislation to ensure the participation of all in the information society should:
a) promote and defend the existence and development of free and indepen-
dent media, b) encourage pluralism and diversity of media ownership and
avoid excessive media concentration, c) recognize the specific and crucial role
of public service broadcasting and community media, d) transform state-con-
trolled media into a editorially independent organisations. International stan-
dards of labour rights and social protections must apply to all media workers.
CS Media Caucus proposal for the Declaration of Principles,
September 22, 2003
53
Why are Communication Rights so Controversial?
By Rainer Kuhlen
The communication rights issue, the right to communicate (r2c), is among the most
controversial in the negotiation process leading up to the World Summit on the
Information Society (WSIS). Looking at the discussions during the prepcoms, it is
very likely that the r2c will be neglected altogether or will only survive as a vague
compromise.
We recognize the right to communicate and the right to access information
and knowledge as fundamental human rights. Everyone, everywhere should
have the opportunity to participate in the information society and no one
should be excluded from the benefits it offers. In a world based on knowledge
and information, the right to communicate and the right to access information
and knowledge are essential requirements to the attainment of others inter-
nationally recognized human rights, including the right to freedom of expres-
sion, universal access to the information and communications infrastructure
and to the internet is essential to the information society
Submission by Brazil on the Declaration of Principles
at the Paris intersessional
Why is this so? From a common sense point of view it seems absurd to deny the
right to communicate. People cannot avoid to communicate and to exchange their
views with others. Often enough, though, the most natural thing in the world is the
most problematic.
Millions of people in the poorest countries are still excluded from the right to
communicate, increasingly seen as a fundamental human right.
Kofi Annan, UN Secretary General, May 17, 2003.
About 25 years ago this was the case with the r2c. The struggle over the r2c was a
shock, and the shock was so lasting that even today the mention of the r2c leads to
an almost automatic, categorical refusal to include phrases to do with “communica-
tion” or “communicate” in official political documents such as declarations or action
plans for WSIS.
54
Only a resurrection of the old “New World Information and Commu-
nication Order” debate?
History does not repeat itself, yet structures sometimes prevail. The old controversy
about the New World Information and Communication Order (NWICO) seems to
get resurrected on the occasion of WSIS. At the time, the controversy went on for
about ten years, from 1975 to 1985, and it ended with the US’s withdrawal from
UNESCO. Only in autumn 2003 has the USA rejoined UNESCO.
During the Cold War, members from the non-aligned or developing countries,
which were supported by the communist states, dominated UNESCO. These mem-
bers did not accept a Western understanding of the freedom of expression as the
basis for democracy and open societies; they criticized Western information and
media monopolies as a new form of information colonialism. Instead they conside-
red information and communication, the right to communicate, as a means for deve-
lopment and independence, a rationale for their national identity.
Right to communicate – a debate about human rights or about do-
minance of the information markets?
What were the opponents of an r2c afraid of ? A codified r2c, so the main argument
from media organisations such as the “World Press Freedom Committee” (WPFC)
then and today, weakens the universal claim of article 10 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). With an r2c they claim, the individual
human right to freedom of expression, also in general interpreted as a guarantee for a
free, independent press, would be very likely to become a collective substitutive
right. Parties other than free individuals, possibly the state, would then decide who
is allowed to communicate, with whom, and about what. Freedom of expression
should not be restricted, not even to defend a cultural identity against an influx of
foreign information. A so-called “prior consent,” the right of governments to control
the content of the media and other information resources, would be unacceptable.
4. (4) Communication is a fundamental social process, a basic human need
and the foundation of all social organisation. It is central to the information
society. Everyone, everywhere should have the opportunity to participate and
no one should be excluded from the benefits the information society offers.
Freedom of expression and freedom of opinion, the right to seek, receive and
impart information and ideas regardless of frontiers as enshrined in article 19
of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are the necessary premises of
the information society
Draft non-paper of the president of the WSIS prepcom on the
Declaration of Principles, October 24, 2003
Governments in the WSIS process are still debating about the universality and the
binding force of human rights in the context of information societies. In reality it is
a debate about who owns and controls the information and media markets, who has
the right and the power to manage the structure of the internet, and about the main
55
players in internet governance and modern communication infrastructure in gene-
ral.
But let us look for a moment at the human rights discussion. The debate about
the r2c is mainly a controversial interpretation of article 19 of the UDHR.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right inclu-
des freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and
impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Art. 19, Universal Declaration of Human Rights
The reinterpretation of human rights in the light of contemporary
technology is not sufficient
We are mainly interested in the consequences of “impart information.” Is the right
to impart information the right to communicate? Does it imply the freedom of com-
munication?
We doubt it – although mainstream legal literature considers the various aspects
codified in article 19 of the UDHR, and in many other grand texts of humanity, to
be the right to freedom of communication.
We also doubt that a so-called hermeneutic approach towards existing and codi-
fied human rights is sufficient. Rather than demand new rights, advocates of this
approach believe it to be more realistic to reinterpret existing rights in the light of
modern media and technological development and to make sure that old rights, and
particularly the right to freedom of expression, will become a universal reality. To
demand a new right, or even to question the relevance of, for instance, article 19
may, it is feared, weaken the universality of the principle of human rights.
A new dimension of communication in network environments
We do not wish to reject these approaches out of hand, yet we believe them to be
insufficient, mainly because the concept of communication has gained a new
dimension in the electronic environments of the internet – a dimension different
from the traditional understanding of communication. This new dimension cannot
have been foreseen by the authors of the grand texts written around the middle of
the last century.
With the new media and with new electronic services a shift is taking place – gra-
dually, slowly, but inexorably – from the distribution paradigm to an interaction
paradigm and finally to a communication paradigm. Despite a few hesitant steps
towards digital interactive TV, the media are still overwhelmingly dealing in one-
way-communication (1:n).
Within this paradigm it is professional journalists, privileged by a straightfor-
ward interpretation of, for instance, article 19, and the globally operating owners of
the media system who decide what will become the subject of public awareness and
political interest (the power of agenda setting). These privileges and monopolies are
being challenged by the potential of contemporary interactive and end-user oriented
56
technologies, which are paving the way for new forms of media and political partici-
pation.
Electronic environments will produce (in addition to spontaneous and creative
ways of communicating and knowledge sharing) new ways of establishing public
opinion, new transfer mechanisms for the use of information, and new means for
generating political decisions.
Right to communicate – no war but strong criticism of undesirable
trends
It is no wonder, then, that the established media system, the official political system,
the dominant information industry, and also mainstream human rights advocates
like to play down the demands for a new and universal r2c. It is not only the memo-
ry of the old NWICO debate, it is the concern that existing power structures and pro-
perty rights are likely to be put into question by direct democratic, participative, and
knowledge-sharing behaviours within the communicative paradigm.
The demand for an inclusive r2c is not necessarily a “declaration of war” on the
existing media, political and economic systems, but it is a strong criticism of undesi-
rable trends in the media system such as monopolisation and extreme commercia-
lisation and the manipulation of information content – a strong criticism of equally
undesirable trends in politics such as the curtailment of free communication (by
legal and technical mechanisms of control and surveillance) and of the increasing
control over knowledge and information that tends to make it more scarce.
The r2c is, consequently, the right to experiment with alternative, not necessari-
ly substitutive, forms of building new democratic forms of media publicity, forms
that transfer onto every individual the right to participate and to have one’s opinion
heard and taken into serious consideration.
Right to communicate – of high economic relevance
The r2c is not just an ethical, moral issue. It is of highly economic relevance. The r2c
paves the way for new business models concerning the organisation of knowledge
and information, models appropriate to electronic environments and based on prin-
ciples of knowledge sharing, peer-to-peer-exchange, transparent, open, and free
forms of production. More and more economists are convinced that the future of an
innovative and successful economy depends on the extent to which free communi-
cation, free exchange, and collaborative forms of producing knowledge are made
possible.
The r2c is universal and fundamental. It is a basic human right, a personal indi-
vidual right, but also the foundation on which to organise knowledge and informa-
tion anew, a starting point for a reform of the media and of democracy. It is thus
clearly a candidate for a new human right that requires codification in the grand
texts. WSIS does not have the mandate to establish new rights, yet it does have the
legitimacy to open the door for a new understanding of communication in the infor-
mation society that, in reality, is nothing other than a communication society. Rather
than to merely reinterpret existing rights, we do need constructive new develop-
ments and an extension of human rights.
57
What needs to be done?
The general acceptance of the r2c will, of course, not solve all problems. There are
still many things that need to be clarified.
– Human rights, and also the r2c, must not be allowed to be stripped of their indi-
vidual and universal (inclusive) claim as this might lead to an authoritarian state.
