Who Speaks for the Governed?

World Summit on Information Society, Civil Society and the

Limits of 'Multistakeholderism'
Author(s): Paula Chakravartty
Source: Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 41, No. 3 (Jan. 21-27, 2006), pp. 250-257
Published by: Economic and Political Weekly
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4417704
Accessed: 01-01-2016 08:19 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Economic and Political Weekly is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Economic and Political
Weekly.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 150.131.192.151 on Fri, 01 Jan 2016 08:19:04 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Who Speaks for the Governed?
World Summit on Information Society, Civil Society
and the Limits of 'Multistakeholderism'
Global disparities over access to informationand communicationtechnologiesformed
the basis of the call for a UN-sponsored WorldSummiton the InformationSociety that took
place in two phases in Geneva (2003) and Tunis (2005). In addition to the private
sector and state delegates, accredited civil society organisations were for the first time
invited to the table to participate in debates over financing ICTfor development,ensuring
cultural diversity, the future of intellectualproperty rights and debating the merits of a
new system of internet governance. This article critically examines the role of civil society in
proposing a "humanitarianagenda" that contests the dominant neoliberal mode of
governance within the WSISprocess. Specifically, the article considers why narrow claims
for recognition - expressed in the right to freedom of information- eclipsed more expansive
claims for both recognition and redistributionin terms of access to ICT infrastructureand
content. It draws from feminist insights into the normative dimensions of global social
justice after more than two decades of theory and praxis around transnational
activism and the challenges of deliberation through difference.
PAULA CHAKRAVARTTY

World Summit on the Information Society' global governance is "no loner the sole domain of governments"
but rather "a laboratory which develops innovative models and
Information policy has emerged as a technocratic domain of mechanisms for a new global diplomacy" [Kleinwachter 2004].
governances largely restricted to those with "expertise", At the press conference held by civil society organisations at the
accessible to corporate lobbies, World Bank-funded think- close of the Tunis summit, speakers focused on the violation of
tanks,andeconomic andtechnical advisors to statebodies focusing human rights in the form of state censorship of information by
primarily on foreign investment and trade. The call for a UN- the host government, giving credence to the need for oversight'
sponsored world summit was initially justified when access to by civil society organisations. Renate Bloem of the Civil Society
the benefits of the information society were seen as fundamental Bureau reinforced the importance of the language of
to the millennium development goals of eradicating poverty and multistakeholderism within the WSIS process stating that "We
hunger, and improving access to health, education and employ- have moved to become a partnerin negotiations" [APC 2005].
ment. In practice, the achievements of the World Summit on the Despite greaterformal participationof civil society organisations
Information Society (WSIS) failed to reach any agreement on in areas like interet governance, even those who wanted to
how to finance the bridge to overcome the digital and material emphasise a sense of optimism agreed that the summit fell far
divides both between the northand south, and increasingly within short of its larger objectives:
the "developing" world. The second stage of the WSIS concluded ...to marshalthe global consensus and commitmentrequiredto
on November 18, 2005 in Tunis to mixed reviews and limited promotethe urgentlyneededaccess of all countriesto information,
public attentionoutside those already involved in the long process knowledge and communicationtechnologies for developmentso
of summitry organised by the "UN Instead of United as to reapthe full benefits of the informationand communication
family."
Nations Education,Science andCulturalOrganisation(UNESCO), technologiesrevolution,andto addressthe whole rangeof relevant
issues relatedto the informationsociety, throughthe development
which had been the venue of heated debates on the New World of a common vision and understandingof the informationsociety
Information and Communication Order (NWICO) in the 1970s, and the adoption of a declarationand plan of action for imple-
the more technocratic InternationalTelecommunications Union mentationby governments,internationalinstitutionsandall sectors
(ITU) hosted the two-stage WSIS summit first in Geneva (in of civil society (UN ResolutionA/RES/56/183, December2001).
2003) and then in Tunis (2005). By the end of the process, all Global disparities over access to information and communi-
multistakeholders - national state delegations, corporate actors cation technologies (ICTs), still apparent despite the exuberant
and civil society - claimed some degree of success with the cyber-libertariandiscourse of the 1990s, formed the basis of the
outcome of the main focus of negotiations - internet governance call for a multilateral summit on the scale of the 1992 Rio
- with the creation of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) to summit on the environment and 1995 Beijing summit on women.
serve as a check to the US' refusal to cede control of Internet As an exemplary response to the post-Washington consensus,
Corporation of Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). The, accredited civil society organisations were, for the first time,
multistakeholder status of the IGF has reinforced for some that invited to the table to participateby the ITU in deliberations over

250oEconomic and PoliticalWeekly January21, 2006

This content downloaded from 150.131.192.151 on Fri, 01 Jan 2016 08:19:04 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
financingICTfordevelopment(ICT4D),ensuringculturaldiver-
sity, negotiatingthe futureof intellectualpropertyrights and
debatingthemeritsof a new systemof internetgovernance.The
role of civil society in shaping policy outcome in the novel
multistakeholder processhas been assessedby communications
scholarsfroma historicalperspectiveas well as throughthe lens
in the variousstagesof negotiations.2The pres-
of participation
ence of a wide rangeof civil society organisationswas meant
to serveas a moralcheckto theofficialprocessof summitryboth
alongsideofficialnegotiations,butalso at its marginsin parallel
sessions,aswellasthroughacounter-summit organisedin Geneva
butlaterbannedinTunis.Inbothphases.competingcivil society
declarationswere publishedpromotingan alternateset of prin-
ciples in contrastto the official documents,andtherecontinues
a vibrantdebatebothwithinandmoreinterestingly,beyondthe
officialinstitutionalterrainof UN recognisedcivilsocietybodies.3
The organisational logic of multistakeholderismdemonstrates
a profoundshift fromthe previousera's NWICOdebate,when
nationstatesprimarilyfrom the non-alignedworldpressedfor
bothredistribution of resourcesandnationalsovereigntyagainst
the "culturalimperialism"of westerninformationflows. In this
paper,I tracethis shift, from an era that was characterisedby
a debatefocusing on redistributionwithoutrecognitionto the
current era of multistakeholderism, where the debate is
characterisedby an emphasison recognitionat the expense of
redistribution.Withinthe broadertheme of this special issue,
thispaperaddressesthepoliticsof scienceandtechnologywithin
postcolonialsocietiesandargues,in the samespiritas thepapers
by McMillanand Hashmi,that feminist analysis offers parti-
cularly useful critical insights on debates about technology,
societyandsocialpower.Inthiscase,I drawfromfeministpolitical
theoryand politicaleconomy,whichoffer insightsinto the nor-
mativedimensionsof global socialjustice aftermorethantwo
decadesof theoryandpraxisaroundtransnational social move-
ments and the challenges of deliberationthroughdifference.
