<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1528" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Dear Michael and Hi Dear Rik too:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><EM>A *Respectful Interfaces* appreciative
perspective and sidebar:</EM></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><EM></EM></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>It's a wise sawe that "budgets" are the interface
between governments and civil society. Whether the "actors" should be in the
other order ... well, that's an interesting consideration.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I have observed and believe that between
<EM>haves and have nots, norths and souths</EM>, and other perhaps related
domain/dichtomizing concepts, there is a vast middleland that works very hard
and produces a lot (good repuration as implementers) and will neither have
direct <EM>contracts</EM> nor receive <EM>beneficiary resources</EM> in
recognition of need - and will succomb to private sector (a good thing in
iself) <EM>overtake</EM> in most if not all contexts including our own unless
governments and civil society fund the midfolks..</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Glad there are some very interesting intersections
of interests, and for your posts on <EM>varied fora,</EM> rich and
encouraging. I'm a bit biased because of stance and publications on
necessity of mutlistakeholder participation in all phases of activities - but
from much I read the above views are rather conservative and at least in some
parts consonant with yours - but what are we ourselves doing/postitioned
to do toward, again, implementation on our own turf(s).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Best wishes, LDMF.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Linda D. Misek-Falkoff, Ph.D., J.D.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>ARPANet to 'NowNets.'</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>* Respectful-Interfaces * Programme, [NGO]
Communications Coordination Committee for the United Nations; National
Disability Party; Persons with Pain International, ACM, ABA,
Other.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>----- Original Message ----- </FONT>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>From: "Gurstein, Michael" <</FONT><A
href="mailto:gurstein@ADM.NJIT.EDU"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>gurstein@ADM.NJIT.EDU</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial size=2>></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>To: <</FONT><A
href="mailto:plenary@wsis-cs.org"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>plenary@wsis-cs.org</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial size=2>></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 10:47
AM</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Subject: FW: [WSIS CS-Plenary] FW: <incom>
Creating spaces for civil society (and ICT enabled communities) (post)
WSIS</FONT></DIV></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><BR><FONT size=2></FONT></FONT></DIV><FONT face=Arial
size=2>[Please note that by using 'REPLY', your response goes to the entire
list. Kindly use individual addresses for responses intended for specific
people]<BR><BR>Click </FONT><A href="http://wsis.funredes.org/plenary/"><FONT
face=Arial size=2>http://wsis.funredes.org/plenary/</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial
size=2> to access automatic translation of this
message!<BR>_______________________________________<BR><BR><BR>Thanks Rik for
yout comments...<BR><BR>There is, I think, no simple answer to your question
below, that is how<BR>to engage grassroots activists and local community and NGO
networks in<BR>national level implementation processes. The answer
will vary from<BR>place to place and circumstance to circumstance but most
particularly it<BR>will depend on whether those most directly involved see that
such<BR>participation will return some benefit in terms of their work and
their<BR>own constituencies.<BR><BR>I think a most useful way to start is to
recognize that effective<BR>implementation will only take place with the active
participation of<BR>those most directly involved which thus implies they must
have a role in<BR>determining the objectives and the means for these types
of<BR>implementations. <BR><BR>I think in this context the notion of
multi-stakeholder partnerships has<BR>considerable value but only if there is
both the perception and to some<BR>degree at least, the reality of real
partnership and real "equality"<BR>among the partners. What this means is
that for example, decision<BR>making recognizes the value of the ("in-kind" or
sweat equity)<BR>contribution of community volunteers or community organizations
and<BR>gives value to the knowledge and experience of the
grassroots<BR>practitioners and doesn't simply acknowledge the monetary
(or<BR>hardware/software) contribution of donors, or accept by fiat
the<BR>determining position of administrators while paying only lip-service
to<BR>the value of the contribution of those most directly involved.