– The r2c must not be used as a justification for human rights violations by mis-
using national and cultural peculiarities as an excuse.
– On the other hand, the r2c must not be used as a rationalisation of the Western
individualistic, or rather atomistic understanding of media and information
freedom. This, many believe, in principle, is not a guarantee for the development
of a just, inclusive, and sustainable world society, where knowledge and infor-
mation are fairly shared and where communication can flow freely and unre-
strictedly.
58
ANNEX: Biographies
Ralf Bendrath
Ralf Bendrath is a research fellow at the collaborative research centre “Transforma-
tions of the state” at the University of Bremen where he is working on internet regu-
lation and privacy. Previously he has done research on information warfare and
cyber security. Ralf Bendrath is co-founder of the German-Austrian Research Group
“Information Society and Security Policy” (FoG:IS). In the WSIS context he is an
active member of the Civil Society Privacy and Security Working Group and an edi-
tor of www.worldsummit2003.org
Christoph Bruch
Dr Christoph Bruch is an independent scholar. He is a member of the steering
committee of the Humanistische Union Berlin. As such he represents the Huma-
nistische Union within the German WSIS Civil Society Co-ordination Group and is
currently part of the co-ordination group’s delegation to WSIS. He has studied poli-
tical sciences in Frankfurt am Main and Berlin and has written a PhD thesis on the
federal Freedom of Information Act in the US. He has previously been employed at
the Free University Berlin and the German Institute for Urban Affairs. His main
areas of expertise are open access to government information and e-governance.
Rikke Frank Jørgensen
Rikke Frank Jørgensen is a Senior adviser at the Danish Institute for Human Rights,
and currently part of the Danish Delegation to WSIS. She holds a master in infor-
mation science and a European master in human rights and democratisation, speci-
alising in internet and freedom of expression. She has previously been employed at
the Danish Ministry of Research and Information Technology and at the Danish
Ministry of Industry and Trade working, from 1995 to 2000, as a special adviser on
the social impacts of information technology. In 2000 she co-founded the Danish
NGO Digital Rights and acted as chairperson from 2000 to 2003.
Georg Greve
Georg Greve is founder and president of the Free Software Foundation Europe (FSF
Europe). He studied physics at the University of Hamburg, where, in January 2001,
he passed his diploma with an interdisciplinary computer science and physics the-
sis concerning nanotechnology. His experience with Free Software goes back to the
beginning of the 90s, and he is author of some free software projects, such as the
Xlogmaster. Since 1998 he has been a European speaker for the GNU Project, an
activity that led him to write the “Brave GNU World.” During his work for the FSF
Europe, Georg Greve has participated as an expert in the Commission for Intel-
59
lectual Property Rights in the UK and was involved in European Commission pro-
jects, particularly in their framework programmes. He is an active participant at the
World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) as a member of the German
governmental WSIS delegation, as representative for the WSIS co-ordination circle
of German civil societies, as chair of the European CS Caucus and as one of the co-
ordinators of the CS PCT working group.
Rainer Händel
Rainer Händel works within the Siemens Information and Communication Net-
works Group as a director of global standardisation co-ordination and participated in
the preparation of WSIS as the German industry representative. He holds a docto-
rate in physics from the University of Erlangen-Nürnberg. He joined Siemens in
1978 and was active in the software development for switching systems, in concepts
and standardisation of broadband networks, and in the analysis of the liberalisation
und deregulation of telecommunication markets. From October 1994 till the end of
1995 he was a member of the planning board of the German Foreign Office in Bonn
(with a focus on the societal impact of new information and communication tech-
nologies).
He has been an active member of several international standardisation organisa-
tions such as ITU and ETSI for a long time and is the author of several technical
articles and a book on broadband networking.
Arne Hintz
Arne Hintz is a PhD candidate at the University of Hamburg where he works at the
Research Centre “Media and Politics.” His current focus is on the role of media
actors at the World Summit on the Information Society. He holds a master in inter-
national political economy at the University of Warwick, UK. He has worked as a
web editor, both in Germany and the UK, and has been involved with alternative and
community media projects, particularly Indymedia. He is a member of the German
Civil Society Co-ordinating Group for the WSIS, of the international WSIS Com-
munity Media Working Group, and an editor of the website
www.worldsummit2003.org
Heike Jensen
Dr Heike Jensen is a postdoctoral research fellow at the department of Gender
Studies at Humboldt University in Berlin, Germany. Her current research is into
“NGOs and their uses of information and communication technologies to promote
gender equality.” Dr Jensen received her education at the Free University (Berlin,
Germany), the University of Minnesota (Minneapolis, USA), Brown University (Pro-
vidence, USA), the International Women's University 2000 (Hamburg, Germany)
and Humboldt University where she obtained her doctorate.