Feministpoliticaltheoristslike Nancy Fraserhave arguedthat
claimsforjusticearemultifacetedalongatleasttworecognisable,
inter-relateddimensionsof redistribution(claims aroundeco-
nomicequality)andrecognition(claimsaroundculturaldiffer-
ence).Historically,Fraserarguesthatwhileredistributive claims
were predominantin the Fordistor nationaldevelopmentera
withoutadequateattentionto gender,casteor nationality,claims
forrecognitionhaveovershadowedegalitarianclaimsin thepost-
Fordist,post-socialisteraof globalintegration[FraserandHonneth
2003]. Whiletherehasbeenintensedisagreementamongstfemi-
nist theoristsaboutthe rigiddemarcationbetweenthesecatego-
ries, for the purposesof this paper,I arguethat most feminist
theoristsare in agreementthatclaims for social justice should
addressboth material(redistributive)and the cultural(recogni-
tion) dimensionssimultaneously[Benhabib2004; Young2000;
Mohanty 2004]. Additionally,feminist political economists
studyingthe opportunitiesand costs associatedwith new tech-
nologiesandglobalintegrationhave arguedfor the need to pay
greaterattentiontolocationandrepresentation bytheverysubjects
- thepoor,womenandothermarginalisedgroups- whoareoften
assumedto be the victimsof injusticeas a resultof globalisation
[Kabeer2003;MitterandNg 2005].Issuesof representation speak
to the necessarylimits of popularparticipationin UN or other
internationalsummitsbased on the symboliccapitaland com-
petencerequiredto engage in these processes,not to mention
the materialresourcesnecessaryto attend.Keepingthese limits
Economicand PoliticalWeekly January21, 2006251
This content downloaded from 150.131.192.151 on Fri, 01 Jan 2016 08:19:04 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
in mind, the final section of the paperconsiders debates within the
gendercaucus of the WSIS civil society process as a site where the
limits of multistakeholderismare turnedinto productive tensions,
demonstratingone possibleway outof theimpassesdiscussed above.
Long and Winding Road from Bandung to Tunis
Very few of the official speeches at the Tunis summit by
national leaders from the south addressed the legacy of the
previous era of debate over internationalcommunication, which
had its roots in the non-aligned movement and a history of
collective third world solidarity within the UN. Although
"decolonising information"and reversing "culturalimperialism"
was not on the agenda in Bandung in 1955, by the late 1960s
and throughout the 1970s, leaders from the group of 77 nations
pushed for a series of reforms within UNESCO, which funda-
mentally challenged the balance of power in the international
distribution of information and pressed for the need for cultural
self-determination. National leaders rearticulatedcriticisms ini-
tially articulated by radical Latin American scholars against US
"media imperialism" across both the north-south as well as the
east-west axes of the cold war matrix [Mattelart 2002: 181].
Across these axes, national leadersfrom the south and east agreed
over the need for state autonomy over the means of communi-
cations and information flow against the US-led vision of the
"free flow" of information. Akhil Gupta (2001) has argued that
third world solidarity through the call for a new economic and
communication order "represented an effort on the part of
economically and militarily weaker nations to use the interstate
system to consolidate the nation state" (p 191). The call for
redistribution of international communications resources there-
fore hinged on the ambiguities of national state power - opening
the way for a coordinated and strategic offensive against the
NWICO vision on the grounds of state repression and censorship.
The historical significance of the NWICO debate became only
more importantin the post-cold war era when the US along with
its G-7 allies were able to transform the terms of negotiation
within venues restrictedto trade-relatedand technical governance
issues. The dissolution of the collective non-aligned oppositional
voice in the international arena eased the way for discussions
to move to the Uruguay Round of the GATT and ultimately the
World Trade Organisation (WTO), the ITU and the World
Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO). The 1990s saw the
re-regulation of international communications focused on the
harmonisationof open marketsand the construction and enforce-
ment of the intellectual propertyrights regime almost completely
displace the earlier redistributive concerns. However, scholars
have only recently began to also address the contradictory role
of the post-colonial state in the NWICO era, when passionate
calls for redistribution and accountability in the international
arena went hand-in-handwith silences over internal inequalities
and repression of difference [Chakravarttyand Sarikakis 2006].
In this earlier period, state leaders repeatedly made,,claims for
culturaldifference throughstrictly national frames, with the issue
of national sovereignty often cloaking internalculturaldifference
such as gender and racial discrimination and political repression
by minority communities and political dissidents.
In the three decades between NWICO and the WSIS, feminists,
civil rights and a variety of new social movements have challen-
ged the role of states to represent what is accepted as the public's
interest, both nationally and transnationally. Alongside the
emerging framework of global governance of the information
economy, civil society organisations based primarilyin the north,
have carriedon the "legacy"of the MacBrideCommission spurring
on a new generationof community media activism and coordinated
researchwhich would challenge the dominant logic of trade-based
expansion and re-regulation[Calabrese 2004]. In other words, as
the majorityof former non-aligned third world national represen-
tatives were signing on to the new terms of the neoliberal infor-
mation economy in the 1990s, it was northern-basedcivil society
organisationsthat began to formulate an oppositional "humanitar-
ian agenda".Among otherorganisations,these included the World
Association of Community Radio Broadcasters(AMARC) based
in Canada, the World Association for Christian Communication
(WACC) based in the UK, and the Association for Progressive
Communication,a loose network of NGOs that began in the US
and the UK. It is importantto point out thatI am focusing primarily
on the emerging multilateralpolicy arenaaround the information
economy, as opposed to the various formal and informalnetworks
and projectsat the local, national and regional levels thatinvolved
competing and complementaryforms of activism, opposition and
intervention [Downing 2001; Lovink 2002].
Introducing an alternative normative vision for the rules
governing the information economy, these groups argued for
treatingknowledge as common property,distinguishing between
the rights of citizens versus consumers, regulating global media
concentration,promoting cultural autonomy throughexemptions
to trade rules in the cultural arena and promoting individual
privacy [Hamelink 2002]. In 2001, some of the NGOs working
in this areaformed the Communication Rights for the Information
Society (CRIS) campaign, in response to the formation of the
WSIS as a multistakeholder summit. The CRIS campaign has
played a pivotal role in coordinating a civil society voice in the
WSIS process, reinforcing the right to communicate as a foun-
dation for debates about social justice:
Our vision of the informationsociety is groundedin the right to
communicate,as a meansto enhancehumanrightsandto strengthen
the social, economic andculturallives of people andcommunities.
