18 December 2005

I. Introduction – Our Perspective After the WSIS Process

The WSIS was an opportunity for a wide range of actors to work together to develop principles and prioritise actions that would lead to democratic, inclusive, participatory and development-oriented information societies at the local, national and international levels; societies in which the ability to access, share and communicate information and knowledge is treated as a public good and takes place in ways that strengthen the rich cultural diversity of our world.

Civil Society entered the Tunis Phase of WSIS with these major goals:

• Agreement on financing mechanisms and models that will close the growing gaps in access to information and communication tools, capacities and infrastructure that exist between countries, and in many cases within countries and that will enable opportunities for effective ICT uses. • Agreement on a substantively broad and procedurally inclusive approach to Internet governance, the reform of existing governance mechanisms in accordance with the Geneva principles, and the creation of a new forum to promote multi-stakeholder dialogue, analysis, trend monitoring, and capacity building in the field of Internet governance. • Ensuring that our human-centred vision of the ‘Information Society’, framed by a global commitment to human rights, social justice and inclusive and sustainable development, is present throughout the implementation phase. • Achieving a change of tide in perceptions and practices of participatory decision-making. We saw the WSIS as a milestone from which the voluntary and transparent participation of Civil Society would become more comprehensive and integrated at local, national, regional and global levels of governance and decision making. • Agreement on strong commitment to the centrality of human rights, especially the right to access and impart information and to individual privacy.

Civil Society affirms that, facing very limited resources, it has contributed positively to the WSIS process, a contribution that could have been even greater had the opportunity been made available for an even more comprehensive participation on our part. Our contribution will continue beyond the Summit. It is a contribution that is made both through constructive engagement and through challenge and critique.

While we value the process and the outcomes, we are convinced much more could have been achieved. We have taken a month after the closure of the Tunis Summit to discuss the outcomes and the process of WSIS. We built on our Geneva 2003 Civil Society Summit Declaration “Shaping Information Societies for Human Needs”, and we evaluated the experiences and lessons learned in the four years of WSIS I and WSIS II. This statement was developed in a global online consultation process. It is presented as Civil Society’s official contribution to the Summit outcomes.

The issues of greatest concern to Civil Society are addressed in sections II and III of this statement. For most of these items, minor achievements in the outcomes from WSIS were offset by major shortcomings, with much remaining to be done. Some of our greatest concerns involve what we consider to be insufficient attention or inadequate recommendations concerning people-centred issues such as the degree of attention paid to human rights and freedom of expression, the financial mechanisms for the promotion of development that was the original impetus for the WSIS process, and support for capacity building. In section IV, we lay out the first building blocks of Civil Society’s “Tunis Commitment”. Civil Society has every intention to remain involved in the follow-up and implementation processes after the Tunis summit. We trust governments realize that our participation is vital to achieve a more inclusive and just Information Society.

II. Issues Addressed During the Tunis Phase of WSIS

Social Justice, Financing and People-Centred Development

The broad mandate for WSIS was to address the long-standing issues in economic and social development from the newly emerging perspectives of the opportunities and risks posed by the revolution in Information and Communications Technologies (ICTs). The summit was expected to identify and articulate new development possibilities and paradigms being made possible in the Information Society, and to evolve public policy options for enabling and realising these opportunities. Overall, it is impossible not to conclude that WSIS has failed to live up to these expectations. The Tunis phase in particular, which was presented as the “summit of solutions”, did not provide concrete achievements to meaningfully address development priorities.

While the summit did discuss the importance of new financing mechanisms for ICT for Development (ICTD), it failed to recognize that ICTD presents a challenge beyond that of traditional development financing. Nor did the Tunis fully comprehend that new means and sources of financing and the exploration of new models and mechanisms are required.

Investments in ICTD - in infrastructure, capacity building, appropriate software and hardware and in developing applications and services – underpin all other processes of development innovation, learning and sharing, and should be seen in this light. Though development resources are admittedly scarce and have to be allocated with care and discretion, ICTD financing should not be viewed as directly in competition with the financing of other developmental sectors. Financing ICTD should be considered a priority at both national and international levels, with specific approaches to each country according to its level of development and with a long-term perspective adapted to a global vision of development and sharing within the global community.

Financing ICTD requires social and institutional innovation, with adequate mechanisms for transparency, evaluation, and follow-up. Financial resources need to be mobilised at all levels – local, national and international, including through the realization of ODA commitments agreed to in the Monterrey Consensus and including assistance to programs and activities whose short-term sustainability cannot be immediately demonstrated because of the low level of resources available as their starting point.

Internet access, for everybody and everywhere, especially among disadvantaged populations and in rural areas, must be considered as a global public good. In many cases market approaches are unlikely to address the connectivity needs of particularly disadvantaged regions and populations. In many such areas, initial priority may need to be given to the provision of more traditional ICTs - radio, TV, video and telephony - while the conditions are developed for ensuring the availability of complete Internet connectivity. Info-structure and development often require attention to the development of more traditional infrastructure as well such as roads and electricity.

While the summit in general has failed to agree on adequate funding for ICTD, Civil Society was able to introduce significant sections in the Tunis Commitment (paragraph 35) and in the Tunis Agenda (paragraph 21) on the importance of public policy in mobilizing resources for financing. This can serve as a balance to the market-based orientation of much of the text on financing.

The potential of ICT as tools for development, and not merely tools for communication, by now should have been realised by all states. National ICT strategies should be closely related to national strategies for development and poverty eradication. Aid strategies in developed countries should include clear guidelines for the incorporation of ICT into all aspects of development. In this way ICTs should be integrated into general development assistance and in this way contribute to the mobilisation of additional resources and an increase in the efficiency of development assistance.

We welcome the launch of the Digital Solidarity Fund (DSF) in March 2005 and take note of the support it got both from the United Nations and the Tunis Summit. Nevertheless, taking into account that the DSF was established on a voluntarily basis, we are concerned that there are no clear commitments from governments and the private sector to provide the needed material support to ensure the success of this fund. We invite all partners from the governmental and the private sector to commit themselves to the so-called "Geneva Principle" where each ICT contract concluded by a public administration with a private company includes a one percent contribution to the DSF. We particularly encourage local and regional administrations to adopt this principle and welcome the relevant statement made by the World Summit of Cities and Local Authorities in Bilbao, November 2005, on the eve of WSIS II.

Human Rights

The Information Society must be based on human rights as laid out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This includes civil and political rights, as well as social, economic and cultural rights. Human rights and development are closely linked. There can be no development without human rights, no human rights without development.

This has been affirmed time and again, and was strongly stated in the Vienna World Conference on Human Rights in 1993. It was also affirmed in the WSIS 2003 Declaration of Principles. All legislation, policies, and actions involved in developing the global Information Society must respect, protect and promote human rights standards and the rule of law.

Despite the Geneva commitment to an Information Society respectful of human rights, there is still a long way to go. A number of human rights were barely addressed in the Geneva Declaration of Principles. This includes the cross-cutting principles of non-discrimination, gender equality, and workers’ rights. The right to privacy, which is the basis of autonomous personal development and thus at the root of the exertion of many other fundamental human rights, is only mentioned in the Geneva Declaration as part of "a global culture of cyber-security". In the Tunis Commitment, it has disappeared, to make room for extensive underlining of security needs, as if privacy were a threat to security, whereas the opposite is true: privacy is an essential requirement for security. The summit has also ignored our demand that the principle of the privacy and integrity of the vote be ensured if and when electronic voting technologies are used.

Other rights were more explicitly addressed, but are de facto violated on a daily basis. This goes for freedom of expression, freedom of information, freedom of association and assembly, the right to a fair trial, the right to education, and the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of the individual and his or her family.

Furthermore, as the second WSIS phase has amplified, a formal commitment is one thing, implementation is something else. Side events open to the general public were organised by civil society both at the Geneva and Tunis Summit, consistent with a long tradition in the context of UN summits. In Tunis, the initiative by parts of civil society to organize a "Citizens' Summit on the Information Society" was prevented from happening. At the Geneva Summit, the "We Seize" event was closed down and then reopened. This is a clear reminder that though governments have signed on to human rights commitments, fundamental human rights such as freedom of expression and freedom of assembly can not be taken for granted in any part of the world.

The summit has failed to define mechanisms and actions that would actively promote and protect human rights in the Information Society. Post-WSIS there is an urgent need to strengthen the means of human rights enforcement, to ensure the embedding of human rights proofing in national legislation and practises, to strengthen education and awareness raising in the area of rights-based development, to transform human rights standards into ICT policy recommendations, and to mainstream ICT issues into the global and regional human rights monitoring system – in summary: To move from declarations and commitments into action. Toward this end, an independent commission should be established to review national and international ICT regulations and practices and their compliance with international human rights standards. This commission should also address the potential applications of ICTs for the realization of human rights in the Information Society.

Internet Governance

Civil Society is pleased with the decision to create an Internet Governance Forum (IGF), which it has advocated for since 2003. We also are pleased that the IGF will have sufficient scope to deal with the issues we believe must be addressed, most notably the conformity of existing arrangements with the Geneva Principles, and other cross-cutting or multidimensional issues that cannot be optimally dealt with within current arrangements. However, we reiterate our concerns that the Forum must not be anchored in any existing specialized international organization, meaning that its legal form, finances, and professional staff should be independent. In addition, we reiterate our view that the forum should be more than a place for dialogue. As was recommended by the WGIG Report, it should also provide expert analysis, trend monitoring, and capacity building, including in close collaboration with external partners in the research community.

We are concerned about the absence of details on how this forum will be created and on how it will be funded. We insist that the modalities of the IGF be determined in full cooperation with Civil Society. We emphasize that success in the forum, as in most areas of Internet governance, will be impossible without the full participation of Civil Society. By full participation we mean much more than playing a mere advisory role. Civil Society must be able to participate fully and equally both in plenary and any working or drafting group discussions, and must have the same opportunities as other stakeholders to influence agendas and outcomes.

The Tunis Agenda addressed the issue of political oversight of critical Internet resources in its paragraphs 69 to 71. This, in itself, is an achievement. It is also important that governments recognized the need for the development of a set of Internet-related public policy principles that would frame political oversight of Internet resources. These principles must respect, protect and promote human rights as laid down in international human rights treaties, ensure equitable access to information and online opportunities for all, and promote development.

It is important that governments have established that developing these principles should be a shared responsibility. However, it is very unfortunate that the Tunis Agenda suggests that governments are only willing to share this role and responsibility among themselves, in cooperation with international organisations. Civil Society remains strongly of the view that the formulation of appropriate and legitimate public policies pertaining to Internet governance requires the full and meaningful involvement of non-governmental stakeholders.

With regard to paragraph 40 of the Tunis Agenda, we are disappointed that there is no mention that efforts to combat cyber-crime need to be exercised in the context of checks and balances provided by fundamental human rights, particularly freedom of expression and privacy.

With regard to paragraph 63, we believe that a country code Top Level Domain (ccTLD) is a public good both for people of the concerned country or economy and for global citizens who have various linkages to particular countries. While we recognize the important role of governments in protecting the ccTLDs that refer to their countries or economies, this role must be executed in a manner that respects human rights as expressed in existing international treaties through a democratic, transparent and inclusive process with full involvement of all stakeholders.

To ensure that development of the Internet and its governance takes place in the public interest, it is important for all stakeholders to better understand how core Internet governance functions – as for example, DNS management, IP address allocation, and others – are carried out. It is equally important that these same actors understand the linkages between broader Internet governance and Internet related matters such as cyber-crime, Intellectual Property Rights, e-commerce, e-government, human rights and capacity building and economic development. The responsibility of creating such awareness should be shared by everyone, including those at present involved in the governance and development of the Internet and emerging information and communication platforms. Equally it is essential that as this awareness develops in newer users of the Internet, older users must be open to the new perspectives that will emerge.

Global governance

A world that is increasingly more connected faces a considerable and growing number of common issues which need to be addressed by global governance institutions and processes. While Civil Society recognises that there are flaws and inefficiencies in the United Nations system that require urgent reform, we believe strongly that it remains most legitimate inter-governmental forum, where rich and poor countries have the same rights to speak, participate, and make decisions together.

We are concerned that during the WSIS it emerged that some governments, especially from developed countries, lack faith in, and appear to be unwilling to invest authority and resources in the present multilateral system, along with concerted efforts to further improve it. We also regret that debates on creating private-public partnerships and new para-institutions within the United Nations have over-shadowed the overall discussion on bridging the digital divide, which in turn has to be linked to a deep reform of the UN and the global economic system.

In our understanding, summits take place precisely to develop the principles that will underpin global public policy and governance structures; to address critical issues, and to decide on appropriate responses to these issues. Shrinking global public policy spaces raise serious questions concerning the kind of global governance toward which we are heading, and what this might mean for people who are socially, economically and politically marginalised: precisely those people who most rely on public policy to protect their interests.

Participation

In the course of four years, as a result of constant pressure from Civil Society, improvements in Civil Society participation in these processes have been achieved, including speaking rights in official plenaries and sub-committees, and ultimately rights to observe in drafting groups. The UN Working Group on Internet Governance created an innovative format where governmental and Civil Society actors worked on an equal footing and Civil Society actually carried a large part of the drafting load.

Due to the pressure of time and the need of governments to interact with Civil Society actors in the Internet Governance field, the resumed session of PrepCom3 was in fact the most open of all. We would like to underline that this openness, against all odds, contributed to reaching consensus.

WSIS has demonstrated beyond any doubt the benefits of interaction between all stakeholders. The innovative rules and practices of participation established in this process will be fully documented to provide a reference point and a benchmark for participants in UN organizations and processes in the future.

Civil Society thanks those governments and international bodies that greatly supported our participation in the WSIS process. We h