[atlarge-discuss] WSIS Prepcom 2: The CRIS Verdict

[espresso@e-scape.net]

<< start of forwarded material >>

Thread-Topic: Prepcom 2: The CRIS Verdict
Thread-Index: AcLx50g9XqJT0l3WEdeKKwDgKRx+eQ==
From: "Myriam Horngren" <mh@wacc.org.uk>
To: "Crisinfo (E-mail)" <crisinfo@comunica.org>
Subject: [CRIS Info] Prepcom 2: The CRIS Verdict
List-Subscribe:
<http://comunica.org/mailman/listinfo/crisinfo_comunica.org>,
	<mailto:Crisinfo-request@comunica.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Id: Communication Rights in the Information Society
<crisinfo_comunica.org.comunica.org>
List-Archive: <http://comunica.org/pipermail/crisinfo_comunica.org/>
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 09:32:07 -0000

Please see below and attached [Attachment removed; text
is below-JM]. Feel free to distribute.

WSIS PrepCom 2:  The CRIS Verdict

The CRIS campaign promised to review its activities in relation to the
WSIS in the light of developments at PrepCom 2.  The following short
note, prepared by members of CRIS, is intended to offer an overview of
various issues of interest to civil society, from a CRIS perspective.
It covers:

1. The Civil Society Bureau


2.  Content and Themes.
3.  Issues Arising on Content and Themes
4. CRIS vs WSIS: how the campaign aims to orient to the Summit in the
future

1. The Civil Society Bureau
The 'official' description of the Civil Society Bureau can be found on
the www.geneva2003.org website, and the notes of its minutes will be
produced soon by the Secretariat.  Below we just cover a few key issues.


The CS bureau, with its gathering of 'families', was formally
constituted at PrepCom 2.  It is now up and running, though still very
vague around the edges. We heard again and again that the Bureau is not
to be involved in content issues - but no one quite believes this since
it's impossible to fully separate content from procedures. Nearly
everyone agrees a 'Bureau' is needed (the CRIS campaign initiated the
Networks & Coalitions family), though of course no-one is entirely happy
with it - for this reason many argued that its activities must be as
limited as possible, it must be totally transparent, and so forth.
Concerns include the fact that the 'families' are arbitrarily chosen
(rising from the original ten to a staggering twenty two without any
particular logic), are not clearly defined, are hugely overlapping, vary
enormously in (potential) size and structure, embody no verifiable
democratic processes, and their powers are not matched by
responsibilities for instance to ensure representative ness or
transparency.

All these are true, to varying degrees.

Many also fear that the Bureau has a tendency to bureaucratise, and may
in practice be driven by the WSIS Secretariat (which is intended to
support it) and not by its members.  Given the uncertainty of many
decisions taken by Plenary and by the Bureau during the PrepCom, this
latter fear is very real: it is simply going to be difficult for the
Bureau to function coherently and efficiently as a virtual entity.

In short, the CS Bureau derives its legitimacy from the Civil Society
plenary, but its membership comes from the Families - which most see as
a necessary, if uncomfortable and possibly unstable, compromise.



In the light of the above, a few important points needed to be affirmed:


	*	The Bureau is subject to the Civil Society Plenary, and
must report to it.  The 'Family' structure is thus not a source of
legitimacy (a point disputed by some) but rather a device to bring
together a group with which any entity in civil society can identify ,
and can use to associate with their peers.
	*	All CS Bureau meetings are open to observers, in
meetings, and through internet and Web archives. Documents are also
available to all.
	*	Families are also not concerned with content. If groups
or individuals wish to get involved in this, they can form or join a
Working Group or caucus (which will not necessarily have the same
membership).  The reasoning is that if a Family gets involved in content
issues and takes a stance, then others who disagree with that stance
will be reluctant to identify with and join the family.  The Media
Family was a case in point, which produced a statement in the first
week, but agreed later on that the statement should be that of a Media
Working Group so that the Family remains open and welcoming to all.

The final Civil Society Plenary meeting on the 28th of February agreed
that a new Bureau list will be set up, comprising two members from each
family, but its archives will be open.  Furthermore, the Bureau will
regularly report to another new list, a virtual Plenary Group List, and
consult with the latter before taking any actions or making any
commitments of importance , and will notify it of additions to the open
document archive.

