[WSIS CS-Plenary] [Public_Voice] RE: [governance] Some Help Needed in Developing CS Statement for OECD Ministerial

[Michael Gurstein]

Thanks very much Parminder for your very thoughtful and useful contribution
here... I've taken much of what you've written and adapted it to be included
in the Introduction to Chapter 1 (as per the Wiki).
 
MG

-----Original Message-----
From: coalition-admin at mailman.thepublicvoice.org
[mailto:coalition-admin at mailman.thepublicvoice.org] On Behalf Of Parminder
Sent: March 6, 2008 10:47 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Michael Gurstein'; plenary at wsis-cs.org;
coalition at mailman.thepublicvoice.org
Subject: [Public_Voice] RE: [governance] Some Help Needed in Developing CS
Statement for OECD Ministerial



Michael

 

Thanks for taking up this initiative. I agree to go with the statement as it
stands, and I think it is very comprehensive. However I am offering some
comments which you may use if and as found appropriate. 

 

 I am replying publicly because I thought some the comments offered here may
draw some responses here which themselves may be of some use to you. 

 

I think the statement is very good, and covers most areas of 'specific'
exclusions in the IS (or info economy, IE) very well. I would though like to
have some overall text prefacing what you have put down, which points to the
'systemic exclusions' arising from the way dominant version of IS or IE is
conceived and practiced at present. Oftentimes, speaking only of 'marginal'
exclusions, which can be corrected by patchwork here and there, serves to
draw attention away from the issue of systemic exclusions which are more
fundamental, and severely limit any real possibility of participation and
inclusion. I therefore think that the statement should engage at both these
levels. 

 

Classically, every (political) economy recognizes the distinction between
those aspects that are of a 'public infrastructural' nature and those that
need to be an exclusive preserve of the markets. Public infrastructural
aspects requires large scale public investments in areas which support a
huge amount of supra-structural economic activity, and these infrastructural
areas may by themselves, for various structural reasons, be not attractive
enough to private investment. Even if private investment does go into these
critical infrastructures it may tend to skew the opportunity structures in a
manner inimical to both the overall economy, and the concerns of equity
within it. The emerging IS or IE has new key infrastructural elements at
many levels whose 'public nature' needs to be recognized, and the financing
and regulation of these elements has to proceed from this recognition.  

 

 Beyond this distinction, every (political) economy or society also
recognizes areas where direct public investments are needed not only as per
economic logic stated above, but as a matter of social policy, to account
for various basic needs and rights of the people, and to address various
social inclusions. Policy makers need to see the Internet not only as a new
market infrastructure, but also as a critical social infrastructure,
bringing in the issues of rights and entitlements that are important aspects
of today's welfare state.  

 

At present Information economy (or society) is often recognized as one
exclusively market-mediated monolith where public sector is mostly only
given a regulatory role. The traditional socio-economic distinctions of
areas of an economy where markets dominate -personal automobiles for
instance, and areas where public sector dominates - basic essential
infrastructure, and specific domains like education and health, are
obliterated. This is done in the fictional belief that somehow ICTs have
completely perfected the markets, and that public sector interventions were
in any case only needed for correcting market imperfections. This is a
dangerous political economy assumption, which is not proven, and would
certainly lead to massive exclusions and discriminations in the emerging
information society (economy). 

 

When speaking about guiding principles of the future Information economy,
which I understand the OECD ministerial seeks to do, it is important to
recognize the elements of the IS - and of its paradigmatic infrastructure,
the Internet - that are essentially of the nature of public infrastructure
and public services. Discriminations and exclusions are systemically and
structurally related to this issue of the adequate policy distinction
between the private or market-mediated, on one hand, and the 'public', on
the other, in the IS, while it is still important to deal specifically with
each kind of exclusion that your statement elaborates on so well.

 

 In this context it may also be useful to refer the inputs of the European
Council to the IGF which emphasizes the 'public service value' of the
Internet, and links the issue of access to the Internet with democratic
citizenship. To quote.

 

"Consequently, it is proposed that everyone should be entitled to expect the
delivery of a minimum level of Internet services (for example effective and
affordable access, a suitable environment for businesses to operate, etc.)
irrespective of both the architecture of the World Wide Web (infrastructure,
accessibility, interconnectivity) and the arrangements concerning its
construction and development, with regard to the rules or principles that
apply - or ought to apply - to the Internet's use (such as freedom of speech
and of association, right to private life and correspondence, consumer
protection, security, crime-prevention)."

 
(http://www.intgovforum.org/Substantive_1st_IGF/CoE%20submission%20to%20the%
20IGF.pdf ) 

 

Parminder 

 

 


  _____  


From: Michael Gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 9:40 PM
To: plenary at wsis-cs.org; governance at lists.cpsr.org;
coalition at mailman.thepublicvoice.org
Subject: [governance] Some Help Needed in Developing CS Statement for OECD
Ministerial

 

 

Hello colleagues: 

I've agreed to pull together a section on "Discrimination in the Information
Economy" for the CS statement to the OECD Ministerial in Seoul in June.

