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

[Anriette Esterhuysen]

Dear all

Some quick thoughts from me on the idea of the 'global alliance'.  I am speaking both 
as a member of the UN ICT TF, and while not the only CS member, the only one active 
on a day to day basis in civil society organisations, and as someone who has been 
active in the WSIS process.

1 - Should there be any future incarnation of the UN ICT TF at all?

I have reflected on this a lot in the last 6 months and I think the answer is yes.  There 
are many issues that were not adequately addressed by the UN ICT TF, e.g.:

- it inclusiveness (e.g. the inadequate involvement of civil society)
- its identity
- its mandate

Nevertheless, it did succeed in bringing together people who would not otherwise have 
ended up around the same table.  This in turn produced new alliances, and new ideas.

HOWEVER, any new body that is in any 'refers', or is framed by, the UN ICT TF, should 
as its starting point do a critical evaluation of the UN ICT TF.  This need not cost a lot.. 
in fact I know of at least one person who is doing a dissertation on the TF and he has 
interviewed most of the members.

2 - What do we really want and get from being 'multi-stakeholder'?

The multi stakeholer focus is important, and should be maintained, but I think it would 
be good to rethink how we approach it.

One of the issues to reflect on is the involvement of the private sector.  The TF 
succeeded in bringing big IT companies to the table, it was one of its strenghts. But, did 
it really move beyond being a platform for showcasing individual corporations ICTforD 
efforts?  Not that this showcasing is a bad thing... but is it enough, and should public 
funds be spent on it?

It seems to me that the enduring partnerships that have emerged from the process 
have been mostly among governments, INGOs, and CSOs (the plural being used 
generously). 

But there are exceptions, and they really stand out... there have been powerful inputs 
from private sector actors.... and in the case of some companies, they really 
participated as partners at the table to contribute, not just to use the platform for 
marketing their own projects.

Notable examples (not the only ones of course, but they do stand out) are Nokia, 
Siemens, STMicroelectronics. 

Notable also is the participation of the ICC (particularly in WSIS) as an industry body - it 
has been consistent and has made a real effort to include private sector voices from the 
South.

However, in many cases  the participation of large individual corporatinos is driven in a 
different way and sustainbed differently.... e.g. how will Carly Fiorina's departure impact 
on HPs CSI activities?  This is normal... not 'wrong'... but has to be factored into how 
we approach multi-stakeholder bodies.

One of the great values of private sector entities in such a body as the TF is that they 
can be good 'bullshit detectors'.  They can remind us of the importance of good 
management models, bottom up demand, financial sustainability.  In fact, I think that in 
the UN ICT TF those skills of the private sector were not utlised as effectively as they 
could have been.

I would say that what has to be adandoned is the idea that if we woo the private sector 
it will invest millions in ICD.  That is simply not how it works.  We can influence the 
private sector, and learn from it, and partner with it, but it is not the magic bullet that so 
many misguided  ICD champions never stop looking for.

2 - Its role in relation to follow up on the WSIS

This is mentioned, but not elaborated.  It can mean very different things... e.g. 
facilitating dialogue on follow up vs. facilitating, or doing, monitoring of follow up.

My concern about it having direct responsibility for monitoring follow up is that mandate 
of these 'alliance type' bodies are not very clear, and maintaining accountability is 
difficult.

In fact, can such bodies be accountable at all?  Even if civil society representation on 
the TF should triple or quadruple in size (which it should) can we say that those CSOs 
are representative of CSOs globally?  I don't think so.

However, there might be certain specific processes or tasks related to WSIS follow up 
which would sit well with such a body.... this leads me to my next point.

3 - Are we talking about THE global alliance, or 'a' global alliance

I would think the latter.  We should all know by now (especially those of us over 40) that 
single, or large solutions, are not so good at addressing complex problems.

WSIS follow up, or ICD, or inclusive governance etc. cannot be addressed by only one 
global body, particularly not one that emerges from a position of central strategic power.

We need such a body.... but to have impact at broader level we need more such 
bodies, representing a diversity of specialities, political perspectives, languages, 
regions, etc. etc.

I am not making this point to argue against a global alliance... but against one that sets 
itself up as being the 'mother of all multi-stakeholer alliances'.

If it is formed, it should set out to work inclusively and in partnership... e.g. why not 
collaborate with the GKP (global knowledge partnership) to convene learning events?  
Why not work with regional bodies like the UNECA when addressing policy issues in 
Africa, or partner with regional research networks like Research ICT Africa?  Why not 
use a body like Privacy International to convene multi-stakeholder discussions on data 
retention. I am not saying that the UN ICT TF did not work in partnership with other 
networks.. it did... but not adequately, and not strategically or transparently enough.

This has been in part because of the resource basis of the UN ICT TF... it had very little 
'independent' funding.

In fact, in setting up an alliance the experience and lessons of other multi-stakeholder 
processes and bodies like GKP should be a starting point, not an afterthought.

4 -What timeframe are we talking about?

Not too long... it should allow for evaluation, and assessment - set targets where the 
entity and its process and role is critically and transparently assessed.  Things change... 
and will the need for something like this still be the same in 3 years time?

It might give rise to (or relate to)  other entities or networks (e.g. a facility that provides 
policy and financing information and support that is delinked from the conditionalities of 
biltateral relations of international financial institutions... but this does not mean that this 
alliance should continue forever.

This should be kept open.

5 - It REALLY create space for innovative thinking and debate

For example, if the idea that many of us in civil society are putting forward continues - 
the need to seek new sources of revenue, e.g. from the private sector, that can sustain 
ICD into the future was well as build solidarity between ICT users in the north and the 
south, such a body needs to create that space..... or we will find that space elsewhere.

In the UN ICT TF several members very legitimately expressed their disagreement with 
any form of taxation (e.g. bit tax).  It is good to hear this, and their reasons - e.g. many 
of the opposers of tax are concerned that the cost of IT products and services will be 
even higher at the expense of the poor.

However, if we are really going to be innovative and look for new solutions, we need the 
freedom to look into the feasibility of solutions which don't fit into current status quo 
paradigms.....

And yes, let's use the multi-stakeholder platform to argue about these initiatives... but 
not to veto whether we explore them or not.

.. in my opinion, if a 'global alliance' does not accommodate this kind of learning and 
risk taking and debate, it is not living up to its purpose.

All for now.  There is more to talk about and think about.

My overall feeling is that we should go ahead and explore the alliance.. that there 
should be an open, inclusive and transparent process, that includes critical reflection on 
the UN ICT TF, and other multistakeholder bodies, that informs any future body.

I really wish I could be there for this discussion today.

Best from rainy Johannesburg.

Anriette




------------------------------------------------------
Anriette Esterhuysen, Executive Director
Association for Progressive Communications
anriette at apc.org
http://www.apc.org
PO Box 29755, Melville, South Africa. 2109
Tel. 27 11 726 1692
Fax 27 11 726 1692