PrepCom 3 was supposed to be the final preparatory meeting and all negotiations on the documents should have been completed. However, to the disappointment of many delegates from civil society, governments, and private sector, the Summit organisers decided to reconvene another meeting in November because consensus was not achieved. Now referred to as PrepCom 4, the meeting is scheduled on 10-14 November and is aimed at breaking the deadlock over the drafting of the two key documents.
Moreover, a follow up meeting similar to the intersessional meeting in Paris in July has also been set for 07-09 December to ensure that a substantive document that is acceptable to all stake holders is produced. Both meetings are subject to availability of resources.
Why The Extremely Slow Negotiations?
For an event that is touted as the first international multi-stake holder meeting, difficulties were to be expected from the very start because each stake holder is coming from a different context and represents different agenda that are, most of the times, diametrically opposed to each other. This is a tough challenge if the objective is to articulate a common vision of the Information Society. More so if the expectations are as high as promoting information and communication technology as the tool to achieve "eradication of poverty and hunger" and "attainment of a more peaceful, just and prosperous world."
How Did Government Deliberations And Civil Society Lobbying And Advocacy On Gender And On Media Develop In Prepcom3?
At the intersessional meeting in Paris in July, women's organisations led by the NGO Gender Strategies Working Group (NGO GSWG) lobbied for the inclusion of paragraph 11a proposed by the Canadian delegation in the draft declaration. The paragraph states: "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 perpetuation 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 gender differences and inequalities in the access to and use of ICT are identified and fully addressed so that such technologies actively promote gender equality and ensure that gender-based disadvantages are not created or perpetuated."
Earlier in the first week of PrepCom 3, paragraph 11a gained much support from different government delegations following a successful t-shirt campaign launched by the NGO GSWG. Members of the NGO GSWG and other civil society representatives wore t-shirts containing the message 'WSIS has a missing paragraph' on the front and the text of paragraph 11a printed on the back. This prompted one of the Canadian delegates to propose in the official plenary: "Delete paragraph 15 (on facilitating increased access and use of ICTs by women) and replace with text on the tiny t-shirts." The reference to the tiny t-shirts was made because the NGO GSWG members and supporters were wearing the small-size baby tees.
At the end of the first week of PrepCom 3, a new gender paragraph (paragraph 9) was drafted. It read: "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 empowerment of women, promotes gender equality and portrays women fairly and respectfully."
The NGO GSWG was extremely dissatisfied with this paragraph because it didn't recognise women as existing vital contributors to the information society and neither did it acknowledge the fact that they are not as yet fully integrated. Moreover, the use of the clause "fosters the emancipation and empowerment of women" suggested that women are "wards" needing protection and guidance from someone in a position of power.
They also felt that there should be specific language that includes women's right to make decisions in all spheres of their lives and in all spheres of society.
In place of the text in paragraph 9, the NGO GSWG proposed this formulation: "Women are key actors in the Information Society. We are committed to ensuring 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."
In what could be considered a minor victory, this paragraph was endorsed by a number of government delegations including Canada, Jamaica, Malaysia, New Zealand, the U.S. and the European Union and was accepted on the floor earlier in the second week of PrepCom 3. In addition, the proposal of the NGO GSWG was endorsed by the Gender Caucus, a multi-stakeholder formation in the WSIS.
However, in the latest version of the draft Declaration that came out on 26 September, the last day of PrepCom3, the government delegates took another backward step and reformulated the gender paragraph as: "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 enable women's empowerment and their full participation on the basis of equality in all spheres of society and decision-making processes, and to ensuring that they are portrayed fairly and respectfully."
In addition to the gender paragraph, women's groups expressed concern over the fact that paragraph 9 bis on the need for the information society to address the issues of migrants, refugees, older people, persons with disabilities, and minorities was annexed to the gender paragraph. The NGO GSWG felt that adequate attention must be given to those sectors and therefore they deserve to be addressed in separate paragraphs. Another concern was the use of the term "elderly" which connotes weakness or feebleness. The NGO GSWG suggested that the term "older people" be used instead. In the latest version of the declaration, paragraph 9bis remains and it reads: In building the information society, particular attention should be paid to marginalised and vulnerable groups of society, including migrants and refugees, unemployed and under-privileged people, the elderly, the person with disabilities, minorities, and those living in remote and rural areas.
The NGO GSWG also lobbied for the deletion of paragraph 3 bis which states: [The information society based on ethics, moral values and human rights and should be an environment where dignity of humankind is comprehensively respected and fostered. The widest possible protection and assistance shall be accorded to the family which is the natural and most fundamental unit of our society. The information society creates an environment where all national sovereignties, religious, cultural, social and linguistic interest, without any discrimination are respected and protected.]
The NGO Gender Strategies Working Group believes that this paragraph is not consistent with the Millenium Declaration and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which constitute the primary points of reference for the Declaration of Principles.
Furthermore, this paragraph does not accurately reflect the evolution of the family to include changes due to divorce, single-headed households, sexual orientation, and reconstructed families. Moreover, the family is not to be seen as a natural entity but rather as a social one. In some societies, the fundamental unit is not the family but the community.
Paragraph 3 bis remains as such in the latest version of the declaration.
Divisions in the Media Caucus
With regards the media, the government delegates maintained the reference to Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which declares: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."
However, the civil society lobby for the right to communicate did not garner much support because governments, a number of NGOs, and international bodies such as UNESCO contend that such move will weaken Article 19.
Another serious concern in relation to media is the absence of any reference to community media and community-based communication initiatives. The latest version of the WSIS Declaration and Plan of Action gives priority to the infrastructure for Internet connectivity while failing to address the fundamental barriers of language, literacy, electricity supply, and equipment costs which exclude the world's poorest people.
On the last day of Prepcom3, the World Association of Community Radio Broadcasters (AMARC) wrote UN Secretary General Kofi Annan to seek a clear commitment in the WSIS to empower the world's poorest people and communities including community media and community-based communication initiatives.
It must be noted that there exists a great divide within the Media Caucus itself. On one side are community and independent media advocates and practitioners such as the World Association of Community Broadcasters (AMARC), Deep Dish TV, Indymedia, and the Latin American Association for Radio Education. On the other are mainstream media organisations such as the World Press Freedom Committee, International Federation of Journalists and the International Association of Broadcasters.
While both sides support the reference to Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, they are completely polarised in terms of the perspectives they represent. The community and independent media advocates and practitioners regard Article 19 as an instrument that reinforces the lobby for communication rights. They contend that the recognition of such rights entails the creation of the necessary conditions for marginalised groups to have access to the appropriate tools and technologies that will enable them to actively participate in media production and distribution. Meanwhile, mainstream media organisations define press freedom as something that is rooted in the freedom to publish or produce in a free market.
The presence of representatives of private media enterprises within the Media Caucus which is a part of the WSIS Civil Society Plenary had been questioned by some NGOs. According to them, these belong to the private sector as they come from a market-based agenda. However, other civil society organisations believe that the confusion is really coming from the United Nations' all too broad definition of civil society. Any organisation that does not identify itself as a government institution nor a private entity is placed under the category of civil society.
Other Contentious Issues
The other contentious issues that caused some of the deadlocks in the negotiation in PrepCom 3 are the promotion of free and open source software and the funding mechanism to overcome the Digital Divide.
Civil society members argue that the value and benefits of free and open source software are not adequately recognised nor promoted in the official WSIS documents, thus undermining their real potential. They maintain that such value and benefits extend far beyond the concept of affordability.
Currently, paragraph 22 of the Declaration which contains reference to free and open source software reads: "[The growth of an information society should be encouraged through the adoption of open source strategies for software applications as they contribute to increase access and enhance diversity for software users. Multiple software models exist which promotes the principle of technology neutrality, these include open source, free and proprietary software, and are valuable model that supports more affordable access to ICTs.]
As to the funding mechanism to overcome the Digital Divide, the Senegalese delegation followed up its PrepCom 2 proposal to set up the "Digital Solidarity Fund." Rich countries, the potential donors, are skeptical about the idea. "We need some new ways of direct financing for ICT projects, but not necessarily another UN Fund," said Marc Furrer, director of Offcom, Switzerland's telecoms regulator (Ermert, M. World+dog fight over World Summit of The Information Society, 27/09/2003).
Many civil society organisations, especially those that come from the South supported the establishment of the Digital Solidarity Fund on certain conditions. Some of these are the need to link social solidarity to digital solidarity, both for existing as well as new funding mechanisms. For both new and existing funding mechanisms, civil society organisations assert that the distribution and implementation of such funds must be fully transparent and accountable. Moreover, funding must not lead to further indebtedness and dependency to unequal trade relations, nor to privatisation and deregulation. Funding must not also be used to further reinforce private and public monopolies.
Other concerns expressed in relation to the fund are:
- Contributions to any newly established fund must reflect a multi-stakeholder participation, providing contributions from governments and the private and commercial sector as well as from citizens.
- Funds must be managed and administered by people of the South.
- Gender parity must exist in all such mechanisms and all spheres and in all levels of decision-making and implementation.
- 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 education, applications, content, and dissemination.
- In order to ensure that the funds actually reach the most marginalised, 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.
- Funding mechanisms must address traditional and community media, not only the Internet. It should take into full account low-end but appropriate technology, including indigenous knowledge.
- Funds must also be used to promote cultural and linguistic diversity.
- Funds must support technological sustainability, including the use and production of free software and the fostering of user-centered technology development practices.
There are many other contentious issues which for lack of space and time, were not discussed in the presentation.
In general, civil society organisations are not satisfied with the outcomes of PrepCom 3. The sentiment was that the many inputs from civil society did not create a substantial impact on the discussions and are not reflected in the draft Declaration and Plan of Action. Civil society organisations present at the PrepCom3 are asking: Is a common vision on the Information Society possible at all?
* This article is based on a paper entitled "Is a common vision possible?" presented by Mavic Cabrera-Balleza, Media, Information, and Communication Services Programme Manager, Isis International-Manila, at the forum "Civil Society and the Internet - 20 Years of Networking and the Progress to the Future" Tokyo, Japan; 11 - 13 October 2003.
The 
we!
WiA 
Isis Resource Center holds one of the largest feminist collections of materials in the Global South. With 40 years of publication experience, Isis holds a vast collection.