<BR><BR>Equally, there must be the recognition (and the opportunity to
allocate<BR>development designated resources) towards the creation of means
for<BR>broader collaboration and the development of collaborative
and<BR>strategically significant representative structures on the part of
those<BR>working in these areas at the grassroots. Governments, the
private<BR>sector, even the international NGO's are able to
speak<BR>(influence/negotiate) with one voice, and those at the grassroots
should<BR>similarly have this opportunity or not be impeded from creating
this<BR>opportunity. <BR><BR>I think in practice, these matters are best worked
out on a practical<BR>level and that is where there are means for
collaboratively determining<BR>possible application areas and then developing
participative<BR>(multi-stakeholder) approaches to managing and deploying
those<BR>applications. All this of course, further implies moving
beyond<BR>"projects" to broader grassroots based development programs
and<BR>initiatives where the real contribution of ICTs to development may
be<BR>realized.<BR><BR>(I think also, BTW, that these principles--the
recognition of the<BR>central role of community/grassroots end users not as
"consumers" (of<BR>development processes, policy pronouncements, donor
contributions etc.)<BR>but as active, necessary and determining agents in these
processes;<BR>multi-stakeholderism based on equality; the opportunity and the
means to<BR>create representative structures; the opportunity and the means
to<BR>participate in meaningful decision making processes, hold equally
with<BR>engagement in "Civil Society" as they do with engagement in the
broader<BR>area of ICT4D.<BR><BR>Having just reviewed the documents presented as
"final" from the Global<BR>Alliance, I'm afraid that there is a very long road
to travel if any of<BR>this is going to be achieved as I see in those documents
little or no<BR>recognition of the contribution that those most directly
involved in<BR>communities and at the grassroots necessarily can, should and
will make<BR>in determining their own development.<BR><BR>Best, and I'm hoping
that this is the beginning of a broader discussion<BR>on these
issues.<BR><BR>I'll copy this to my colleagues in the Telecenters of the
Americas<BR>Partnership who also may wish to contribute
here...<BR><BR>Best,<BR><BR>MG<BR> <BR> <BR>-----Original
Message-----<BR>From: </FONT><A href="mailto:plenary-admin@wsis-cs.org"><FONT
face=Arial size=2>plenary-admin@wsis-cs.org</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial size=2>
[mailto:plenary-admin@wsis-cs.org] On<BR>Behalf Of Rik Panganiban<BR>Sent:
January 9, 2006 8:51 PM<BR>To: </FONT><A href="mailto:plenary@wsis-cs.org"><FONT
face=Arial size=2>plenary@wsis-cs.org</FONT></A><BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>Subject: Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] FW: <incom> Creating spaces for
civil<BR>society (and ICT enabled communities) (post) WSIS<BR><BR><BR>[Please
note that by using 'REPLY', your response goes to the entire<BR>list. Kindly use
individual addresses for responses intended for<BR>specific people]<BR><BR>Click
</FONT><A href="http://wsis.funredes.org/plenary/"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>http://wsis.funredes.org/plenary/</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial size=2> to
access automatic translation<BR>of this message!
_______________________________________<BR><BR>Michael,<BR><BR>We've heard this
message from you a number of times about grassroots <BR>inclusion, and its
good that you continue to hold our feet to the fire.<BR><BR> From the first
prepcom, I have always felt that the NGOs who managed <BR>to get
accredited to the Prepcoms were not going to necessarily be <BR>the ones
who were actually on the ground implementing important ICT- <BR>related projects
at the grassroots. Lots of this is due to the cost <BR>of
participation, the UN / ITU cultures, the existing NGO networks
<BR>present, and a lack of outreach.<BR><BR>Luckily, as WSIS progressed, I saw
more and more groups who were <BR>actually doing good stuff on the ground
being involved in the WSIS. <BR>I.e. the grassroots caucus,
telecentres caucus, human rights caucus <BR>and others were actually being
populated by folks with direct <BR>connections to the people being
impacted. Not by the tens of <BR>thousands perhaps, but
certainly more than the handful of "UN NGO <BR>professionals" like myself
who tend to dominate these events.<BR><BR>I think many of us would agree with
you that much more needs to be <BR>done to bring into the fold the real
civil society on all levels, <BR>particularly the ones who are doing the
heavy lifting on the ground. <BR>We appreciate very much your advice
on how to make this happen, given <BR>our significant resource and
staffing constraints as we enter into <BR>the implementation
phase.<BR><BR>I think a key question lots of us have is how to make sure
that <BR>researchers, grassroots activists and NGO networks on the ground
are <BR>involved in the national level implementation process.