So what do we need to look out for in the coming months? We think that
the following are key issues for us all to be mindful of. Only the
answers to these will tell us whether the CS Bureau is functioning the
way it intended to do:

	*	How actively are the Families engaging in outreach and
information activities, welcoming and informing its constituents?  They
are under no enforceable obligations, and even to monitor activities is
not easy.
	*	To what extent are CS Bureau members actively taking the
lead and self- organising themselves; and what are the activities and
role of the WSIS Secretariat (Civil Society Division)?
	*	What kinds of actions are being taken by the CS Bureau,
and how thoroughly and widely are they discussed on the lists,
especially the Virtual Plenary List?   And how effective are these
actions? Critical issues include:
			o	inputs into the ongoing
Intergovernmental drafting process, and the relationship to the Content
and Themes Group (see below);
			o	participation in the proposed
Intercessionary meeting (July 2003) and other fora;
			o	organisation of the next PrepCom;
			o	the shape of the Summit and civil
society actions there.
	*	To what extent and in what ways is the CS Bureau
securing funding for both the effective participation of civil society
and the efficient running of its structures?


2. The Content and Themes Group

The civil society Content and Themes working group set up at Prepcom I
reconvened as of the fourth day of Prepcom II and met every day.  It
became the focal space for bringing together the content proposals put
forward by the different thematic caucuses, which multiplied during the
Prepcom.

The governments took until the middle of the second week to come up with
their own first draft documents. They finally agreed on a summary
compilation of the different regional declarations and action plans,
leaving aside the "non-paper" drafted by a group of experts convened by
bureau chair Samassekou.  This delay made it difficult to know what we
were reacting to and left very little time to do so when the documents
finally came.

The Group nonetheless managed to produce four documents during the
Prepcom as input to the declaration and action plan.  These were:
	*	a brief one-page summary of key proposals on  vision and
principals, based mainly on the document we produced for last December,
following a wide consultation;
	*	a reaction to the first governmental  compilation of
vision and principles, pointing out the items we support and other
issues we think should be included (this document compiled the different
regional declarations under common headings)
	*	a detailed response to the draft declaration, with
suggested modified language and additions;
	*	a compilation of civil society proposals for the action
plan, under the headings of the government action plan.

These documents are available (so far in English only) at:
<http://www.worldsummit2003.de/en/nav/14.htm>

These documents are all "work in progress" as there wasn't time to
discuss them in depth or approve them at the plenaries.  However, there
is some very good content and overall a lot more substance than on the
governmental documents.  Unfortunately, we were only able to work in
English.

3. Issues arising on Content and Themes

a) The content

On the government side, there continues to be a heavy bias on a
technological and market-oriented approach to the IS (deregulation,
competition as the best framework for economic development, etc.).
However, at least in discourse, there has been an evolution in the
language from the earliest documents and the people-centred approach has
demonstrated its legitimacy, while human rights are mentioned in
several places as a basis of the Information Society.  There are some
interesting proposals from the regional conferences, such as the
recognition of the relevance of open source software.  On the other
hand, some of the language on information security is potentially
dangerous.

The civil society working group documents came up with a good range of
proposals relating to copyright and open source/open access and public
domain issues in general.  Also proposals for gender inclusion; on media
diversity and local content; on privacy rights and prevention of
surveillance and censorship; on workers rights; on ethical values; on
access issues and regional infrastructure, among others.

b) The process

The governments spent several days discussing whether and how the civil
society input would be incorporated into the proposals.  On the last
day, they agreed to include "observers'" comments (ie. Civil society,
private sector and international organizations) as separate sections of
the official draft documents.  This is, of course, an unprecedented
gesture for the UN.  Many see it as an important victory.  Certainly it
is important to know that the work we have undertaken will have some
sort of official recognition (whether or not it ends up in the final
documents). Others have reservations, however, since civil society does
not have control over what sections of our documents will or won't be
incorporated into this draft or how they will be dealt with.

During the Prepcom, the content work was carefully kept autonomous of
the bureau and secretariat.  So far this has been successful.  All the
same, the content Group will need now to interface more closely with the
bureau on ensuring that the content is taken into account properly and
not distorted.

One cause for concern that was very present at Prepcom I but largely
overlooked during this Prepcom, is the fact that what the civil society
bureau has negotiated in terms of participation is also benefiting the
private sector, in an even more unprecedented way, since for the first
time they have become a fully recognized part of a UN process.  While
some governments were openly opposed to civil society inclusion, others,
such as Brazil and Cuba, were stalling on giving a greater participation
to the private sector (though they didn't say so explicitly).