60
Wolfgang Kleinwächter
Wolfgang Kleinwächter is, since 1998, a professor for international communication
policy and regulation at the University of Aarhus. His research work includes inter-
net policy and regulation. He has published numerous articles and books on inter-
net governance and the laws of cyberspace. He is a member of the Civil Society
WSIS Bureau and co-chair of the Civil Society ITC Global Governance Caucus. He
is also a member of the International Council of the International Association for
Media and Communication Research (IAMCR). Previous to 1998 he was teaching at
the Institute for International Studies at the University of Leipzig (until 1991), the
Department for Media and Communication of the University of Tampere (1992) and
the School of International Services of the American University in Washington D.C.
(1993 to 1994). Between 1994 and 1998 he co-ordinated the Information Initiative
(SII) for the regional government of Saxony and was in 1995 and 1996 chairman of
the management board of the Inter-Regional Information Society Initiative (IRISI)
of the European Commission.
Rainer Kuhlen
Rainer Kuhlen was born in 1944. After a degree in philosophy, literature, and socio-
logy and postgraduate training in information science he became a professor for
information science at the university of Constance as of 1980. He is the chairperson
of the German Society of Information Science (HI); chairperson of the German
UNESCO Committee for Communications; director of NETHICS e.V. (Information
Ethics in the Net). His main research, publishing, and teaching activities are in the
fields of information retrieval, hypertext, information markets, information politics
and ethics, collaborative knowledge management. He is member of the Green Aca-
demy and had been involved in the WSIS process from its very beginning.
Chantal Peyer
Born in 1971 in Lausanne, Switzerland, she has studied political sciences, history,
and science of religion at the University of Lausanne. She has done fieldwork and
research in India with a focus on a social and anthropological approach to Hindu
rituals. Since January 2000 she is working at Bread for All (www.ppp.ch/communi-
cation) where she is responsible for development policies and issues to do with infor-
mation society with a special focus on questions of finance. She is currently a mem-
ber of the official Swiss delegation to WSIS.
61
Civil Society Essential Benchmarks for WSIS
The essential benchmarks listed in this document reflect work in progress by the civil society content and the-
mes group of the WSIS process. While there is consensus on the priorities stated here this document does not
represent absolute consensus, nor does the order of the essential benchmarks constitute a strict ranking in
order of importance. More information on the WSIS CS CT group: Sally Burch, <sburch@alainet.org>
1. Introduction The approach to the “Information Society” on which the WSIS has been based
reflects, to a large extent, a narrow understanding in which ICTs means telecommunications and the
Internet. This approach has marginalised key issues relating to the development potential inherent
in the combination of knowledge and technology and thus conflicts with the broader development
mandate given in UNGA Resolution 56/183.
Civil society is committed to a people-centred, inclusive approach based on respect for human
rights principles and development priorities. We believe these principles and priorities should be
embedded throughout the WSIS Declaration of Principles and Action Plan. This paper sets out the
benchmarks against which civil society will assess the outcomes of the WSIS process and the com-
mitment of all stakeholders to achieving its mandate.
2. Human rights The WSIS Declaration of Principles and Plan of Action, should take as their foun-
dations the international human rights framework. This implies the full integration, concrete appli-
cation and enforcement of civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, including labour rights,
the right to development, as well as the principle of non-discrimination. The universality, indivisibi-
lity, interrelatedness and interdependence of all human rights should be clearly recognized, together
with their centrality to democracy and the rule of law.
All Principles of the Declaration and all activities in the Action Plan, should be in full compliance
with international human rights standards, which should prevail over national legislative frame-
works. The “information society” must not result in any discrimination or deprivation of human
rights resulting from the acts or omissions of governments or of non-state actors under their juris-
dictions. Any restriction on the use of ICTs must pursue a legitimate aim under international law, be
prescribed by law, be strictly proportionate to such an aim, and be necessary in a democratic society.
Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is of fundamental and specific impor-
tance to the information society, requiring that everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and
expression and the right to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and
regardless of frontiers.