Ultimately <BR>much of the battle is going to be at the state and local
levels.<BR><BR>Best regards,<BR><BR>Rik Panganiban<BR>CONGO<BR><BR>On Dec 27,
2005, at 6:24 PM, Gurstein, Michael wrote:<BR><BR>><BR>> Hi
Willie,<BR>><BR>> My compliments on your thoughtful and informative
commentary on the <BR>> WSIS process and sorry that my response has been so
delayed but real <BR>> life intervenes from time to time...<BR>><BR>>
Let me start by saying that I well recognize and applaud the "gains"<BR>>
that "Civil Society" seems to have made at WSIS. They were, in the <BR>>
context of Internet Governance and even in broader and longer term <BR>>
matters of modalities of "global governance" potentially of<BR>>
considerable<BR>> significante.<BR>><BR>> My problem is that I don't
see any necessary connection between "Civil<BR><BR>> Society" as it was
constituted before, during and apparently after <BR>> WSIS and the kinds of
"Information Society" issues and objectives with<BR>> which<BR>> I'm
concerned.<BR>><BR>> A bit of background. I'm the Chair of a
Research Network that is<BR>> concerned with "Community Informatics", that is
"using ICTs to enable <BR>> and empower local communities". Most of the
researchers in the<BR>> network<BR>> including myself are working with
communities, community activitists,<BR>> community ICT practitioners in
trying to figure out how, and then<BR>> implementing ICTs to support the
range of applications of interest to<BR>> local communities--e-learning,
e-health, local economic <BR>> development, and<BR>> so
on.<BR>><BR>> I would say that both the researchers and those in
communities see the<BR><BR>> problem with most ICT4D efforts and why most
haven't been successful <BR>> as being that they are implemented "top down"
and fail to include <BR>> those most directly concerned, the users and the
local implementers, <BR>> in<BR>> their<BR>> design, development and
implementation.<BR>><BR>> Before I came to WSIS I did a fairly extensive
round of consulting <BR>> with both the practitioner and the research
networks around these and<BR>> related<BR>> WSIS issues. What I got
from the practitioner side was a very strong<BR>> sense that they hadn't been
included in WSIS; that they didn't see any<BR>> way for themselves or their
interests or concerns to be included in <BR>> the<BR>> process; and
that the whole thing was pretty much of a waste of time.<BR>> What I got from
the researchers was a sense that whatever was being <BR>> done<BR>>
in ICT4D so far, whether through WSIS or related efforts, was more<BR>>
top-down business as usual.<BR>><BR>> So I should say that I didn't come
to WSIS with the assumption that<BR>> re-adjusting processes of Internet
Governance or making advances for <BR>> "Civil Society" in global governance
processes was going to have much <BR>> significance for the folks that I was
in discussion with. And what <BR>> concerned me even more was that all
the policy space was being<BR>> taken up<BR>> with more or less technical
or structural issues of Internet <BR>> Governance<BR>> with the
issues and objectives that would be of value and significance<BR>> to the
folks that I'm working with being more or less completely<BR>>
ignored.<BR>><BR>> Equally, I saw that there were virtually no linkages
from the <BR>> literally thousands of people on the ground in the various
<BR>> practitioner networks (as for example the 10,000 or more community
<BR>> telecentres<BR>> represented by<BR>> the Telecenters of the
Americas Partnership--I'm on their Steering<BR>> Committee) and the on-going
discussions of WSIS and including the<BR>> various Civil Society
interventions and on-going areas of <BR>>
participation.<BR>><BR>> As an aside, I understand from a somewhat limited
experience with<BR>> involvements of Civil Society in various earlier Summits
(for<BR>> example on<BR>> the Summits on the Environment and Sustainable
Development) that Civil<BR>> Society in those areas had more or less direct
and continuing linkages<BR>> with very widely dispersed and quite broadly
based grassroots <BR>> networks.<BR>> This was the strength that