The informationsociety that interests us is one that is based on
principlesof transparency,diversity, participationand social and
economic justice, and inspiredby equitable gender. culturaland
regional perspectives.
<http://www.crisinfo.org/content/view/full/79>
It is apparent from this statement that there are some conti-
nuities but also obvious ruptures from the social justice vision
of the earlierNWICO era.The redistributivefocus in this discourse
emphasises ensuring open public communication and equitable
access to the means of communications across national, class,
gender along other lines. In terms of claims for recognition, this
new vision disavows the role of nation state, and instead focuses
on the culturalautonomyof communities andthe individualhuman
right to communication. It is this latter focus on communication
as a human right that found a level of "transculturalresonance"
[Keck and Sikkink 1998] lending a significant degree of legitimacy
to these claims in the multistakeholderarena,andin the next section
I consider why this is the case.
Recognition without Redistribution?
The influence of CRIS and other recognised civil society actors
on shaping policy outcome through the WSIS process were
limited in practice. Responding to criticism about the narrow
252
This content downloaded from 150.131.192.151 on Fri, 01 Jan 2016 08:19:04 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
institutional mandate that had historically excluded civil society
participation,the sponsoring ITU commissioned a "civil society
division" meant to facilitate the full participationof civil society
in the summitry process. Still, the principal actors in WSIS were
its 191 member states and the over 650 corporate actors repre-
sented by the ominously named "Coordinating Committee of
Business Interlocutors"(CBBI). Among civil society organisations
themselves there remained a deep imbalance. The very definition
of recognised stakeholders, the structural constraints placed
through an emphasis on minute procedural details, and finally
the centralisation of the civil society bureaucracymeant that by
and large the voice of civil society within the WSIS was both
concentrated and narrowly limited to northernorganisations and
their terms of debate, despite the formally open process.
The WSIS process was preceded by the three preparatory
committee (PrepCom) meetings as well as regional meetings
facilitated by UNESCO, leading to the first WSIS in Geneva in
December 2003. The multistakeholders submitted written con-
tributions to the ITU, however, unlike corporate and state rep-
resentatives who followed an already procedures established
within the ITU, the new procedural terms of engagement domi-
nated discussions amongst civil society groups, and in the end,
only recognised organisations registered through the intergov-
ernmentalITU and coordinated by the civil society bureau(CSB)
would count as civil society delegates. The working definition
of civil society within the WSIS process formulatedthe following
definition of who counted as civil society:
Organisations- includingmovements,networks,andotherentities
- which areautonomousfromthe State,arenot intergovernmental,
or do not representthe privatesector, and which, in principle,are
non-profit-making,act locally, nationally,and internationally,in
defence andpromotionof social, economic, andculturalinterests,
defence of human rights, promotionof developmentobjectives,
and for mutual benefit.
<http://www.choike.org/nuevo_eng/informes/355 1.html>
The organisationof a civil society "voice" was thus coordinated
from above through the CSB, organised around regional
cluster groups, as well as "Families and Focal Points" covering
16 distinct thematic areas. from NGOs, media and educational-
and academic research to indigenous communities, trade
unions, people with disabilities, youth and gender
(see <http://www.csbureau.org/contactinformation.htm>)
With the question of who counts as civil society becoming a
central focus leading up to the Geneva summit, CSOs began to
voice concerns with the fact that national representatives to the
intergovernmental ITU from authoritarian states like China,
Pakistan, Singapore and Tunisia were preventing the accredita-
tion of independent human rights groups from participating
[Banks 2005]. This issue was bolstered by the fact that state
representatives from northernnations as well as CSO represen-
tatives strongly opposed the Chinese delegation's persistent
objection to the inclusion of language in the WSIS official
documents that would support the principles of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, including Article 19 guaranteeing
the right to the freedom of expression.
Although the communication rights and human rights cam-
paigns were committed to a more expansive vision of the right
to communication - rights which include access to the infra-
structureand content - northernstate delegates, led most aggres-
sively by the US, strategically separated the narrow definition
of the rightto communicate from other areas like financing access
Economic and Political Weekly January 21, 2006
to affordabletelecommunicationsandICTs andrethinkingintelle-
ctual property rights in terms of more open access to content.
In Geneva, John Marburger,the US representative to the summit
spelled out the three key principles of ICT development in his
plenary address:
First,domesticpolicies mustencourageinvestmentin researchand
innovation.This means supportingprivatisation,competition,and
liberalisation...Second...uncensored print and broadcast media
bring new perspectives on old issues, and stimulate timely re-
sponsesto emergingsocial needs. Duringthe pastweek stateshave
affirmedtheir commitmentto freedom of the press as well as to
independence,pluralism,anddiversityof the media. We call upon
all countriesto affirm and implementArticle 19 of the Universal
Declarationof HumanRights; Third...respect for intellectualas
well as physical propertyis a necessary part of the social infra-
structurefor success. This is an issue that transcendsnational
boundaries,buttogetherwe can createa global cultureof network
securitythatseeks to protectusers, no matterwhere they live. The
consensusachievedthis week emphasisesthe importanceof cyber-
security.
(JohnMarburger, director,Officeof ScienceandTechnologyPolicy,
Executive Office of the President,Geneva, December 11, 2003.)
<http://geneva.usmission.gov/press2003/1211 Marburger.htm>
It is thus not a surprise that the WSIS Declaration of Principles
(2003) reaffirms the right to the freedom of expression, a right
that virtually all CSOs, private sector actors and a vast majority
of nation states, most importantly nation states from the north,
support. In addition to human rights, the other substantive area
of the greatest civil society engagement was the issue of internet
governance, where CSOs called for greater democratisation of
ICANN, with the US and some of its northern allies and the
private sector arguing strongly for the status quo as a non-profit
organisation based in the US. However, other areas of disagree-
ment between civil society and its more powerful "partners"in
negotiation found little resolution or even discussion in this first
stage. The two most significant were the areas proprietarynorms
over intellectual propertyrights (IPRs) and financing the "bridge"
to the digital divide. In terms of the first area, northern states
have been largely successful at reinforcing existing IPRs and
keeping meaningful negotiation off the WSIS agenda, despite
the fact that southernnations like Argentina, Brazil, China, South
Africa, and others have arguedpersistently for the need to rethink
the redistributive and developmental impact of laws that favour
northern nations and private firms. The lack of movement on
this issue within the WSIS is in stark contrast to recent shifts
within the WTO and WIPO, where southern nations with the
support of civil society, have critiqued and introduced a series
of reforms within these institutions [Shashikant 2005]. Leading
up to the Geneva summit, the Senegalese delegation proposed
a "Digital Solidarity Fund" (DSF) to redistributeresources from
the north to the south to finance the expansion of ICTs that faced
strong opposition from the US, the EU and Japan. The US
proposed a counter "Digital Freedom Initiative" (DFI) that
essentially builds on a pre-existing US Agency for International
Development (USAID) African development scheme of promo-
ting "'enabling environments' for the creation of US corporate
interests in Africa" [Accuosto and Johnson 2005: 13-14]. Co-
ordinated opposition by northern state actors and the private
sector against establishing such a financing mechanism, rendered
the DSF a weak programme, dependent on voluntary contribu-
tions as opposed to a tax on users or firms. Accuosto and Johnson
(2005) have carefully documented the fact that little progress was
Economicand PoliticalWeekly January21, 2006
This content downloaded from 150.131.192.151 on Fri, 01 Jan 2016 08:19:04 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
made in this foundational area, despite the setting up of a new
multistakeholdertask force on financial mechanisms, which was
meant to highlight financing in the second phase of the summit.