I've done up several very general statements as placeholders but I know that
there are individuals on this list with specific expertise in these areas
and I would very much appreciate if they could redo what I've done and as
well add appropriate referencing to previous CS documents, standards,
appropriate websites etc.

If people could send their comments to me individually indicating which
numbered section they are referring to, I'll compile them and recirculate
them.  I've agreed to do a final by Monday at the latest so speed is of the
essence. (This is a bit of a last minute job so I'm not sure how much debate
on wording will actually be possible so please if comments could be made as
"generic" from a CS perspective as possible that would be great.

 

Among the barriers to equitable participation are: 

1.physical disability which interferes with the opportunity to make use of
the input/output devices through which the digital platform is access. Such
disabilities might include visual disabilities (the inability to read or
interpret messages on a screen) as for example arising from blindness,
colour blindness or other forms of visual impairment. There are a variety of
well recognized standards for the design of web interfaces which enable
utilization of these sites by those with visual disabilities but these
standards are for the most part voluntary and frequently are ignored or
overlooked. The enforcement of these standards particularly in government
sites or site which are supportive of public participation, provide public
services, or are overall in the realm of "public activities" should become
mandatory and means for their enforcement should be developed. 

 

2.levels of literacy may be required by certain digitally enabled activities
which act as discriminants for those with lower levels of education,
cognitive abilities or limited facility with the language being used on the
site. Similarly as with visual disabilities standards exist for determining
the level of literacy required for utilization of specific sites and these
should be formally adopted and means developed for their enforcement
particularly in those sites necessary for social, political and economic
functioning in the Information Society 

 

3.differential access to the use of the Internet because of barriers of cost
of access (Internet access costs or costs of the input/output devices
themselves (personal computers for example). Many of those currently not
using the Internet (as understood by means of the concept of the "Digital
Divide") are not doing so because of the cost of this service. Ensuring that
publicly accessible services at no or nominal cost is a minimum basis for
ensuring equitable participation in the Information Society.

  

4.related to the financial barrier of access may be the barriers of physical
disability in limiting access to places where no or minimal cost Internet
access may be available. Many of those with physical disabilities also have
very low incomes so the opportunity to use the Internet (or other ICTs) may
only come through public Internet access points (PIAPs). If these PIAPs are
themselves not accessible because of physical barriers (as for example not
being wheel chair accessible), then the opportunity to participate is doubly
restricted. 

 

5.further, many of those also who do not make use of the Internet may not be
doing so because of a lack of knowledge or personal confidence with respect
to the means for making such use. This would be particularly the case for
the elderly and those with lower levels of education. The barrier of
confidence or skill with respect to Internet use may be overcome through the
availability of training or support services in the context of the PIAPs and
thus publicly supported means for providing this training (it is frequently
done through support of volunteers or student interns) is a further means
for ensuring that discriminatory barriers do not exist for Internet
participation. 

 

6. Equitable gender access to ICT has been linked to an increase in overall
social equality for women; however, within numerous global
contexts-including those of Developed Countries-gender disparities in access
to ICT persist, and women predominate the lower-wage sectors of the
information economy. Women also are under-represented in ICT decision-making
capacities. Gender is one of many factors that determine the impact of ICT
on women's lives. Ethnicity, religion, age, physical ability, and
socio-economic status also figure into the degrees of inclusion and
exclusion that differentiate regions and communities. Key to overcoming the
barriers, shortcomings and misconceptions that exacerbate gender
inequalities in ICT are the comprehensive education of all persons
regardless of gender, the promotion of equal access for women to scientific
and technological arenas, the provision of opportunities for lifelong
learning in ICT, and the augmentation of women's roles in ICT
decision-making. Governments should enable equal access and opportunity for
all via policies and programs as well as collaborate more broadly with the
private sector and civil society to change social attitudes, cultural
ideologies, and stereotypes that limit women's participation in the digital
economy. 

 

7. in many circumstances there are additional difficulties (and costs) in
obtaining access to the means for participation in the digital economy by
those living in remote, rural, or low-income areas. The cost of the
provision of enhanced (broadband for example) infrastructures in such areas
may lead to gaps in access in these areas if the service provision is only
left to market considerations. In order to ensure that there is no
discrimination or additional barriers to participation on the part of rural
and remote residents it may be necessary for public authorities to intervene
to find means to balance costs as between locales. 

 

8. Individuals' relationship with access providers or their business
partners may also be a source for discrimination against particular users.
Vertical integration of access provision with other products, content, and
services may lead access providers to engage in tying behaviors, such as
blocking or degrading competitors' services. Competition and communications
authorities should act to prevent such behavior.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/pipermail/plenary/attachments/20080311/b3371bfe/attachment-0001.html