3. Poverty reduction and the Right to Development Given the unequal distribution of wealth
among and within nations, the struggle against poverty should be the top priority on the agenda of
the World Summit on the Information Society. It is not possible to achieve sustainable development
by embracing new communication technologies without challenging existing inequalities.
Civil society organisations from different parts of the world unite in their call to governments to
take this matter very seriously. We want to emphasise that challenging poverty requires more than
setting of ‘development agendas’. It requires the commitment of significant financial and other
resources, linked with social and digital solidarity, channeled through existing and new financing
mechanisms that are managed transparently and inclusively of all sectors of society.
4. Sustainable development An equitable Information Society must be shaped by the needs of
people and communities and based on sustainable economic, social development and democratic
principles, including the Millennium Development Goals.
Only development that embraces the principles of social justice and gender equality can be said
to centrally address fundamental social, cultural and economic divides. Market-based development
solutions often fail to address more deep-rooted and persistent inequalities in and between countries
of the North and South.
Democratic and sustainable development of in the information society can therefore not be left
solely to market forces and the propagation of technology. In order to balance commercial objectives
with legitimate social interests, recognition should be given to the need for responsibility of the public
sector, appropriate regulation and development of public services, and the principle of equitable and
affordable access to services.
People and communities must be empowered to develop their own solutions within the infor-
mation society, in particular to fight poverty and to participate in development through fully demo-
cratic processes that allow community access to and participation in decision-making.
62
5. Social Justice
5.1 Gender Equality An equitable and inclusive Information Society must be based on gender
justice and be particularly guided by the interpretation of principles of gender equality, non-discri-
mination and women’s empowerment as contained in the Beijing Declaration and Platform for
Action and the CEDAW Convention. The Action Plan must demonstrate a strong commitment to an
intersectional approach to redressing discrimination resulting from unequal power relations at all
levels of society. To empower girls and women throughout their life cycle, as shapers and leaders of
society, gender responsive educational programs and appropriate learning environments need to be
promoted. Gender analysis and the development of both quantitative and qualitative indicators in
measuring gender equality through an extensive and integrated national system of monitoring and
evaluation are “musts”.
5.2 Disability Specific needs and requirements of all stakeholders, including those with disabilities,
must be considered in ICT development. Accessibility and inclusiveness of ICTs is best done at an
early stage of design, development and production, so that the Information Society is to become the
society for all, at minimum cost.
5.3 Labour rights Essential human rights, such as privacy, freedom of expression, and the right
of trade unions to communicate with employees, should be respected in the workplace. ICTs are pro-
gressively changing our way of working and the creation of a secure, safe and healthy working en-
vironment, appropriate to the utilisation of ICTs, respecting core labour standards, is fundamental.
ICTs should be used to promote awareness of, respect for and enforcement of universal human rights
standards and core labor standards.
5.4 Indigenous Peoples The evolution of the Information Society must be founded on the respect
and promotion of the recognition of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and their distinctiveness as out-
lined in the ILO Convention 169 and the UN Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
They have fundamental rights to protect, preserve and strengthen their own identity and cultural
diversity. ICT’s should be used to support and promote the rights and means of Indigenous Peoples
to benefit fully and with priority from their cultural, intellectual and so-called natural resources.
6. Literacy, Education and Research Literacy and free universal access to education is a key prin-
ciple. All initiatives must embrace this principle and respond to needs of all. Knowledge societies
require an informed and educated citizenry. Capacity building needs to include skills to use ICTs,
media and information literacy, and the skills needed for active citizenship including the ability to
find, appraise, use and create information and technology. Approaches that are local, horizontal, gen-
der-responsive and socially-driven and mediated should be prioritised. A combination of traditional
and new media as well as open access to knowledge and information should be encouraged.
7. Cultural and linguistic diversity Communications media and information technologies have
a particularly important role to play in sustaining and developing the world’s cultures and languages.
The implementation of this principle requires support for a plurality of means of information and
communication and respect for cultural and linguistic diversity, as outlined in UNESCO’s Decla-
ration on Cultural Diversity.
8. Access and Infrastructure Global universal access to communication and information should
be a target of the WSIS action plan and the expansion of the global information infrastructure should
be based on principles of equality and partnership and guided by rules of fair competition and regu-
lation at both national and international levels. The integration of access, infrastructure and training
of the citizenry and the generation of local content, in a framework of social networks and clear public
or private policies, is a key basis for the development of egalitarian and inclusive information socie-
ties. The evolution of policy should be coordinated internationally but enable a diversity of appropri-
ate solutions based on national and regional input and international sharing of information and
resources. This should be people-centered and process-orientated, rather than technologically deter-
mined and expert dominated.