At the end of the Geneva phase, most CSO participants and
observers agreed that the multistakeholder process had been
disappointing in terms of shaping policy outcome [Dany 2004].
Nevertheless, many CSO participantsarguedthat the opportunity
to build alliances and networks and expertise in the multi-
stakeholder process had its own merits, and that the formulation
of the civil society declaration was a testament to a competing
vision for policy-makers involved in local and national infor-
mation policy governance [Padovani 2004]. Within the organis-
ations representingcivil society there were intense disagreements
about the prioritisation of human rights over an economic de-
velopment agenda, which had been the rationalisation for the
formation of the summit itself. Human rights activists like Rikke
FrankJorgensen and Meryem Marzouki (2005) arguedthatit was
problematic to pose a distinction between unequal distribution
of wealth and human rights, as they are deeply intertwined, and
showed that "a number of CSOs do not see human rights as the
normative foundation for any society, independently of the level
of development, but rather as something secondary to issues of
development" (p 20). Although these same critics acknowledged
thatsome CSOs from the northhave a narrowdefinition of human
rights as limited to "freedom of expression", there was little
mention about the unequal power between nation states when
it comes to articulating the foundations for a global vision of
social justice in the information society.
The lack of strategic intervention on the areas of intellectual
property and access to ICTs was seen by many as the result of
the "low participation" of CSOs from the south. The fact that
European and north American organisations dominated civil
society discussions was explained by the prohibitive costs of
attendance, language of deliberation and requisite "expertise"in
ICT-relatedareas [Kleinwachter 2004]. And within civil society,
those who had been most active in the WSIS process, like Anriette
Esterhuysen, the executive director of APC, argued that the most
significant beneficial outcome had been the networking oppor-
tunities for southern CSOs to influence national policy.
Currently there is a national ICT policy process underway in
Kenya and it is relatively inclusive, involving civil society and
the private sector. In the Philippines, CSOs are measuring their
government's nationalpolicy process againstthe principlesagreed
on by civil society in its declaration to the WSIS. In South Africa,
SANGONeT, a progressive ICT service provider, is convening
public consultations on ICT policy in small and medium-sized
towns, faraway from Johannesburg,where community organisers
are able to confront government officials with questions such as
"Where are those phone lines we were promised in 1996?.' In
Senegal, ENDA Synfev, a women's networkinginitiativeconvened
a WSIS report-backsession attended by more than 75 women.
Participantsrangedfrom organisationsfor the disabled to IT entre-
preneurs.In Brazil a civil society organisation,RITS (ThirdSector
InformationNetwork) has launched an interactive online "obser-
vatory"to facilitatepublic participationin "info-inclusion"policy.
<http://www.choike.org/nuevo_eng/informes/1788.html>.
Building expertise in technical policy areas was surely a benefit
for a range of southern organisations either adapting the ICT
agenda onto local and national initiatives, however, this argument
that Southern CSOs can learn from the WSIS process and then
apply those lessons locally has an inherent bias. There is an
253
assumptionhere about the universalityof civil society as a formaldelegationof authorityfromtheUS Congressauthorised
concept,such thatmore trainingand resourcesto local NGOs its exerciseof publicpowers.Nor did its globalelectionsgive
in the areaof ICTswill inevitablylead to greaterpublic interest itlegitimacy, sincetheywerecancelledbeforefullimplementation.
interventionfollowing modelsestablishedin the north.In fact, Now ICANNcan claimsomedegreeof publicauthority. Many
as AnitaGurumurty andParminderJeet Singh (2005), directors peoplemayregrettheUN's implicitendorsement of ICANN,but
no one caneasilydismissthe validityof the process.ICANNis
of IT for changehave argued,there is a need to reinforcethe the samebut different[Klein2005].
centralityof the role of the state in discussionsaboutICTsand
"Same but different"was not seen as sufficient for many
development- as the only institutionalactorcapableof funding
andcoordinatingdevelopmentat this scale. In the case of India, activists andobservers,who arguedthatthefocusandultimately
wherenationalandregionalIT policy has been focusedalmost limited gains from the ICANN interventionshows that civil
was limitedto a privilegedfew who helped
exclusively at export-ledgrowth,they argue the domestic IT society networking
legitimate a deeply flawedprocessthatwas easily co-optedby
industryand the urbanmiddle classes would stronglyoppose
"subsidisedtelephony for rural areas,policy support open for the more dominant state and privateinterests[Gurstein 2005;
sourcesoftware,moreopen regimesfor knowledgeandcontent Busaniche2005].
