The WSIS summit is interesting only as a context to exploit and not as a focus in itself. Apart from being deadly boring, it's also devoid of real decision-making power: rules relating to intellectual property and telecommunications are under GATT/TRIPS/WTO. One good thing about Geneva -- unless you live there I suppose ;-) -- is that it's also home to the WTO and WIPO (although they are in a similar situation to the ITU as a declining supposedly multilateral institution). Spectrum policy is decided on a national level although the ITU retains a coordination role and could be important on the question of unlicensed use of the 5 Ghz band. The 'digital divide' discourse seems to me to be just the umpteenth liberal denial of the extreme social inequality, dressed up in the clothes of progress and reflecting a moment in the 1990s when technological messianism reigned triumphant. Now it can be a useful way to drum up some more business for telecommunications companies with problems in their domestic markets. Satellite associations made submission to the Prepcom to that effect. Elsewhere lots of important decisions are now being made in standard setting bodies or industry consortia, private sector settings without even formal accountability.

My point is that WSIS will not be a place where important decisions will be made.

--------

Despite this, Geneva in December, and the journey from here to there, presents opportunities.

First to develop a language that allows break the isolation of these specialist areas and to talk about sharing, knowledge, individual autonomy and collective cooperation in general, and not defined by the latest technological fashion. This would include laws relating to the movement of workers, trade secrets, patent laws, technology transfer etc

Second to demonstrate practically and simply the positive potential of this cooperation: assembling wireless networks, broadcasting pirate tv/radio, streaming/gathering remote participation over the net, building p2p networks for the distribution of critical/non-commercial content, showing how easy to switch to free/open source software etc.

So in response to Sean's question/proposal about practical projects I don't think there's any shortage, and some of them can have longevity. Those can also be moments, as Arne suggested, where collaboration can occur between individual organizations without implicating the political relations between everyone. Many of us were involved in the Euraction Hub that took place parallel to the ESF in Florence, which is indicative of our critical stance towards 'civil society' never mind national governments and international organizations.

Thirdly to develop our networks of trust to enable future cooperation, especially with those from the 'global south' whose circumstances I, at least, have yet to really understand, and with whom there is rarely the opportunity to meet.

I suggested to Sean that it would be interesting to examine together the Access to Essential Medicines Campaign. That struggle has evolved in a somewhat similar context, involves 'odd' partners - direct actionists, NGO, governmental - in alliance, and functioning on a global level. An important difference is that it's easier, and a lot less risky, to do DIY communications and media than DIY pharmaceuticals, leaving more space for extra-institutional work that, in turn, modifies the negotiating position of the opposition operating inside.

The network of alternative events does not have to be built on an exact unified program. Ideally, for me, we'll create and leave space for people to take their own initiatives, which is really the difference between a network and traditional forms of political organization. The basic framework of the two conferences and the media lab seems appropriate to that: plenty of opportunities for collaboration and openness and those who want to sign up to the civil societies declaration, or do their own thing entirely are free to do so.