<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>commentary UNESCO, Microsoft, convention</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<FONT FACE="Verdana"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12.0px'> <BR>
Dear all,<BR>
<BR>
I have been following the exchanges on the general list and they have convinced me that Civil Society needs to take action in a more concerted manner, beyond the two issues that have been the major focus of these last few months, namely internet governance and financing mechanisms. Other major problems are persistent and they are connected with education, culture and human rights. As a result they tend to revolve around Unesco issues, in the last month, in relation to the agreement with Microsoft and the Convention on cultural diversity.<BR>
<BR>
<B>ABOUT MICROSOFT:<BR>
</B> If corporations are going to make agreements with Unesco, they have to maintain the minimum standards and means of corporate governance, i.e. a sense of competition, and open checks and balances. Two dimensions to that:<BR>
- There are well-respected models in the industrial sector that can serve public service, or respect public service obligations, especially with the foundation system. Well-respected foundations have maintained a healthy and efficient separation between charity and commerce. This model should be explored more and one can only be sorry that foundations have not been more active inWSIS. Unesco has had agreements with other brandnames in the information industry, but via their non-profit foundations, and as a result there has been no outcry and no blatant recuperation of the logo.<BR>
-There should be provisions in any agreement of that kind for self-improving and self-regulating dynamics to kick in. This call for a transparent mechanism such that the best service and the product best adapted to local needs can evolve outside the agreement process. A real multistakeholder partnership could achieve just that. It could also enforce a principle that has already been experimented elsewhere: any direct, proprietary gift from any corporation has to be balanced or matched by a non-proprietary gift.<BR>
<BR>
<B>WHAT ACTION?<BR>
</B>So we should issue a general statement from Civil society in WSIS, via the “content and themes” group maybe, and put pressure on nation-states and Unesco so that two clear and transparent procedures be implemented:<BR>
- If dealing with business and private sector, Unesco should create a system of checks and balances, around bids on clear projects to fulfill its mandate, the millennium goals, the WSIS goals (related to education, science and culture), … An overseeing board, composed of multi-stakeholders should be put in place, and evaluate the process throughout;<BR>
- If a corporation decides to make an offer or a gift to Unesco, it has to be established so that the receiving party has to be able to develop beyond the agreement process. No strings can be attached;<BR>
- If a proprietary gift is made , a non-profit matching gift should be made, either by other private-public foundations or by nation-states or other acceptable donors.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<B>ABOUT CONVENTION ON CULTURAL DIVERSITY<BR>
</B>This Convention follows up on the declaration on Cultural Diversity, signed unanimously by the nation-states of Unesco in 2001 (before the US return to Unesco). It is supposed to turn the idea of cultural diversity into a new right, alongside other human rights. So it posits that cultural goods like media productions and other content productions are not a service just like any other but are part of culture and cannot be treated as a mere commodity. As such governements are given certain responsibilities and means of sanction to protect that new emerging right.<BR>
But the recent draft of the convention seems to make some provisions that curtail the proper development of this right, tilting the balance towards general trade agreements and very proprietary intellectual ownership rights. <BR>
<BR>
<B>WHAT ACTION ?<BR>
</B> We should issue a general statement from Civil Society in WSIS, via the « content and themes » group, and put pressure on nation-states and Unesco, so that some points are carefully reconsidered in the Convention :<BR>
- the cultural diversity right should not be made subordinate to trade and existing trade agreements, nor should it be disconnected from public service, public goods and public commons (regional, national, international) ;<BR>
- the cultural diversity right should apply to all media and technical supports and not exclude any, especially the future technological developments related to networks of distributed intelligence and immaterial goods ;<BR>
- the cultural diversity right should not be considered just at the international level but also at the regional and local level, within nation-states, in a true spirit of diversity, pluralism and balance.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
So this is a call for the “content and themes” group to take up business again, and not wait for prepcom 2, where it might be too late and when other imperatives will take up all our energy.<BR>
<BR>
Best<BR>
Divina Frau-Meigs <BR>
Focal point, family of education, academia and research<BR>
<BR>
I would be grateful if some translation in French and Spanish could be provided.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<FONT COLOR="#000098">> _______________________________________________<BR>
> Educal mailing list<BR>
> Educal@wsis-cs.org<BR>
> <a href="http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/educal">http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/educal</a><BR>
</FONT></SPAN></FONT>
</BODY>
</HTML>