[WSIS CS-Plenary] : [governance] Should a "Global Alliance" s ucceed the UN ICTTF?

[zielinskic at who.int]

Mike,

In this and so many other developmental areas (I'm thinking of an initiative
aimed at strengthening health information, where the same debate has
arisen), the need for participation and, indeed, ownership by the "target
group" (communities at large) should not be allowed to stop us from creating
the infrastructure. Yes, we need to involve the digitally disenfranchised -
it's one of the main purposes of the effort - but let's not say we can't
start without their participation. The Alliance could be established with
the declared intentions of attaching itself to the grass roots - maybe this
is what you mean by a "strategy", Mike? By all means, lets add this to the
statement of strategic intent, and establish the Alliance. 

Chris Zielinski 
WHO, Geneva, Switzerland 
(writing in a personal capacity)

-----Original Message-----
From: plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org [mailto:plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org] On Behalf
Of mgurst at vcn.bc.ca
Sent: 14 February 2005 01:24
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; plenary at wsis-cs.org
Subject: [WSIS CS-Plenary] : [governance] Should a "Global Alliance" succeed
the UN ICTTF?


Milton and all,

I've now had a chance to take a look at the "Global Alliance" document and
congratulations for taking the initiative in this area.

I do have a couple of comments though.  One of the criticisms that has
been levelled against the UN's ICT Task Force is that there has been
almost no opportunity for participation from "the grass roots" i.e. end
users, apart from those represented or sponsored by Governments or the
private sector. The Task Force didn't have resources to support this and
the result has been what many argue is a largely "top down" approach to
ICT implementation and use.

I don't see in your document any discussion of this issue, nor do I see
any strategy within what you have written which would respond to this
issue.  The creation of an electronic platform without careful attention
being given to how those without powerful ICT connectivity, without a
grasp of the language of "Alliances" (English?, bureaucratese, UN-ese),
without a structuring of interactions and agendas so as to ensure an
inclusion of issues of interest to these parties as well as others would
seem to suggest that those without voice in the current and recent
discussions would remain without voice into frameworks initiated by or
through a "global alliance".

A second and related issue is that of scale.  While many (perhaps most) of
those who would necessarily be a party to the alliance as your group is
envisaging it would have a sufficient size and depth to manage the
resource requirements for active (and thus effective) participation; for
the most part, the user communities (or "grass roots") will not as they
are necessarily fragmented and resource poor.

The expectation either that such groups will be able to coalesce or
aggregate so as to achieve a critical mass for useful participation in
such an "alliance" seems on the face to be unrealistic. Also, given the
evidence of these current discussions and those surrounding WSIS-Geneva it
seems unlikely that any of the existing parties to what we might call this
"pre-alliance" will act so as to give effective "voice" to the concerns
and issues that might arise from these directions, certainly not without
resources being made available for initiating such developments.

I'm wondering what an approach might look like where these issues began
being addressed from a "bottom-up" perspective.  This would be one where
there was a working up from the current activities, interests and
networking processes of actual grass roots/community users towards an
inter-linking of and by them and then towards an aggregation of such
networks towards a point where the broader regional and global issues
might be addressed.

My guess is that the outcome might be rather different in terms of the
issues identified, the approaches taken, and the solutions identified but
these might in fact be somewhat more effective from an economic and social
development perspective and certainly more "sustainable" over the longer
term cf. the various articles and reports presented in the current/second
issue of the Journal of Community Informatics on "Sustainability and
Community ICTs" http://ci-journal.net/viewissue.php

Mike Gurstein

Michael Gurstein, Ph.D.
Chair: Community Informatics Research Network
http://www.ciresearch.net



-----Original Message-----
From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
[mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Milton Mueller
Sent: February 9, 2005 11:26 PM
To: rikp at earthlink.net; governance at lists.cpsr.org
Cc: plenary at wsis-cs.org
Subject: Re: [governance] Should a "Global Alliance" succeed the UN ICTTF?


Rik
These are great comments, I agree with them completely, except about
"jumping the gun." As we stated in the paper itself, we are trying to
"stimulate a debate about successor organizations and processes." I.e.,
someone has to get the ball rolling here. Informal discussions are already
taking place - mostly behind closed doors.

Let me address some of your very good questions below:

Dr. Milton Mueller
Syracuse University School of Information Studies
http://www.digital-convergence.org
http://www.internetgovernance.org


>>> Rik Panganiban <rikp at earthlink.net> 2/8/2005 6:16:05 PM >>>
>* What would be the purpose of the Global Alliance?

To provide a multistakeholder forum for the formation of "pre-consensus."
I myself am agnostic on whether such an idea would work, but it is worth
considering.

>Would it simply extend the mandate of the existing UN ICT Task Force?

No. It is not a "Task Force" proposed but a "global alliance" and the
paper provides several examples as a general model.

>Would it have a mandate to oversee implementation of the WSIS targets?

>(This might make sense, particularly if the ITU is rejected as the
institution to
>monitor the post-WSIS implementation process.)

A good question. The ideas in the paper are not that specific.

>Who would sit on the Global Alliance?

Also not specified - but certainly the right question to ask~!

>Would the membership come from a slate chosen by the UN Secretary General?

The paper spoke about open membership, subject to perhaps membership fees.

>What would be the balance of government - private sector - civil
society.
>(Only 4 members of the 55 member Task Force are from civil society.)

Another good question.

>I think these are the two questions that civil society should come
prepared to respond to at the Global Alliance consultation in Geneva
on
>February 21.

We are in violent agreement

>After these questions are resolved we can move on to how
>the Alliance should operate practically.

Or, we should consider "if" the Alliance is feasible, and if it should be
established at all. --MM


_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance



_______________________________________________
Plenary mailing list
Plenary at wsis-cs.org
http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary