Nota de la moderación: circulamos estos mensajes en los que la CV está en
copia.
>>Meigs,
>>as Civile Society Finance Mechanism List we are very interested by your
>>proposal to draft a position paper against the dangerous approach adopted
>>by UNESCO vis a vis Microsoft.
>>I forward this message to my List and hope that you will propose a
>>concertation process to draft together the paper.
>>All the best
>>Djilali
>Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 10:10:16 +0100
>Subject: commentary UNESCO, Microsoft, convention
>From: Meigs <[email protected]>
>To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,
> <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,
> <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
>
>Dear all,
>
>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.
>
>ABOUT MICROSOFT:
> 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 of that:
>- 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.
> -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.
>
>WHAT ACTION?
>So we should issue a general statement from Civil society in WSIS, via the
>and themes group maybe, and put pressure on nation-states and
>Unesco so that two clear and transparent procedures be implemented:
>- 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;
>- 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;
>- 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.
>
>ABOUT CONVENTION ON CULTURAL DIVERSITY
>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.
>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.
>
>WHAT ACTION ?
> 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:
>- 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);
>- 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;
>- 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.
>
>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.
>
>Best
>Divina Frau-Meigs
>Focal point, family of education, academia and research
>
>I would be grateful if some translation in French and Spanish could be
>provided.
> _______________________________________________
> Educal mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/educal
Este archivo fue generado por hypermail 2.1.3 : Tue Jan 4 10:02:49 2005 AST