Civil Society brought to those<BR>> events/processes and was I believe, the
basis for Civil Society's long<BR>> term policy (and<BR>> programmatic)
influence in these areas. Quite honestly I saw almost <BR>>
none<BR>> of that in WSIS...I recognize that circumstances were different
and <BR>> that<BR>> the issues in the Information Society space
aren't as immediate or as<BR>> directly mobilizing and of course, the funding
hasn't been available,<BR>> but I also think that those presenting themselves
as "Civil Society"<BR>> didn't made appropriate attempts to be, dare I say,
"inclusive,<BR>> people-centered and development oriented" and the result is
what we <BR>> saw,<BR>> a Summit whose major outcome is a set of
recursive policy engagements<BR>> (the Internet Governance Forum) on the one
hand, and mumbled <BR>> platitudes<BR>> (the Internet Financining
Mechanisms) on the other.<BR>><BR>> Further though, where could we go from
here? Can anything be done from<BR><BR>> this point on?<BR>><BR>> Let
me say that I think it would be immensely valuable and on all <BR>> sides. if
means were found to constructively engage communities, <BR>>
community<BR>> ICT<BR>> activists, ICT practitioners and so on in
post-WSIS processes. These<BR>> folks understand quite directly what
the issues are and have direct <BR>> and<BR>> useful experience in
the range of practical matters towards <BR>> building an<BR>>
Information Society "from the bottom up". Let me give a couple of<BR>>
examples from a few casual interactions with practitioner <BR>>
acquaintances<BR>> I encountered at WSIS...One, an individual involved in
setting up<BR>> satellite based telecenters in rural Africa mentioned that
government<BR>> regulation in some circumstances was raising the price of
setting up a<BR>> telecenter from $6000 US to $60,000 US! A second
person related to me<BR>> the difficulties they were having in working with a
community as it<BR>> learned to make effective use of ICT access in support
of local<BR>> trade--how long it took, how labor intensive it was, but in the
end <BR>> how<BR>> real and sustainable transformation was taking
place. A third person<BR>> discussed the possibilities of using remittance
payments facilitated<BR>> through the local telecentre as a capital pool for
local "venture"<BR>> investment and so on.<BR>><BR>> The challenge it
seems to me is how to create a means to facilitate<BR>> engagement between
those making policy and directing high level ICT4D <BR>> investment and those
on the ground who have experience (successes and<BR>> failures) in making it
work. What didn't happen in WSIS was that kind<BR><BR>> of engagement,
so would it be possible post-WSIS as an outcome, to<BR>> structure that
engagement?<BR>><BR>> Think for a moment about creating truly
"multi-stakeholder" working<BR>> groups on for example, "ICTs, remittances
and local economic <BR>> development", with participation from the private
sector who would <BR>> provide the technology and deal with infrastructure,
hardware and <BR>> software issues; with the UN agencies and the World Bank
who would <BR>> handle the global policy and regulatory matters, and overall
<BR>> co-ordination; civil society folks who would be concerned with
privacy<BR><BR>> matters for example; and the community telecenter
operators and those<BR><BR>> involved in local economic development who would
deal with designing <BR>> for effective use, with implementation issues, with
training, with how<BR><BR>> to make these processes socially and
organizationally embedded (and <BR>> thus<BR>> sustainable) in the local
fabric.<BR>><BR>> Think also about similar Working Groups in ICT for
community based<BR>> e-health (including AIDS), for local e-learning and so
on and the <BR>> development from these of horizontally and vertically
networked<BR>> caucuses<BR>> of those with both the policy skills and the
real on-the ground<BR>> information as to the policy issues of most
importance to pursue.<BR>><BR>> And then lets think about what would be
needed to actually make<BR>> something like this work. First there
would be the need for a <BR>> recognition that those doing the work on the