As for the working group itself, overall there was an excellent spirit
of cooperation among most participants (with a few notable exceptions).
One problem was a lack of experience in this kind of event of many of
those present, which affected their capacity to contribute content in
useful and timely way.  We have suggested that orientation sessions
ought to be organized at the start of the next Prepcom, as has been done
at many other UN conferences.  The group that did most of the final
drafting was quite small and had to take on a mammoth task during the
last three days. CRIS was well represented on the drafting group.

The new situation regarding the status of the draft documents also puts
a new constraint on the content and themes working group: how to deal
with fundamental disagreements within civil society, since we are now
obliged to come up with common content (as far as possible)?  The main
problem so far has been with the
International Publishers Association on intellectual property issues,
especially copyright.

c) Next steps

It was agreed at the plenary to continue work to produce a civil society
declaration and action plan, over the coming months, independent of the
governmental documents.  If we can come up with a good and substantive
document -potentially a lot better than the official one- it will be a
strong statement to the WSIS and for follow-up.

However, the message received from the secretariat this week indicates
that the new compilation document (including civil society input) which
is to circulate as of March 21, will be open to new input until May 31.
This implies that we should first give priority to improving and
tightening up the language on that document, before moving on to our own
civil society document (the two processes will be closely linked
anyway).

The working group on content and themes will continue to work on these
documents online.  It will include one or two focal points from each
thematic caucus (in that sense, it will be similar to the previous civil
society coordinating group that operated on-line between the two
prepcoms.

To conclude, the civil society production on content and themes was
without a doubt the most substantive outcome of the whole Prepcom, and
the collaborative work involved has laid the ground for broadening the
scope of participation and consensus building.


d) The challenge

Because the focus of attention was still on process issues, the
substantive results may not have had all the visibility they merit.
This is something we need to address over the coming months.
Additionally, the group needs to work on better mechanisms for ensuring
regional caucus input to the Content and Themes group. Often it was
difficult to obtain input from representatives of the African, Asian,
Latin American regional caucuses or, they had difficulty contacting the
Content and Themes group. This is understandable as regional caucuses
were often working furiously on their own documents - and
lobbying their delegates. Yet, it will be necessary to find ways to
ensure that input is gathered from far and wide.




4. CRIS vs WSIS: how the campaign aims to orient to the Summit in the
future

>From the outset, CRIS has argued that the WSIS offers an opportunity to
raise and debate key issues of the information society that relate to
communications rights.  Our goal is to raise the profile of these
matters, and to build a campaign for positive change.  The first and
second PrepComs did offer such a forum, and CRIS has worked with others
to put these issues on the agenda - if not in the official proceeding,
then at least informally on our own agendas - despite being somewhat
sidetracked by the need to join in the effort to get civil society
organised..  Civil Society has now reached a certain level of
organisation around the WSIS which, though imperfect, should enable more
effective action and impact.

CRIS will continue to work with others to influence the official
intergovernmental Declaration and Action Plan.  However, the indications
are that only very limited success is possible here, in terms of the
issues of greatest concern to CRIS.  CRIS is therefore organising, along
with a broad range of civil society actors, a separate Communications
Rights Summit.  This is expected to take place inside the WSIS venue
(Palexpo), but will be coupled to an external NGO conference and an
alternative Media Lab and workshops.

The goal of the one-day summit will be:

*	To debate, explore and define the many dimensions of information
and communication rights that must underpin any information society if
it is to enrich the lives of all people.
*	To formulate a succinct statement that:
	o	notes existing human rights relating to information and
communication;
	o	sets down that the conditions and environment necessary
for these to be exercised, in practice, by people;
	o	explores the obstacles to achieving such an environment,
and identifies the priority areas for action and intervention.
*	To engage widespread participation in a set of voluntary and
collaborative actions to implement these rights in a manner that is
meaningful to people in their everyday lives, and to define what follow
up to this first Summit would be appropriate.

Further information will be available in the coming weeks. <<PrepCom 2
CRIS verdict final version.doc>>

<< end of forwarded material >>



##########################################################
Judyth Mermelstein     "cogito ergo lego ergo cogito..."
Montreal, QC           <espresso@e-scape.net>
##########################################################
"A word to the wise is sufficient. For others, use more."
"Un mot suffit aux sages; pour les autres, il en faut plus."
##########################################################



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de