[WSIS CS-Plenary] Re: [governance] Should a "Global Alliance" succeed the UN ICT TF?

[Milton Mueller]

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