[WSIS CS-Plenary] Global Alliance: Consultation

[Adam Peake]

>In an effort to keep messages brief, as reasonably requested:


Just to be clear.  Karen's comment about message 
length was to remind people not to needlessly 
quote earlier messages.  No need to keep all the 
text going back two or three emails of a thread 
when replying.

Please use as many words as you need! (end of moderator message...)

My understanding of the Global Alliance is that 
it will be open ended, no formal or invited 
membership. If this is the case civil society 
wouldn't be represented by any organization(s), 
we'd each chose to participate or not. Perhaps I 
misunderstood. Rik, can you clarify?

Thanks,

Adam



>Is the truth of the matter that the Global 
>Alliance is going to "happen" regardless of the 
>decisions of some CS organizations that have 
>identified ourselves as partners in the WSIS 
>process (at least at one time)? I can't help but 
>think so in reading Rik's message: 
>"Consultations will continue until mid-April 
>with various stakeholders on the Global 
>Alliance. At the next UN ICT Task Force meeting 
>in April in Dublin, these consultations will be 
>brought together. On 13 September they plan to 
>hold a roundtable in New York on the Global 
>Alliance, and then to formally launch the 
>Alliance at the WSIS in November in Tunis."
>
>To whom does "they" refer? I thought that "they" 
>involved" "us" at some level? What is happening 
>here? A rhetorical question, really. at this 
>point.
>
>I would hope that we'd remember the lessons of 
>history, or else we likely are condemned to 
>repeat the mistakes--of the NWICO debate, of a 
>"Global Compact" that has been a disaster in 
>most cases, launched with the acquiescence of a 
>few big NGOs, some of which have come to regret 
>their compliance in an alliance in which big 
>corporations are not asked to comply with 
>anything on a mandated basis. On this list, some 
>have wondered why so many CS organizations have 
>"dropped out" after the first phase and have 
>attributed the problem to lack of knowledge of 
>the intricacies of internet governance. I 
>applaud efforts to educate the rest of us on 
>ICANN and other details because that is 
>important, but it also might be worth 
>considering whether some CS organizations simply 
>have become disgusted with the process, for any 
>(many) number of reasons. 
>Regards,
>
>Lisa
>