Y.J. Park

World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), UN's tenth global-scale summit or conference in UN history, has welcomed civil society as critical stakeholder in developing global consensus on Information Society. Civil societies' major involvement with UN process dated back to Rio Earth Summit in 1992 and civil societies' role back then was agenda setting. For the past ten years, civil society could build capacity to respond to the global dialogue in a more active manner as a counterpart to governments.

Civil Society in the WSIS had expected with enthusiasm that inputs from civil society should be seriously considered in the WSIS process and civil society's voices be reflected in the Summit declaration principles and action plans. Chairman of WSIS, Mr. Samasesku, in public confirmed that civil society is one of key stakeholders in the global consensus making process together with government and private sector and therefore, WSIS would facilitate civil society's participation in the WSIS.

The first phase of WSIS, however, raises several controversial questions in terms of civil society's inputs to the WSIS decision-making process, WSIS plenary.[1]

The first controversy starts from the question whether civil society was invited to governmental negotiation process on Information Society as "an observer" or whether civil society was invited to participate in the global consensus making process on information society as "a participant". Even though civil society has been told civil society is government's equal partner in the WSIS process, it is still questionable whether civil society's rights can be recognized as equal as governments' ones.

Governments' discussion and negotiation session and civil society's discussion and negotiation session were separately managed in the first phase of WSIS. Governments have had their own plenary, bureau, and working groups and civil societies have had their own plenary, bureau, and working groups. Access to and participation in each plenary and working groups are limited to each government's delegation and civil society members in principle. Governments' plenary is historically accepted as a main negotiation platform in the WSIS and civil society groups have made every effort to bring their positions to the governmental plenary. Civil society members could equally present their views only around 15 to 20 minutes a day during the prepcoms processes.[2]

If civil society and government are truly equal in the global consensus making process, why cannot civil society and government have one unified plenary as negotiation ground instead of two different tracks and finally two different Summit conclusions?[3]

Is it going to be possible for government and civil society together with other sectors to have one negotiation platform as a result of compromise between one borderless global community in the cyberspace and countries with sovereignty in offline world?[4]

Dissonance between governments and civil societies in 2003 Summit is likely to repeat in 2005 unless there are drastic institutional changes in the UN decision-making system.[5]

The second controversy rooted in how to enhance the legitimacy of civil society in the decision making process. Can civil society in the WSIS claim WSIS civil society represents "people" other than themselves? Unlike elected government administration's staff, civil society has had no mechanism to elect its representatives in the global dialogue.

The concern was addressed throughout WSIS civil society process and presented by civil society participants from time to time during the WSIS preparatory meetings when civil society set up a multilateral representative structure inside civil society. As of today there are 'Civil Society Bureau' as administrative body, 'Civil Society Content and Themes Group' (CS C&T Group) as voluntary civil society policy-maker body and Civil Society Division as civil society secretariat.

In terms of number of representatives inside civil society, there are 42 focal points that are representing 21 families inside civil society bureau and around 50 coordinators who are representing 21 thematic working groups or caucuses and seven regional caucuses under content and themes group as of today. Usually two coordinators for one thematic group or region but it all depends on each group's own decision. In case of media caucus, there are four coordinators.[6]

Legitimacy of civil society representation is going to be a huge and long-term challenge in the multi-stakeholder regimes.[7] It appears to establish civil society's representation legitimacy is not a civil society's first priority in the WSIS process. Tunisia WSIS will still inherit this hot potato to the next generations of global UN multi-stakeholder summits until civil society can acquire substantially equal status and rights in the global negotiation process.

The third controversy is whether participants in the WSIS feel confident enough to present solutions to challenges of information society in the upcoming second phase of WSIS. Civil society members and government delegations loudly identified information society issues from their own perspectives in the first phase of WSIS but failed to reach agreement.

Should civil society independently again develop its own solutions based on "Shaping Information Societies for Human Needs: Civil Society Declaration to the World Summit on the Information Society" as "a participant"or should join the government-oriented WSIS discussion and negotiation forum as "an advisory observer"? Civil society has no choice but to play those two roles at the same time in the second phase of the WSIS to meet its long-term goals: to enhance civil society's influence and to achieve politically equal status such as government representatives.

In conclusion, this paper visited controversial issues between civil society and government leaving the north and the south controversy untouched. The tension between the north and the south issue is still sensitive to approach but governments from the north have developed various mechanisms to reach negotiations through multiple tools mostly associated with economic leverage or pressure. On the other hand, the tension between government and civil society in the global level has been recently evolved and it just opened the can of worms.

Pandora box of Internet Governance will be a test bed to explore new institutional framework in order to embrace new representation mechanism in the cyberspace, possibility to delegate power to new institution such as non-governmental bodies instead of governments or together with governments and power sharing among old analogue power and new digital power. This debate is going to be a lengthy and controversial one because identities within civil society can be divided into the north and the south and the analogue and the digital groups.

-----------------------

[1] Coordination among different stakeholders was planned and implemented through WSIS executive secretariat that is composed of four different stakeholders; governments, intergovernmental organizations, civil society and private sector.

[2] The Prepcom 3 bis in December prohibited civil society's participation.

[3] Civil society publicly held a press conference on Dec. 11.

http://www.wsis-online.net/csnews/news/item?item_id=318403

. [snip] civil society representatives and their concerns and ideas were repeatedly excluded by governments from working groups and plenaries leading to their declaration, "Building the Information Society". [snip] On December 8, the Civil Society Plenary of the WSIS unanimously adopted "Shaping Information Societies for Human Needs: Civil Society Declaration to the World Summit on the Information Society."

[4] It was at least once implemented during Asia Pacific Regional WSIS meeting in Jan. 2003. First of all, the drafting team of regional position was composed of four different sectors; government, civil society, private sector and intergovernmental organization's representatives. Second of all, the draft declaration paper was tabled for comments from every participant in the AP regional WSIS meeting on the equal basis. Chairperson (government) then recognized hands-up and those who attended the meeting did not have identification placeholder. It was around 100 people and all four parties were there.

[5] Dissonance between the north and the south may be another tough negotiation process in the WSIS but those two are likely to reach a compromise between the two.

[6] http://www.wsis-cs.org/caucuses.html

[7] Artificial regional division in the UN system is reflected in civil society representation process. UN officially divides five different regions; Asia, European and North America, Latin America, Africa, and Western Asia. This could not be compromised within the WSIS civil society as f today and therefore, there are seven regions.

Y.J. Park
WSIS Civil Society Internet ICT Governance Caucus Co-Coordinator
WSIS Civil Society Network and Coalition Family Co-Focal Point