This was evidentin the areaof financingof access to ICTs,
sharingin digital platforms"(p 115). They call for pressures
as
on thestateto reprioritiseICTs a developmentpriority. In this which was meantto be one of the two mainareasof discussion
veinCarlosAfonso (2005),thedirectorof RITS(theorganisation (alongsideinternetgovernance)at the Tunis meeting.Accusto
referredto above) arguesthat the reasonthatcivil society has and Johnsonhave arguedthatthe participationof CSOs in the
had moreimpacton debatesover Brazil's positionon internet multistakeholder taskforceonfinancingledonlyto the"inclusion
is because "the Brazilian continues to of some timid language intothe official documents"(p 24). The
governance government
seek a nationalconsensusproposalregardingthefutureof global DSF remained sidelined as a weakmodeof financingdependent
internetgovernance"(p131). on voluntary contributions formthe north.This "charity" model
The second phase of the summitfollowed anotherseries of of developmentis alsoprevalentin thenewemphasison "public-
PrepComandregionalmeetingsin 2004 and2005, thistimewith private-partnerships" (PPPs) between companies like Cisco,
civil societydeliberations"characterised by difference,division, Microsoft and Hewlett Packardandnationalgovernmentsas well
andquestionsof identityandrepresentation"[Banks 2005]. Key as UN bodies which run the risk of "imposingtechnological
from the involve in the WSIS process solutions that transform southern societiesin to captivemarkets"
figures groupscentrally
like Sean6 Siochru(2004) fromthe CRIScampaignandKaren [Accuosto and Johnson 2005, p 43]. Suggestionsfor redistribu-
Banks (2005) from APC pointed out that questions about the tive claims based on a global public goods modelof regulation
of civil were increasingly raised by US-backed that suggests taxation of the manufacture of microchipsor other
legitimacy society
conservativegroupschallengingthe social justice platformon methods of rising and allocating funds failed to make inroads
issueslike intellectual 4
propertyrights. Although this is no doubt leading up to the Tunis Summit. Furthermore, there was almost
the case, organisationsand individualsinvolved in the civil no discussionof theissueof IPRsin Tunis,withtheprivatesector
and northernstates effective in displacingthe centralissue of
society deliberationsalso raised the opposite set of concerns,
about the lack of focus on more expansive claims for both accessto contentandtechnologytransferalmostentirelyfromthe
recognition and redistribution. Beatriz Busaniche (2005), a free official deliberationsof the futureof the informationsociety.
softwareactivist from Argentinahas arguedthat attemptsat The fact thatTunisia- an authoritarian statewith an inexcus-
an able record on freedom of information - was to host the second
unifyinga watered-downrepresentativevoice in presenting
alternatecivil society declarationdiminishedthe capacity of summithad been an issue of muchdebatewithincivil society
The bantheplanned
delegatesto meaningfullyintervenein negotiationswithstateand leadingupto the summit. state'sdecisionto
corporatestakeholders,when most was actuallyat stake(p 49). parallel citizen's summit heightened concerns raised by CSOs
Here, once again we return to the issues of access to ICT on the question of human rights. During the summit, some 150
infrastructure andcontent,areaswhereCSOshadminimalimpact, people attendeda demonstrationto supporta hunger strike
raisingthe morefundamentalproblemover whichcivil society organisedby the TunisianHumanRightsLeagueprotestingthe
is meantto representin the multistakeholder process.Busaniche censorshipof thehumanrightsissuewithinTunisiaasthesummit
(2005) argues that participating CSOs "should not pretendto wastakingplace.Thefollowingfew paragraphs areexcerptsfrom
representanyoneexcepttheirown organisations" andthat"citi- a letter to secretarygeneral of the UN, Kofi Anan, signed by
zenry shouldbe the of
basis participation"(p 51). The second hundreds of individuals, many of whom are affiliated to CSOs
phase of the summit did not see any changes in the way that involved in the WSIS process:
civil societyparticipated in themultistakeholder process,leading We believeit is essentialthatlessonsare learntfromwhathas
to a growingsenseof disappointment amongstactivistsfromthe takenplaceherethis weekandwe thereforecall uponyou, the
southover the lack of confrontation,much less outcomeover secretarygeneralof the UnitedNations,to launcha full inves-
accessissues.ManyCSOsparticipating inTunisarguedthatthere tigation into the attacks on humanrights and freedom of
wasa substantialvictoryintheareaof internetgovernanceagainst expression thatwe havewitnessedinTunisiabothin therunupto
and US because civil andduringtheworldsummiton theInformation Society.Weask
corporateinterests, society participation
you to closely monitorthe follow-upperiodin Tunisia.
led to the establishmentof an IGF. Hans Klein, active in this We also ask you to undertake a thorough-going reviewof pro-
processas a civil societyexpertin theareaof internetgovernance ceduresleadingupto thechoiceof hostcountry,theprotocolfor
has arguedthatthe Tunis outcomeshouldbe seen as a victory hostcountryagreements withUN agenciesandthecommitments
in termsof democraticdeliberation: required of thehostcountry.Wefurtheraskyouto revisetheUN
BeforeWSIS,ICANNwas a sortof Frankenstein organisation rules for civil society accreditationto ECOSOCand to UN
createdin the basementof the US department of commerce.No conferencesin order to end the exclusion of civil society

254 Economicand PoliticalWeekly January21, 2006

This content downloaded from 150.131.192.151 on Fri, 01 Jan 2016 08:19:04 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 organisationswhere the basis for that exclusion is a decision of This line of argumentstronglyopposes any kind of tax-based
an individualgovernmentwith no right of appealto any indepen- solutionor globalpublicgood modelof regulationas proposed
dent commission. by CSOs from the south, as evident in the official documents
Open Letterto His Excellency Kofi A Annan, secretary-general producedin Tunis. Moreover,the greaterparticipationof the
United Nations
privatesectorensuredthatthe issue of intellectualpropertyand
<http://www.citizens-summit.org/Letter-SecGen-241105.shtml> the
"shrinkingpublic domain"was firmly "keptoff the WSIS
The cruel irony of Tunisa hosting a summit on the global agenda".In Geneva, open source softwarewas recognisedas
informationsociety was not lost on individuals and organisations important if notpreferentialfromtheperspectiveof development
that raised concerns, once again, with the narrow definition of by most southernnations.Partiallyin responseto this trend,the
rights in these discussions. This time the US state department NGO IP Watchhas reportedhow Microsoftbecamean official
voiced official "concern about Tunisia's restrictions on the sponsorof the WSIS Tunis summitgainingits own "speaking
broadcast media, restrictions on the activities of non-govern- slot" to reinforcethe importanceof the "strictprotectionof
mental organisations and harassment of journalists". while ar- intellectualproperty",expandedits participationin WSIS by
guing that the US' position on ICANN was a victory against bringing70 representatives to Tunisversussome six to Geneva
government censorship of the internet.5The US position on the andplayeda disproportionate role in draftingthe official WSIS
issue of human rights seems especially galling today given the documents[Ermert2005].
