Monitoring Policy Making at the United Nations |
| ||||||||||||
ngo access to e-docs NGO Access to Electronic Documents
on the
United Nations Optical Disk SystemStatement drafted by James Paul
April 25, 1997
Memo sent to Secretary General Kofi Annan
This memo examines issues involved in the controversy over NGO access to the UN Optical Disk System (ODS). It follows two earlier, widely-circulated letters (dated February 7th and February 28th) sent by James Paul of Global Policy Forum to Ambassador Kamal of Pakistan in his capacities as Chair of the Working Group on Informatics and Chair of the Sub-Group on NGOs of the Working Group on Strengthening the UN System. Those letters argued that the announced charge of $1,150 per year for NGO access to the ODS is prohibitive and should be eliminated -- NGOs should have access to electronic documents of the United Nations for free, exactly as they have free access to print documents. Some of the earlier points were these:
1) NGOs have a firmly-established right of access to UN documents, affirmed in ECOSOC documents and confirmed by over fifty years of practice. The newly-announced policy goes against a trend of increasing the NGOs’ role at the UN and it is in clear contridiction with ECOSOC Resolution 1996/31, especially paragraphs 67 and 69.
2) NGOs need documentary information as UN partners in a wide variety of activities. NGOs work increasingly closely with the UN system as partners in humanitarian relief, human rights, post-conflict peace-building, development aid delivery and more. In this role, they need full and speedy access to UN documentary information, in many worldwide locations. This partnership cannot flourish if the UN restricts information access.
3) NGOs are disseminators of UN information and provide a valuable extension to the work of the Department of Public Information. NGOs circulate UN information in newsletters, reports, electronic list-serves, web sites and more. As such, they must have full and unrestricted access to UN information. It is in the UN’s best interest to make this information freely available.
4) Non-English-speakers face discrimination in the present communication policy, which depends on the English-oriented World Wide Web site. ODS, with all official languages represented, offers non-discriminatory access to UN documents.
5) UN cost-saving can be achieved by eliminating much of the cost of printing and distributing documents.
6) Increased global equity of information access can result from free NGO access to ODS, because NGOs located at a distance from headquarters will benefit most from this electronic service. By contrast, service-access based on a high fee will favor rich, Northern institutions that will be the only ones that can afford to pay.
As Agenda for Democratization stated just a short time ago: "non-governmental organizations can bring not only strengthened legitimacy [to the UN] but also field experience and expertise across a vast array of human concerns, as well as valuable capacity for information-gathering and dissemination. Non-governmental organizations are proving extremely powerful in fighting isolationism and indifference among both Governments and citizens, and in mobilizing public opinion and support, especially financial support and donor assistance." The UN must take these words to heart.
Since the letters to Ambassador Kamal were written, the UN press corps has strongly expressed similar, legitimate concerns of its own.We have also recently learned additional information about ODS pricing. According to the ODS home page, sharing of access by users is prohibited. Special prices will be charged for "multi-user" access. Thus, for example, NGOs like Oxfam, WEDO, FIDH, Third World Network, ENDA, Medicins sans Frontières or Amnesty International, with many offices and affiliates around the world, would have to pay considerably more than $1,150 in order to obtain general organizational access. This will make the cost of ODS an ever greater burden than we first imagined.
This memo considers objections that have been raised in the Department of Public Information (DPI) [now the Office of Communications and Media Services] and elsewhere in the Secretariat with respect to NGO access. It reflects substantial conversations with persons in DPI who have ODS and Web Site responsibilities. We appreciate the time they took to speak to us and the friendly exchange of views that was possible. In what follows, the DPI concerns are first identified and then answers are given.
(1) Few NGOs Are Affected
Those raising the ODS issue represent only a tiny, vocal fraction of all NGOs. The Secretariat seeks to serve the 95% that have no interest in ODS.NGO concern about the ODS issue is not just coming from a few malcontents. It is widespread. Some of those who have expressed concern are large international organizations such as the World Federalist Movement, Amnesty International and other organizations sponsoring this memorandum. Virtually all are active disseminators of UN information.
It is true that most NGOs do not have the technical infrastructure to make use of the ODS immediately. Many, however, are in the process of acquiring the equipment, as prices continue to drop and the program value of internet-connectivity becomes more apparent. Most NGOs understand the importance of access to ODS to their future work. In fact, NGOs in several different regions have raised the issue locally with UN information offices. Members of the new CONGO NGO sub-committee on Technology are preparing a statement on the subject. CONGO has itself expressed concern.
(2) The UN Web Site is Sufficient
The UN web site (with related gophersites) is the main access point for NGOs and the general public seeking electronic UN documents. Usage is huge. The Dag Hammarskjold Llibrary (DHL) is making a major effort to put up new documents on the site, including documents from the International Tribunals, Security Council and other issues of interest. Many more documents will be available in future than are now available on the site. Nothing more is needed.The UN web site is indeed an important and accessible resource, and we hope it will continue to develop. But at present the web site is almost exclusively in English and it posts only a small fraction (perhaps a tenth) of all UN documents. The large usage of the UN site is now coming from Anglophones, whereas the UN must affirm a greater linguistic even-handedness. The UN web site now posts only a smattering of French and Spanish -- and nothing whatsoever in Chinese, Russian or Arabic. The web may be more user-friendly than ODS, but it can never provide the comprehensive documentation archive that ODS represents.