9. Governance and enabling environment
9.1 Democratic governance Good governance in a democratic society implies openness, trans-
parency, accountability, and compliance with the rule of law. Respect for these principles is needed
to enforce the right to take part in the conduct of public affairs. Public access to information produced
or maintained by governments should be enforced, ensuring that the information is timely, complete
and accessible in a format and language the public can understand. This also applies to access to
information produced or maintained by corporations where this relates to activities affecting the
public interest.
63
9.2 Media While allowing for government information services to communicate their message,
state-controlled media at the national level should be transformed into editorially independent public
service media organisations and/or privatised. Efforts which encourage pluralism and diversity of
media ownership must be encouraged to avoid excessive media concentration
9.3 Community media Community media, that is media which are independent, community-dri-
ven and civil-society based, have a specific and crucial role to play in enabling access and participa-
tion for all to the information society, especially the poorest and most marginalised communities.
Community media should be supported and promoted. Governments should assure that legal frame-
works for community media are non-discriminatory and provide for equitable allocation of frequen-
cies through transparent and accountable mechanisms.
9.4 Internet governance The global governance of ICT must be based on the values of open par-
ticipation, inclusiveness, transparency, and democratic accountability. It should establish and support
universal participation in addressing new international policy and technical issues raised by the
Internet and ICT. No single body and no single stakeholder group is able to manage all of the issues
alone. Many stakeholders, cooperating in strict accordance with widely supported rules and proce-
dures, must define the global agenda.
The non-government sector has played a historically critical role in Internet Governance, and this
must be recognized. The strength of the Internet as an open non-Government platform should be
reinforced, with an explicit and stronger role for Civil Society. The role of Governments should be no
greater than that of any other stakeholder group.
10 Public Domain of Global Knowledge
10.1 Limited intellectual monopolies Human knowledge, including the knowledge of all peoples
and communities, also those who are remote and excluded, is the heritage of all humankind and the
reservoir from which new knowledge is created. A rich public domain is essential to inclusive infor-
mation societies. Limited intellectual monopolies, such as copyrights or patents, are granted only for
the benefit of society, most notably to encourage creativity and innovation. The benchmark against
which they must be reviewed and adjusted regularly is how well they fulfill their purpose.
10.2 Free Software Software is the cultural technique of the digital age and access to it determines
who may participate in a digital world. Free Software with its freedoms of use for any purpose, study-
ing, modification and redistribution is an essential building block for an empowering, sustainable
and inclusive information society. No software model should be forbidden or negatively regulated,
but Free Software should be promoted for its unique social, educational, scientific, political and eco-
nomic benefits and opportunities.
10.3 Access to information in the public domain Today, more than 80% of mankind has no
access to the reservoir of human knowledge that is the public domain and from which our new know-
ledge is created. Their intellectual power remains uninitialized and consequently unused, lost to all
humankind. The reservoir of human knowledge must be made equally available to all in online and
offline media by means of Free Documentation, public libraries and other initiatives to disseminate
information.
10.4 Open access to scientific information Free scientific information is a requirement for
sustainable development. Science is the source of the technological development that empowers the
Information Society, including the World Wide Web. In the best tradition of science, scientific
authors donate their work to humankind and therefore, it must be equally available to all, on the Web,
in online Open Access journals and online Open Archives.
11. Security and privacy
11.1 Integrity and security Definitions of criminal and terrorist purposes in existing and emer-
ging policies and legislation are ambiguous and prevent the use of information resources for legiti-
mate purposes. The legitimate need for infrastructure integrity must avoid shift to the highly politi-
cized agenda characterized by language referring to the integrity of the military field and the use of
information resources for criminal and terrorist purposes.
11.2 Right to privacy The right to privacy should be affirmed in the context of the information
society. It must be defended in public spaces, online, offline, at home and in the workplace. Every per-
son must have the right to decide freely whether and in what manner he or she wants to receive infor-
mation and communicate with others. The possibility of communicating anonymously must be
ensured for everyone. The collection, retention, use and disclosure of personal data, no matter by
whom, should remain under the control of the individual concerned. The power of the private sector
and governments over personal data, including monitoring and surveillance, increases the risk of
abuse, and must be kept to a minimum under clearly specified, legal conditions.
64