Bush administration's persistent evasion if not violation of Thelegitimacyof a limitednumberof northernCSOsto define
universal standards applied to other nations and peoples.6 andarticulatea visionof socialjusticein the globalpolicy arena
If civil society engaged primarily in the areas of human rights waschallengedby someon thegroundsthatcivil societyin WSIS
and Internet governance, the Tunis summit showed how the was a "closednetworkof theprivileged"thathadlost touchwith
private sector had mastered the discourse of sustainable and socialmovementsandbroaderpoliticalclaims[Gurnstein 2005].
multicultural info-development. The site of the summit, physi- A numberof international activistsandresearchersinvolvedin
cally separated and secured through armed checkpoints, was and at the marginsof the WSIS processhave formedthe inno-
festooned with largerthan life images of "colourful non-western" vativeIncommunicado project,startedby MichaelGurstein and
peoples - especially women and children - actively benefiting GeertLovink,"refusingto allowan organisational incorporation
from their use of ICTs. As some of the most high-level nego- of grassrootor subalternagendasinto the managedconsensus
tiations went on behind closed doors - open primarily to state being builtaroundthe dynamicof an 'international civil (infor-
delegates and the private sector, and a few select representatives mation)society"'.This new formationoffers "post-sovereign"
from civil society - a sea of prime ministers and presidents or perspectiveand "waysof using (and remaking)ICTs to be of
heads of ministries of information and communications from benefittothe'multitudes' ".7Thispost-sovereign normativevision
southern states gave speeches in a vast (half empty) plenary hall. is reminiscentof the WorldSocial Forumwherethe claimsfor
Northern governments sent, for the most part, minor officials socialjusticewerecertainlymoreexpansivethanwhatwe found
and bureaucrats and CEOs from a variety of ICT and media withintheITU-sponsored WSIS.Inthefinalsectionof thepaper,
conglomerates. Alongside these official events organised by the I arguethatwhile alternativesto the WSIS processis certainly
ITU, hundreds of parallel panels on a range of topics took place desirable,we can also locate more expansiveclaims for social
similar to any professional conference. The most traffic, however, justicethatengagewithrecognition, redistributionandthequestion
was concentrated in the hi-tech corporate expo featuring of representation if we lookatthegendercaucuswithintheWSIS
Negreponte's $100 hand-crank laptop and other magical and as a site of progressiveinstitutionalengagement.
innovative solutions from vendors across Europe and north
America, and Asia selling their latest wares to UN agencies,
Looking Forward
governments in the south and NGOs carrying out a growing
number of development projects. ThefactthatCSOswithintheWSISwereableto makeclaims
In the two years between Geneva and Tunis, the private sector about human rights that had "transculturalresonance"but
had maintained a "low profile", while "injecting hundreds of wereunableto make a dent in terms of redistributiveclaims,
millions of dollars into communications for the south through forcesus to pay attentionto the structurallimitationsof multi-
PPPs. Accuosto and Johnson (2005) point out, "the majority of stakeholderism,as well as the conceptuallimitationsof civil
these resources consists of transfer of equipment and software society as a universalcategory.It is ahistoricalto assumethat
programmes for education centres in the south, a strategy de- NGOsthathave in the last two decadesplayeda pivotalrolein
signed to create loyal new markets" (p 22). In Tunis, the "trade "sanitising" social movementsin the southarerepresentative of
fair" feeling of the event was played down by corporate repre- the "people"[Jenkins 2001; Chandhoke2001]. In contrastto the
sentatives who pointed out that their booths were not manned north,whereCSOshave emergedin publicpolicy debatesover
by salespeople but rather "community affairs" or "public sector communicationand informationpolicy as "publicinterest"or
managers". Representatives from Sun Microsytems, Microsoft, "consumer rights"groups,in post-colonialsocietieswemnust pay
Nokia, among others argued that they were "selling success attentionto the murkylines whichdividestateinstitutionsfrom
stories" of e-governance, promotion of local language software civil society, as well as those betweencivil society and what
and mobile telephony in ruralAfrica [Toros 2005]. The growing ParthaChatterjee(2004) has called, political society. In other
presence of the private sector in the development arena was words,it is simplyinadequateto arguethatbasedon the absence
explained as a "win-win" proposition, as the managing director of CSOs in the southorganisingaroundICTs,thatthe public's
for Africa of Hewlett-Packard Co explained "Investors are not interestwouldbe met whenthereis greatercivil societypartici-
doing business only for charity...Business must be sustainable. pationthroughmultistakeholder process.This assumptiontakes
And funds could be cycled to local communities" [Toros 2005]. for grantedthatCSOs are representative in and of themselves.

Economicand PoliticalWeekly January21, 2006 255

This content downloaded from 150.131.192.151 on Fri, 01 Jan 2016 08:19:04 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
In practice,CSOs workingin the area of informationpolicy claims for greater"gendersensitive infrastructuredevelopment",
shouldbe historicallysituatedin relationto nationstateandthe affordable universal access and sustainable and appropriate
complextrajectories of modemcapitalism.Itis preciselythisneed technologies, prioritisation of free and open software and atten-
for greaterattentionto the specificitiesof the informationso- tion to gender-biases in educational and employment opportu-
cieties in the souththathas led to new "south-south" alliances nities associated with ICTs, among other areas. In keeping with
as well as researchinitiativeswheremuchmoreexpansiveclaims the previous discussion, the gender caucus had limited influence
for recognitionareenvisionedaroundredistributive claimsover in shaping policy outcome, beyond a much disputed paragraph
access to infrastructure and content.8 on women's empowerment and gender equality through access
The genderdivide in the global informationsociety is stark, to ICTs in the Geneva Declaration of Principles as well as in the
with girls and women facing universaldisadvantagesin terms Tunis Commitment and a pledge to establish "gender-sensitive
of access,competenceas well as social andeconomicmobility indicators" for "ICT uses and needs". As Jensen (2005a) points
in termsof ICTs. I arguethat despite the limitationsimposed out, however, the limited gains throughthe WSIS process have to
by theITU'sorganisational structureof multistakeholderism,the be weighed against insights from the regional activities thatdraw
gendercaucus allowed for the articulationof more expansive from the priorities and experiences of activists and researchers
claimsforrecognitionandredistribution aswellasgreateremphasis and their role in following up and monitoring the implementation
on the issue of representation as a resultof decadesof volatile of WSIS priorities in the years to come.
and invariablyproductivediscussion in feminist theory and It was often in these regional meetings where activists voiced
politics about how to formulatecampaignsfor global social concerns about differences in priorities between CSOs in the
justice while paying attentionto difference[Chakravartty and northand south and the lack of community or citizen participation
Sarikakis2006: McLaughlin2004]. in the WSIS deliberative process [Mundkur and Kochar 2005].