ground were necessary <BR>> partners in the process. That their
participation would require <BR>> financial support and facilitation
(including linguistic) and not the <BR>> laughable and profoundly
discriminatory "voluntary and in-kind <BR>> participation" and further it
would require enabling processes of<BR>> local<BR>> self-organization and
representation rather than selection from the <BR>> top<BR>> and
"representation by designation"--remember these are "partnerships"<BR>> so
the "partners" need to have a measure of independence.<BR>><BR>> One could
even envisage that these Working Groups might make some <BR>> useful<BR>>
("bottom-up") contributions to Internet Governance issues ;-)<BR>><BR>> So
in the end, do you think this could provide the makings of a <BR>> workable
collaborative and inclusive agenda for Civil Society and the <BR>>
other<BR>> WSIS<BR>> "stakeholders" moving forward
post-WSIS?<BR>><BR>> Best,<BR>><BR>> Mike Gurstein<BR>><BR>>
Michael Gurstein, Ph.D.<BR>> Chair: Community Informatics Research
Network<BR>> </FONT><A href="http://www.ciresearch.net"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>http://www.ciresearch.net</FONT></A><BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>><BR>> Editor in Chief: Journal of Community Informatics<BR>>
</FONT><A href="http://ci-journal.net"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>http://ci-journal.net</FONT></A><BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>><BR>>
-----Original Message-----<BR>> From: </FONT><A
href="mailto:incom-l-bounces@incommunicado.info"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>incom-l-bounces@incommunicado.info</FONT></A><BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>> [mailto:incom-l-bounces@incommunicado.info] On Behalf Of <BR>>
</FONT><A href="mailto:wcurrie@apc.org"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>wcurrie@apc.org</FONT></A><BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>> Sent: November
29, 2005 10:56 PM<BR>> To: </FONT><A
href="mailto:incom-l@incommunicado.info"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>incom-l@incommunicado.info</FONT></A><BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>>
Subject: <incom> Creating spaces for civil society in WSIS<BR>><BR>>
Prior to the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), UN <BR>> Summits
were largely closed spaces for inter-governmental debate and<BR>>
negotiation<BR>> on issues of global public policy such as sustainable
development <BR>> or the<BR>> position of women. Civil society
summits ran in parallel to those of<BR>> governments and usually at some
distance. So during the UN Summit on<BR>> Sustainable Development held in
Johannesburg in 2002, governments <BR>> met in<BR>> the elite
business zone of Sandton, while civil society met in the <BR>>
black<BR>> township of Soweto.<BR>><BR>> In WSIS, there was a certain
recognition that the Information Society<BR>> involved policy issues in which
governments were one stakeholder <BR>> alongside the private sector and civil
society. The history of the <BR>> internet as a grand collaboration between
technical communities, the <BR>> private sector, civil society organizations
and governments meant that<BR><BR>> governments needed the participation of
all stakeholders in the <BR>> process of deliberation at WSIS. Hence the WSIS
process began as an <BR>> invited space in which all stakeholders were
involved until the point <BR>> of negotiations, which remained the
prerogative of governments. The<BR>> private<BR>> sector and civil society
were nevertheless able to make statements to<BR>> the plenary meetings of
governments, while they were negotiating the<BR>> text for the outcomes of
the Geneva and Tunis Summits.<BR>><BR>> In addition to this, the atypical
Summit format as a two year process<BR>> starting in Geneva in 2003 and
ending in Tunis in 2005 also created a <BR>> space in which civil society
could mobilize. A range of civil society <BR>> organizations and academic
institutions took up the issue of internet <BR>> governance, which used as