(3) Full UN Documents are Available in Print Form
Those needing full documentation can get it via the ODS connection at the DHL or in print form at headquarters or at local depository libraries worldwide.Increasingly, NGOs need documents in electronic form for redissemination. This means that those without ODS/DHL access must go through a time-consuming (and error-prone) electronic scanning process. For those located away from headquarters, waiting six months or more for documents to arrive at a local depository library is not a reasonable alternative in time-sensitive international negotiations.
(4) The UN Financial Crisis Rules Out New Expenses without Offsetting Fees
UN budgets have been cut, making new and additional services (like ODS) difficult to provide on a free-of-charge basis.It is not clear that the budgetary impact of NGO-ODS access will be negative, when all things are taken into account. We are inclined to think that the UN will actually save money, notably through savings on printing and distribution of documents (including worldwide distribution). There will probably be costs associated with a much-needed upgrade of the ODS, including additional phone lines, but this technical infrastructure will in any case be needed to service adequately member states. Similar (and more high-volume) infrastructure is also provided for the free-access UN web site.
(5) The ODS is Slow and Might be Overwhelmed By a Flood of New Users
The ODS is slow and it needs a technical upgrade. At present the system does not always respond adequately to external users. A large number of new NGO users could overburden the system and make it even more onerous for missions to use.This objection is in contradiction with objection (1) above, in that it assumes not a miniscule NGO demand but rather a very large one. In fact, we expect relatively moderate NGO use at first, building up to substantial use over a period of 1-3 years. In any case, ODS will certainly have to be upgraded (though we understand that a moderate investment in a new server is mainly what is needed). Even without any NGO use, the system is not working well. Missions and NGOs together have a joint interest in the upgrade.
(6) NGO’s Will not Want to Use ODS, Because It Isn’t User-Friendly. Much Training is Required
ODS, unlike the web, is not a user-friendly system. It requires more computer literacy than the web. Keyword searches are limited. For greatest retrieval success, users need to know document numbers. It is thus not the best system for broad public usage. Further, the DHL is working now to train missions in use of the ODS. Major NGO use of ODS would require additional informational and training work that would further overburden DHL’s scarce resources.NGOs have staff and interns that are often extremely capable at using complex computer technologies, so ODS is hardly a daunting challenge. In fact, through use of the ODS work stations in the DHL, many interested NGOs already know how to use the system. Other NGOs can be expected to come into the system slowly and many will learn from one another. Demand on DHL training will be minimal.
(7) The UN Should be Able to Impose a Reasonable Fee for ODS, like Other Publications
A user charge is reasonable and rational and should be compared to fees for similar services like Lexis-Nexis and Bloomberg. Further, the Secretariat should be free to price sales items in relation to costs and in response to the UN's need for additional income at a time of budget stringency.The comparison of ODS with Nexis-Lexis and Bloomberg is very inappropriate These commercial services are not a public decision-making body seeking transparency. They are private service-providers, selling information purely for a profit. Lexis-Nexis can cost anywhere from $500 to $2,500 per month for a single-port hookup. Bloomberg is even more expensive. These fees guarantee immediate access to a gigantic database of proprietary documents from newspapers, periodicals, etcetera in a very user friendly environment.
The most apt comparison of ODS is with internet government document archives that today are increasingly making official documents available for free, without restriction. As for the claim that the UN must raise money to meet its reduced budgets, sales of ODS at $1,150 per NGO user are scarcely going to produce significant revenues. In fact, we would be surprised if more than a handful of NGOs sign up. Revenues might reach a mere $10,000 per year, a sum that will have no material impact on the UN’s operating costs.
(8) The Secretariat Has No Responsibility to Consult with NGOs on ODS Pricing
Secretariat staff didn’t consult NGOs prior to announcing the ODS pricing policy, because the Secretariat is responsible to member states and not to NGOs. If NGOs want to consult, they should do so through their focal points – the DPI-NGO section and the ECOSOC-NGO office.We have been surprised to discover how unresponsive the Secretariat has been on this issue and how little consideration has been given to mechanisms for consultation. On at least two occasions, proposals for consultation on ODS have been rejected by Secretariat staff out of hand. This approach is contrary to the expressed policy of the Secretary General and it is contrary to ECOSOC resolution language which mandates consultation between NGOs and the Secretariat on "matters of mutual concern."
Environmental Consideration
As a number of NGOs have pointed out, the ODS is a more environmentally sustainable system than print documents, since it eliminates paper and ink. And it eliminates the environmental impact of transporting the documents to distant places by sea or by air. It does not, of course, eliminate all environmental impact, since end-users may print-out the documents themselves, but it moves in a more sustainable direction. Surely this dimension of the questions should also be taken into account by the Secretariat.In Conclusion
We believe that the arguments favoring NGO access to ODS without charge are very powerful. We suspect that the UN would benefit from opening the ODS to the press and to other audiences as well.We strongly recommend that the United Nations rescind its earlier NGO pricing policy and move towards an open-access policy in a reasonable time-frame, consistent with technical requirements and budgetary limitations. We hope that NGO access to an upgraded ODS can be available soon.
Signed by Amnesty International, Friends World Committee for Consultation [Quakers], Global Policy Forum, Greenpeace International, Human Rights Watch, International Federation of Human Rights (FIDH), International Service for Human Rights, International Women’s Tribune Center, Lawyers’ Committee for Human Rights, Medecins sans Frontières, Oxfam International, World Federalist Movement
More Information on NGOs
More Information on NGOs and the UN
More Information on NGOs and the Official Document System
FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Global Policy Forum distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