If northernCSOsmost activelyengagedin the WSISprocess Feminist critics within the WSIS process arguedthat social actors
can tracetheiroriginsto the NWICOdebatesandthe legacy of engaged in the policy-making field often fail to recognise the
the MacBrideCommission,then the genderjustice advocates reality of the politics of information policy, especially in the case
who took partin WSIS have a very distincttrajectoryfromthe of the developing world where the stakes of the IS debate are
1985and 1995UN-sponsoredsummiton womenin Nairobiand perhaps the highest and progressive civil society participation,
Beijing which set the stage for two decades of transnational the weakest. This means that instead of finding or funding CSOs
advocacyandfiercedebateoverwomen'sempowerment,gender based in the south to carryout policies, activists within the gender
equality and norms of modernisation.The individuals and caucus have argued that there is a need to learn from how civil
organisations thatbecameinvolvedin theWSISprocessthrough society organisations, state bodies and even informal networks
the establishmentof the multistakeholder gendercaucusin 2002 thathave less institutionalpower, approachclaims making around
in Mali brought a wealth of experience in transnational information policy. It is beyond the scope of this paper to
mobilisationgroundedin a broadersocial concernsthan most document the myriad ways in which the relatively small numbers
activistsandpolicy-makersin therelativelynarrowworldof ICT of feminists working in this new policy domain are reframing
governance.Therewasobviouslya rangeof politicalperspectives the ICT for development agenda, but it is clear that the gender
thatdividedthe"partners" bothideologicallyandgeographically caucus allowed for the space to discuss the foundational issues
withinthiscaucus,buthereI focus brieflyon the spacethatwas of access to ICT infrastructureand content.
createdfor criticaldeliberation. Feminist activists have been some of the loudest critics within
Heiki Jensen(2005a), a researcherand active participantin the WSIS process, of the "marketfundamentalism" inherent in
the WSIS, has arguedthatthe gendercaucuswas distinctboth global and national ICT policy where "pro-poor"interventions
becauseit was a multistakholder bodyandbecauseit hadfunding can only bejustified through"pro-market"solutions [Gurumurthy
(from developmentagencies within several Nordic states and 2005]. Feministresearcherswho have conductedempirical studies
UNIFEM),unlikeothercaucuseswithinthe"civilsocietyfamily". of women workers in the south have argued that there is a need
The structuralorganisationof the gendercaucus thus allowed for greater state intervention in enabling as well as promoting
for regionalmeetingswith local organisationsand individuals, educational and employment opportunities for women in ICT-
with an emphasison incorporatingperspectivesfromthe south related fields - from chip manufacturers,to data processors and
especiallyleadingupto thesecondphaseof thesummit.Feminist call centre workers, to computer programmers [Ng and Mitter
activistsarguedfromthe beginningthata sense of technological 2005]. Feminist advocates from the south argued persistently for
determinism,insensitivityto genderinequalitiesand the domi- the need to the prioritise productive capacities of ICTs over the
nance of male "experts" was rampant across all three consumption of ICT services in the developing world, especially
multistakeholder bodies, includingcivil society organisations as they might impact marginalisedcommunities. These examples
thatpromoted"gender-blindand hence male-centered"policy demonstrate that redistributive claims over appropriatetechnol-
interventions[Jensen2005b].Feministorganisationswithinthe ogy and basic ICT access are deeply entangled in claims for
gendercaucusvoicedconcernsaboutgeo-politicalenvironment recognition markedby gender, class, race and nationality, among
withinwhichthe WSIS summitwas takingplace, and spokeof otherdifferences. Similarly, two decades of struggles and debates
thehumanrightsof girls,womenandmarginalisedcommunities over representationwithin transnationalcivil society, have given
in the contextof the GlobalWaron Terror;"We cannothope genderjustice advocates a wider perspective on how to challenge
for an informationsociety thatpromotesthe highestvalues of the eurocentric claims of human rights without abandoning an
humankind if we do notaddressmeaningfullythe waysin which emancipatoryvision of social justice. Learningfrom these lessons
informationand communicationschannelsincludingthe media is crucial if civil society engagement in the WSIS implementation
can be harnessedin service of peace, and in strongopposition and follow-up phase is to avoid the narrowest claims for rec-
to all illegalwars"[George2003]. Genderadvocateshavemade ognition - the right to freedom of expression - to become the

256 Economicand PoliticalWeekly January21, 2006

This content downloaded from 150.131.192.151 on Fri, 01 Jan 2016 08:19:04 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
single issue that defines the ethical dimensionsof the global Gupta, Akhil (2001): 'The Song of the Non-Aligned World:Transnational
IdentitiesandtheReinscriptionof Spacein LateCapitalism'in AkhilGupta
informationsociety.1I andJamesFerguson(eds), CulturePower Place: Explorationsin Critical
Anthropology,Duke University Press, Durham,NC, pp 179-202.
Email:pchakrav @comm.umass.edu Gurumurthy,Anita (2005): 'Trackingthe DevelopmentAgenda at WSIS' in
Olga Drossouand Heiki Jensen (eds), Visionsin Process 11of the World
Notes Summiton the InformationSociety, Heinrich Boll Foundation,Berlin,
pp 90-97.
1 This paperis basedon argumentsinitially developed in a co-writtenbook Gurumurthy,Anita and ParminderJeet Singh (2005): 'Political Economy
with KatharineSarikakis(2006). Globalisation and Media Policy. My of the InformationSociety: A Southern View' in Instituto del Tercer
analysisof the WSIS process is basedon a series of ongoing conversations Mundo (ITeM), Information Society for the South: Vision or
with KatharineSarikakisand Yuezhi Zhao. GianpaoloBaiocchi's careful Hallucination? Montevideo, ITeM, Uruguay, pp 103-16.
readingand commentswere also crucial for the completion of this paper. Gurstein,Michael (2005): 'Networking the Networked/Closingthe Loop:
Researchfor this paperis based on analysis of WSIS-relateddocuments, Some Notes on WSIS II', <http://incommuincacdo.info/aggregator/
discussions with civil society participantsand attendanceof the WSIS sources/42>.
meeting in Tunis, November 2005. InternationalTelecomunicationsUnion (2005): Tunis Commitment;Tunis
2 For a range of perspectives see the special issue of the journal Global Agendafor the InformationSociety; Geneva Declaration of Principles;
Media and Communication,1 (3), 2005. Geneva Plan of Action, <http://www.itu.int/wsis/>.
3 The 2003 civil society declaration was published at the ITU site and Jenkins,Rob (2001): 'Mistaking"Governance"for "Politics":ForeignAid,
referencedwidely elsewhere, see: http://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-s/md/ Democracy and the Constructionof Civil Society' in Sudipta Kaviraj
03/wsis/doc/S03-WSIS-DOC-0004! !PDF-E.pdf.>Atthetimeof publication and Sunil Khilnani (eds), Civil Society: History and Possibilities,
of this article, the 2005 Tunis civil society declarationwas still in the CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge, pp 250-68.
process of being finalised. Jensen,Heiki (2005a): 'GenderEqualityandthe MultistakeholderApproach:
4 O'Siochru (2003) has shown the influence of organisations like WSIS as Best Practice'in Olga Drossou and Heiki Jensen (eds),Visions
<www.ngowatch.org> which is a project of the American Enterprise in Process II of the WorldSummiton the InfbrmationSociety, Heinrich
Institute and the Federalist Society. Boll Foundation,Berlin, pp 53-62.