their focal point the internet governance <BR>> caucus that was affiliated to
the civil society process within<BR>> WSIS. And<BR>> the point of
disagreement between governments on internet governance<BR>> gave civil
society an opportunity to engage more actively in the<BR>> process. The key
shift was in the establishment of the Working <BR>> Group on<BR>>
Internet Governance (WGIG) as a multi-stakeholder body, in which all<BR>>
stakeholders had representation. This created an open space in <BR>>
which all<BR>> stakeholders had representation and had a significant effect
on the<BR>> outcome of the<BR>> internet governance debate in
WSIS. Within WGIG, private sector and<BR>> civil society
participants were on a par with government participants.<BR>><BR>> The
WGIG report made four sets of recommendations - on the need for a<BR>> forum
to discuss broad public policy issues related to the<BR>> internet,
on<BR>> oversight models for internet governance, on measures to
promote<BR>> development and access to the internet (especially with regard
to<BR>> international interconnection costs)and on capacity building
for<BR>> developing countries to participate more effectively in
internet<BR>> governance. With the exception of the issue of oversight
models, <BR>> civil<BR>> society participation was decisive in the
other three issues. And the<BR>> issue of a forum became the key point of
consensus in the Tunis <BR>> summit.<BR>> So the decision in Tunis
to establish an Internet Governance Forum <BR>> (IGF)<BR>> was a
result of civil society initiation of the idea within WGIG and a<BR>> factor
of the multi-stakeholder process that enabled stakeholders to<BR>>
interact.<BR>><BR>> It is worth recalling that the idea of a forum was
opposed by the US<BR>> Government (USG) and the private sector during the
second phase of<BR>> WSIS<BR>> until it was clear that it had broad
support. The USG also opposed the<BR>> EU's 'new co-operation model'
regarding the governance of critical<BR>> internet resources and made it
clear that it would retain oversight <BR>> over<BR>> ICANN. This was
to be expected as no Empire has ever surrendered its<BR>> control over the
means of communications. Nevertheless, the EU<BR>> intervention opened a
space to address the set of principles that <BR>> should<BR>> apply
to the oversight of ICANN. The combination of the IGF addressing<BR>> 'broad'
internet policy issues and the 'enhanced cooperation' process<BR>> addressing
'narrow' issues of names, numbers and the root zone file <BR>> is
a<BR>> significant outcome of WSIS.<BR>><BR>> After WSIS, the IGF will
constitute a global public policy space of a<BR>> new kind that is open to
all stakeholders. Civil society organizations<BR><BR>> through the internet
governance caucus played a leading role in <BR>> creating this open space for
deliberation on the complexity of <BR>> internet governance. They will take
the process of creating this open <BR>> space forward in the Internet
Governance Forum when it meets in Athens<BR><BR>> in 2006.<BR>><BR>> In
the aftermath of Tunis, Michael Gurstein delivered a critique of <BR>> the
civil society participation has emerged which constructs the main<BR>>
value<BR>> of WSIS as one of networking in a closed network of the
privileged, <BR>> that<BR>> in a self-serving way has perpetuated
its existence by advocating <BR>> for an<BR>> Internet Governance
Forum and has lost touch with the grassroots <BR>> and the<BR>>
issue of bridging the digital divide. While this critique has some<BR>>
merit, it is too partial a view and dismisses the real gains that have<BR>>
been made by civil society participation. Remove civil society from
<BR>> WSIS<BR>> and there would be no IGF, no new global policy space for
considering<BR>> broad public policy issues affecting the internet, including
access to<BR>> the internet and the digital divide.<BR>><BR>>
Discussion of the issues of WSIS has not only taken place in Geneva
or<BR><BR>> Tunis, but also at regional and national levels. At the Accra
PrepCom <BR>> in February 2005, the most energetic participants were a
contingent of<BR>> youth, who had traveled from Nigeria to participate.
Sangonet ran a<BR>> series of workshops on WSIS issues in South Africa that
provided input<BR>> into WSIS. Even ICANN engaged in an extended roadshow
around the world<BR>> to put its case to practitioners and publics in various
developing<BR>> countries, including South Africa and Argentina. These
activities<BR>> involved a broad range of people in the WSIS
process.<BR>><BR>> One of the reasons that the issue of the digital divide
did not <BR>> receive adequate attention in Tunis relates to the fate of the
Task <BR>> Force on Financial Mechanisms (TFFM). The TFFM was convened
as an <BR>> invited<BR>> space<BR>> by UNDP and could not be
transformed into an open space by civil <BR>> society<BR>> as was
the case with the WGIG. This affected its outcomes which were<BR>> more
limited. Nevertheless, the TFFM report and the section on <BR>>
financing<BR>> in the Tunis Agenda provide enough hooks to be developed
creatively by<BR>> civil society activists in the post-WSIS phase. These
include <BR>> references<BR>> to the uses of public finance, the
promotion of community and local<BR>> government networks, a renewed mandate
to Universal Access Funds, a<BR>> welcome for the Digital Solidarity Fund and
a recognition that <BR>> existing<BR>> financial mechanisms have
proved inadequate with regard to regional<BR>> connectivity, broadband and
rural connectivity in the developing <BR>> world.<BR>> The
combination of these factors may serve to support the introduction<BR>> of
open access models and community networking in the developing <BR>>
world -<BR>> precisely to bridge the digital divide.<BR>><BR>> Michael
Gurstein's critique of civil society participation assumes too<BR><BR>>
easily that civil society activists engaging the WSIS process agreed<BR>>
with Ambassador Khan that they represented everyone else. This was <BR>>
simply not the case, however flattering Ambassador Khan's remarks. <BR>>
Gurstein's assumption that everyone in civil society was only there
to<BR><BR>> network is similarly false and denies that civil society groups
<BR>> meeting in the civil society plenary and caucuses had sufficient
<BR>> strategic<BR>> sense<BR>> to understand the power dynamics
involved in engaging with <BR>> governments,<BR>> the private sector
and international organizations at WSIS. The<BR>> interventions of civil
society activists made a material difference to<BR>> the outcomes of WSIS in
the text of the Tunis Agenda. In addition, <BR>> those<BR>> civil
society activists, who tried hard to support independent <BR>>
Tunisian<BR>> NGOs against the human rights violations of the Tunisian regime
and <BR>> were<BR>> harassed and chased by the police at the Goethe
Centre in Tunis on 15<BR>> November 2005, were not there just to network in a
closed loop. For a<BR>> few days, they helped open a space of freedom in
Tunis and pledged<BR>> ongoing support. A Luta Continua.<BR>><BR>>
Willie Currie<BR>> Communications and Information Policy Programme Manager
Association <BR>> for Progressive
Communications<BR><BR><BR><BR>===============================================<BR>RIK
PANGANIBAN Communications
Coordinator<BR>Conference of NGOs in Consultative Relationship with the
United <BR>Nations (CONGO)<BR>web: </FONT><A
href="http://www.ngocongo.org"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>http://www.ngocongo.org</FONT></A><BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>email:
</FONT><A href="mailto:rik.panganiban@ngocongo.org"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>rik.panganiban@ngocongo.org</FONT></A><BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>mobile:
(+1) 917-710-5524<BR><BR>* Information on the WSIS at </FONT><A
href="http://www.ngocongo.org/wsis"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>http://www.ngocongo.org/wsis</FONT></A><BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>*
Submit NGO Events to </FONT><A href="http://www.ngoevents.org"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>http://www.ngoevents.org</FONT></A><BR><BR><BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>_______________________________________________<BR>Plenary mailing
list<BR></FONT><A href="mailto:Plenary@wsis-cs.org"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>Plenary@wsis-cs.org</FONT></A><BR><A
href="http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary</FONT></A><BR><FONT
face=Arial size=2>_______________________________________________<BR>Plenary
mailing list<BR></FONT><A href="mailto:Plenary@wsis-cs.org"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>Plenary@wsis-cs.org</FONT></A><BR><A
href="http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary</FONT></A></BODY></HTML>