5 See US state department press release on the Tunis meeting: - (2005b): 'Gender Caucus in WSIS: Challenges for Gender Equality',
http://usinfo.state.gov/gi/Archive/2005/Nov/19-134756.html Information for Development, <http://www.i4donline.net/march05/
6 See Humanrightswatchon civil libertiesand humanrightviolationsafter gender.asp>.
September 11, 2001. <http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/septemberl 1/>. Jorgensen,Rikke FrankandMeyremMarzouki(2005): 'HumanRights:The
7 Formoreon Incommunicadosee theirwebsite at: <http://incommunicado. Missing Link' in Olga Droussou and Heike Jensen (eds), Visions in
info/conference>. Process II of the WorldSummiton the InformationSociety, Heinrich
8 A number of south-south research initiatives have been launched in Boll Foundation,Berlin, pp 17-23.
response to the inadequaciesof the WSIS process. See: Briefing Papers Kabeer, Naila (2002): The Power to Choose: Bangladeshi-Women and
InformationSociety for the South: Vision or Hallucination, published Labour Market Decisions in London and Dhaka, Verso, London.
by Instituto del Tercer Mundo (IteM), <http://wsispapers.choike.org/>. - (2003): ReversedRealities: GenderHierarchies in DevelopmentThought,
Verso, New York.
References Keck,MargeretandKathrynSikkink(1998):ActivistswithoutBorders:Advocacy
Networksin InternationalPolitics, Cornell University Press, Ithaca.
Accusoto, Pablo and Niki Johnson (2005): 'Financing the Information Klein, Hans (2005): 'An Assessment of the WSIS Tunis 05 Outcomes',
Society in the South: A Global Public Goods Perspective' in Instituto November 23, 2005: <http://www.ip3.gatech.edu/images/Significance_
del Tercer Mundo (ITeM) InformationSociety for the South: Vision or of_WSIS-II_Tunis-05.pdf>.
Hallucination? Briefing Papers Towards the World Summit on the Kleinwachter,Wolfgang(2004): 'Beyond ICANN vs ITU? How WSISTries
InformationSociety, Montevideo, ITeM, Uruguay, pp 13-46. to Enter the New Territory of Internet Governance', Gazette: The
Association of Progressive Communications(APC) (2005): 'Civil Society InternationalJournalfor CommunicationStudies, 66 (3-4), pp 233-51.
and the Tunis Declaration' <m/informationpolicy/2005/1 l/civil_ Lovink, Geert(2002): Dark Fibre: TrackingCriticalInternetCulture, MIT
society_t.html>. Press, Cambridge,MA.
Benhabib, Seyla (2004): Claims of Culture: Equality and Diversity in the Mattelart,Armand(2002): MappingWorldCommunication:War,Progress,
Global Era, Princeton University Press, Princeton. Culture, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.
of Trans-
Busaniche,Beatriz(2005): 'Civil Society in the Carousel:Who Wins, Who McLaughlin,Lisa (2004): 'Feminism and the Political Economy
Loses andWho Is Forgottenby the MultistakeholderApproach?',Visions national Public Space', The Sociological Review, 52 (1), pp 156-75.
in Process II of the WorldSummiton the InformationSociety, Heinrich Mohanty,Chandra(2004): FeminismwithoutBorders:Decolonising Theory,
Boll Foundation,Berlin, pp 46-52. Practising Solidarity, Duke University Press, Durham.
Calabrese,Andrew(2004): 'ThePromiseof Civil Society:A GlobalMovement Mundkur,Anu andPiyoo Kochar(2005): MappingGenderin the InJbrmation
for CommunicationRights', Continuum:Journal of Media and Cultural Economy: From Reality to Discourse. October 31, 2005. Bangkok.
Studies, 18(3), pp 317-29. Thailand, <http://itforchange.net/mambo/content/view/72/32/>.
and ICTs: EmploymentOpportunities
Chakravartty,Paula and Katharine Sarikakis (2006): Globalisation and Mitter,Swasti (2002): 'Globalisation
Media Policy, EdinburghUniversity Press, Edinburgh. for Women', UNCTAD, <http://gab.wigsat.org/partIII.pdf>.
Chandhoke,Neera(2001): 'The Limitsof Global Civil Society' in H Anheier Ng, Celia and Swasti Mitter (2005): 'Valuing Women's Voices', Gender,
et al (eds), Global Civil Society, Oxford University Press, pp 79-101. Technology and Development, 9 (2), pp 209-33.
Chatterjee,Partha(2004):ThePoliticsof the Governed:Reflectionson Popular 6 Siochru, Sean (2003): Global Governance of Information and
Politics in Most of the World,Columbia University Press, New York. CommunicationsTechnologies: Implicationsfor Transnational Civil
Dany, Charlotte(2004): 'Civil Society and the Preparationsfor the WSIS Society Networking, Social Science Research Council, New York,
2003: Did Input Lead to Influence?', Heinrich-Boll-Foundation. <http.www.ssrc.org/programs/itic.>
<http://www.worldsummit2003.de/en/web/615.htm>. Padovani,Claudia(2004): 'Three Questions About WSIS: A Civil Society
Downing, John (2001): Radical Media: Rebellious Communicationand Perspective From Within' ITI, 3 (4), pp 123-25.
Social Movements. Sage, London. Preston, William, EdwardS Hermanand HerbertI Schiller (1989): Hope
Ermert,Monika(2005): 'IntellectualPropertyIssues Keptof WSIS Agenda', and Folly: The United States and Unesco, 1945-85, University of
IP-Watch, <http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/wp-trackback.php/158>. Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN.
Fraser, Nancy and Axel Honneth (2003): Redistributionor Recognition: Toros, Hilmi (2005): 'Big Business Shine at InformationSociety Summit',
A Political-Philosophical Exchange, Verso, New York. Terraviva, December 10, <http://www.ipsterraviva.net/tv/tunis/
George, Susanna (2005): 'NGO Gender Strategies Working Group viewstory.asp?idnews=393>.
Intervention', Isis International Manila, <http://www.isiswomen.org/ Young, Iris (2000): Inclusion and Democracy, Oxford University Press,
onsite/wsis/ngo-gsw-intervention.html>. Oxford.

Economicand PoliticalWeekly January21, 2006 257

This content downloaded from 150.131.192.151 on Fri, 01 Jan 2016 08:19:04 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions