- At-Large - lists.icann.org

The latest ccNSO news for you | December 2021
by Lianna Galstyan Dec. 21, 2021

Dec. 21, 2021

Dear At-Large Community, The final issue of ccNSO newsletter for 2021 is out. You can find updates of (s)elections for the ccNSO Council members; reflections of Internet governance hot topics for all regions brought by members of the ccNSO Internet Governance Liaison Committee (IGLC) and perspectives of ccNSO role with respect to DNS abuse. Best, Lianna ccNSO-logo.jpeg ccNSO News December 2021 | Issue 35 Screenshot 2021-08-02 at 12.51.32.png Draft the ccNSO Conflict of Interest Guideline The ccNSO Council requested the ccNSO Guideline Review Committee (GRC) to create a ccNSO Conflict of Interest (COI) Guideline. The GRC seeks volunteers for a subgroup that will focus specifically on this task. This call for volunteers closes Friday, 14 January 2022 (23:59 UTC) Read more <https://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=0014-pBwKav9lKj-Ap4R45cZOMuZX9B16duAviHPVnNcNw…> Select the winners of the ICANN Community Excellence Award The ccNSO Council is now looking for two (2) volunteers to serve on the ICANN Community Excellence Award Selection Panel on behalf of the ccNSO. This call for volunteers closes Wednesday, 22 December 2021 (noon UTC). Read more <https://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=0014-pBwKav9lKj-Ap4R45cZOMuZX9B16duAviHPVnNcNw…> Stay informed about the work of the ccNSO In preparation of each ccNSO Council meeting, a written update regarding the work by the various working groups and committees is drafted. It includes information about the current status, next steps and what the activities are about. The December edition is out now. Read more <https://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=0014-pBwKav9lKj-Ap4R45cZOMuZX9B16duAviHPVnNcNw…> Internet Governance: What are the hot topics? wordcloud _1_.png ICANN has five geographical regions. The members of the ccNSO Internet Governance Liaison Committee (IGLC) reflected on what the hot internet governance topics are for each of the five regions. Are there overlaps? Major differences? Find out here <https://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=0014-pBwKav9lKj-Ap4R45cZOMuZX9B16duAviHPVnNcNw…> Tip!Watch to the recording <https://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=0014-pBwKav9lKj-Ap4R45cZOMuZX9B16duAviHPVnNcNw…>of the pre-ICANN72 ccTLD News Session on this topic. In January 2022, the IGLC will launch a call for volunteers. To learn more, join us on Wednesday, 19 January 2022 at 08:30 UTC for a short webinar, hosted by IGLC chair Pierre Bonis (.fr). This webinar is targeted at potential new IGLC members and those want to learn more about the work of the IGLC. More information will soon be posted on the ccNSO website. Help shape future sessions: for and by ccTLDs Screenshot 2021-12-15 at 12.48.17.png Pre-ICANN73 ccTLD News Sessions Keep an eye out for the call for presentation proposals In March 2022, the ccNSO Meetings Programme Committee (MPC) will hold the next edition of the virtual ccTLD News Sessions. The MPC will soon issue a call for presentations and is seeking speakers on a variety of ccTLD-related topics. There will be two options to participate. · Session 1 | Wednesday, 2 March 2022, 13 UTC · Session 2 | Thursday, 3 March 2022, 7 UTC Each 90-minute session has a unique agenda. The sessions are an excellent opportunity for both experienced and new people to meet, share best practices, be informed about trends, and and discuss ccTLD-related aspects. When creating the agenda, the MPC intends to put a focus on contributions regarding capacity building efforts by ccTLDs. Read more <https://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=0014-pBwKav9lKj-Ap4R45cZOMuZX9B16duAviHPVnNcNw…>. Join the MPC More to come in January! Do you have a finger on the pulse? What are the latest topics and trends ccTLD world? Do you have experience with agenda setting? The MPC needs you! In January 2022, the MPC will launch a call for volunteers. To learn more, join us on Wednesday, 26 January 2022 at 13 UTC for a short webinar, hosted by MPC chair Barbara Povse (.si). This webinar is targeted at potential MPC members and those want to learn more about the work of the MPC. More information will soon be posted on the ccNSO website. About the MPC The MPC coordinates and manages the high-level schedule of the ccNSO-related sessions and related matters, including the ccNSO Members Meeting agenda at ICANN public meetings. Membership of the Committee is open to all ccTLD managers (whether members or non-members of the ccNSO). Meet the ccNSO Members angie-potrait.jpg Privacy should not be for sale The Impact of Data Protection Legislation on ccTLDs Angela Matlapeng is .bw Administration Staff, Vice Chairperson at AfTLD - the African Regional Organisation, and member of the ccNSO Internet Governance Liaison Committee (IGLC). Angela reflected on the impact of data protection legislation on ccTLDs. In her article, she focuses on the case of the Botswana ccTLD. She talks about how data protection legislation creates an uneven playing field for registrars from different continents, and how essential it is to strike a balance between protecting end user personal data and DNS Abuse mitigation. Read the article by Angela Matlapeng here <https://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=0014-pBwKav9lKj-Ap4R45cZOMuZX9B16duAviHPVnNcNw…>. ccNSO Council Highlights Screenshot 2021-09-27 at 15.21.09.png The ccNSO Council had its 178th meeting on Thursday, 16 November 2021. The ccNSO Council will reconvene on 27 January 2022 at 12:00 UTC. Council meetings are open to observers. Contact the ccNSO Secretariat <mailto:ccnsosecretariat@icann.org>for participation details. Highlights from recent Council discussions: ccNSO Council elections The ccNSO Council adopted two election reports: * Regular annual Council elections In March 2022, at the conclusion of ICANN73, the 3-year term of five ccNSO Councillors ends. The ccNSO opened a call for nominations to fill those seats. For the Asia-Pacific region, 2 candidates stepped forward and the ccNSO members from the Asia-Pacific participated in an election. For the other regions only one candidate was nominated and seconded: no elections needed to be held in those regions. The incumbent members were appointed for another 3-year term: Africa: Biyi Oladipo, Asia Pacific: Jordan Carter, Europe: Nick Wenban-Smith, Latin America/Caribbean: Demi Getschko, North America: Pablo Rodriguez. * Special Council elections EU region Giovanni Seppia will step down from the ccNSO Council on 31 December 2021. The ccNSO members in the European Region selected Chris Disspain for the remainder of Giovanni's term (until March 2023). Chris will take the seat on the Council on 1 January 2022. Read more here <https://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=0014-pBwKav9lKj-Ap4R45cZOMuZX9B16duAviHPVnNcNw…>. The role of the ccNSO with respect to DNS Abuse The ccNSO Council invited the ccTLD Community to join a public workshop on Thursday, 18 November 2021 at 12:00 UTC. During the workshop Councillors and members from the ccTLD community further discussed the suggestions from the ICANN72 DNS Abuse Session regarding suggested activities the ccNSO could undertake to complement existing work by the community. During the December Council meeting, a small group of Councillors presented their findings from the ICANN72 session and the November workshop. A plan is expected to be presented to the ccTLD community in early 2022. The goal is to launch the ccNSO activities with respect to DNS abuse by ICANN73. Revamp ICANN Learn ccNSO onboarding Course A small team of ccTLD volunteers performed an extensive revision of the current ccNSO Onboarding Course (ICANN Learn identifier 150.1), addressing both content, accessibility, the level of engagement and other aspects. Thesmall team will soon finalise its recommendation to the ccNSO OISC and Council, for final review and adoption. The aim is having the course eventually translated in the various languages ICANN provides translations in. New ccNSO Rules The ccNSO Guidelines Review Committee subgroup on Rules invited the ccTLD Community to join a public webinar <https://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=0014-pBwKav9lKj-Ap4R45cZOMuZX9B16duAviHPVnNcNw…>on Thursday, 9 December 2021 at 13:00 UTC. The subgroup presented their latest draft of the updated ccNSO Rules, which is open for comments until Thursday, 23 December 2021. Based on the feedback, the Working Group will finalize its draft, which will be put before the ccNSO membership for adoption through a voting process around end February 2022. High-level ccNSO schedule at ICANN73 The ccNSO Council will conduct its monthly meeting in March at the occasion of ICANN73. Moreover, it will hold a number of joint sessions, with GNSO, GAC, and the ccNSO-related ICANN Board members. The Tech Working Group is planning for Tech Day, whereas the MPC) expects to organise two sessions as part of the ccNSO Members’ meetings: * A governance session, on the New ccNSO Rules and a ccNSO Conflict of Interest Guideline * A ccNSO & DNS Abuse Session. The MPC also organises 2 editions of the ccTLD N <https://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=0014-pBwKav9lKj-Ap4R45cZOMuZX9B16duAviHPVnNcNw…> <https://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=0014-pBwKav9lKj-Ap4R45cZOMuZX9B16duAviHPVnNcNw…>ews Sessions <https://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=0014-pBwKav9lKj-Ap4R45cZOMuZX9B16duAviHPVnNcNw…>, prior to ICANN73. Happy holidays from the ccNSO! ICANN will be closed from 24 December through 1 January 2022. We wish you and your family a happy and safe holiday season! Screenshot 2019-12-20 at 11.35.26.png country code Names Supporting Organisationhttps://ccnso.icann.org <https://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=0014-pBwKav9lKj-Ap4R45cZOMuZX9B16duAviHPVnNcNw…>| ccnsosecretariat(a)icann.org <https://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=0014-pBwKav9lKj-Ap4R45cZOMuZX9B16duAviHPVnNcNw…> Facebook <https://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=0014-pBwKav9lKj-Ap4R45cZOMuZX9B16duAviHPVnNcNw…> Twitter <https://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=0014-pBwKav9lKj-Ap4R45cZOMuZX9B16duAviHPVnNcNw…> ICANN| 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300, Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536

1 0

Re: [At-Large] [Governance] India
by parminder Dec. 14, 2021

Dec. 14, 2021

On 13/12/21 10:13 pm, Murali Shanmugavelan wrote: > "India has a non aligned background..."?!?!? India was a major force in building the nonalignment movement -- that is what 'background' means... As for the current status, my email amply lays is out, See "... the deep embeddedness that India has in the US centric techno-sphere...". Although it still does -- even if just bec it is a big country and needs enough independence,-- try 'some degree' of maintaining independence, or, in other words, a 'diversity of dependences', like the S 400 missile story tell us... parminder > > On Sat, 11 Dec 2021 at 14:16, parminder via Governance > <governance(a)lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org>> > wrote: > > Dear Wolfgang, > > Thanks for the quotes about the Putin -- Modi meeting. Indeed in > most mainstream coverage in India the ICT side hardly got > mentioned. They were the less important part of the summit. > > I am not sure what kind of comments you are looking for from me. > > India has a non aligned background and it is normal for such a > large country like India to hedge its bets and not get caught in > one geo-techno-enclosure or the other, in the old cold war like > sense, but now with digital tech dependencies which are even > deeper, stronger and largely irreversible. It therefore makes > complete sense that India is exploring ICT relationships with > Russia, to/inter alia/ diversify from the deep embeddedness that > India has in the US centric techno-sphere. Do you disapprove of > it? See my article of a few years back India should aim for > digital non alignment > <https://www.hindustantimes.com/analysis/india-should-aim-for-a-digital-non-…> > > BTW, one of the key current issues in India-Russia relationship > (also highlighted around the summit) is that India is buying S > 400 missiles from Russia, despite strong warnings from the US that > this may lead to India being excluded from US military supplies. > > Perhaps that would put in good perspective Russia-India techno > relationships that seem to so rent your mind. > > From your quoted text, you seem to have issues or questions about > Russia and India deciding to work together on the proposed UN > cyber crime treaty... > > Do you think there should NOT be any such UN treaty? > > Does that mean countries should rather sign on Europe's Budapest > Convention on Cybercrime, or wait for new ones to come from OECD's > CDEP (committee on digital economy policy) or from the CoE? You > know why India and other countries refuse to sign on the Budapest > Convention -- actually they find nothing wrong with its substance, > but they refuse to be governed by rules that they were not a part > of developing... Makes any democratic sense to you? > > If not Budapest Convention, what is the option .. The world stay > without a cyber crime framework? Why should not all countries sit > together to make a cyber crime convention? Happy to hear your > reasons either way. > > About multistakeholder participation in such a UN cyber crime > convention, which seems to be one major concern of yours: > > I have been arguing long for a horizontal UN digital policy body, > with the SAME multistakeholder participation model as OECD's CDEP > (and of CoE where the Budapest Convention was made) ... If we had > that UN body , we could have employed its structure for MS > participation for developing the proposed UN convention on cyber > crime ... But, THE PROBLEM IS, you have consistently opposed it, > including as part of the UN WG on enhanced cooperation which had > the precise mandate to develop institutional structures for UN > based digital policy making. We both were members of that WG and > we know what went on there, right. How developing countries > proposed the exact same OECD model for UN level digital policy > making -- along with all its MS components/ characteristics -- AND > YOU ALL TURNED IT DOWN. Am I making any mis-statement here? Happy > to be corrected in that case. > > So, perhaps now it is your turn to answer some questions: > > 1. Do you think that there should be no UN cyber crime convention, > and all non Europeans too should simply sign Europe's Budapest > Convention, and further wait for more cyber governance frameworks > from OECD's CDEP, or CoE's digital policy mechanisms? > > 2. Why and how you call OECD's CDEP and CoE's digital policy > making processes as multistakeholder, and those are acceptable to > you, but the EXACT SAME model at the UN becomes multi-lateral and > NOT multistakeholder - -and, apparently for that reason, not > acceptable to you ? > > thanks and look forward to your responses > > parminder > > PS: You raise concerns about India-Russia parleys and digital > rights issues (internet shutdowns). Last year India signed this > with US led five eyes against eend-to-end encryption > https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/international-statement-end-end-encryption-a… > <https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/international-statement-end-end-encryption-a…> > .. Just seeking a better balance of geo-political concerns from you. > > > > On 08/12/21 4:46 pm, Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote: >> Wolfgang: >> Is the Putin/Modi Summit related to the Indian Internet Shutdowns? >> >> Parminder: >> >> I have seen and heard of no connection of that kind. In any case, >> nations nowadays need no external assistance to control their >> respective Internets. As for foreign alliances, if anything India >> is certainly bending much more towards US led alliances, that >> claim some western values of democracy, HR, etc ( all of which is >> of course a lot of BS, and simply good old-fashioned geopolitics >> and geo- economics under new garbs -- one significant >> manifestation and result of which kind of geo-politics/ >> geoeconomics is neo-colonisation) .. >> >> >> Wolfgang: >> As I can see, Internet Governance (cybersecurity and digital >> economny) was part of the discussions. >> >> This is from the Putin-Modi Meeting: "The Sides appreciated close >> cooperation in the field of security in the use of Information >> and Communication Technologies (ICT) through inter-agency >> cooperation under bilateral mechanisms and at multilateral >> platforms. They highlighted the leading role of the United >> Nations in the decision-making process on security in the use of >> ICTs. The Sides also recognized the need for further work on >> rules, norms and principles of responsible behavior of State >> aimed at preventing conflicts and promoting peaceful use of ICTs. >> The Sides reaffirmed the importance of international cooperation >> against criminal use of ICTs and in this regard they welcome the >> establishment of an open- ended Ad hoc intergovernmental >> committee of experts to elaborate a comprehensive international >> convention on countering the use of ICTs for criminal purposes as >> stipulated in the UN GA resolutions 74/247 and 75/282." ... "The >> Sides intend to focus particularly on increasing the >> effectiveness of countering terrorism, extremism, drug >> trafficking, cross-border organized crime, and information >> security threats," ... "The Sides agreed that safeguarding of >> global commons including our oceans, outer space and information >> space should be based on the principles of transparency, >> accessibility and upholding international law." >> >> And they discussed also digital economy: " The Sides also agreed >> to facilitate collaboration between government and private sector >> organizations to find ways of joint development of software >> products, platforms and services as well as in the area of >> electronics manufacturing. The Sides confirmed their interest in >> further developing cooperation in the sphere of digital >> technologies, including those related to information protection, >> security of critical infrastructure and law enforcement." >> >> Any comment? BTW, no references to civil society or a >> multistakeholder approach. >> >> see: http://en.kremlin.ru/supplement/5745 >> <http://en.kremlin.ru/supplement/5745> >> > -- > Governance mailing list > Governance(a)lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:Governance@lists.igcaucus.org> > https://lists.igcaucus.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > <https://lists.igcaucus.org/mailman/listinfo/governance> >

1 0

India
by Wolfgang Kleinwächter Dec. 11, 2021

Dec. 11, 2021

3 4

WEBCAST: IGF2021 Dynamic Coalition on Core Internet Values – Internet Regulation during Crisis One Year Later
by Joly MacFie Dec. 10, 2021

Dec. 10, 2021

This is the one IGF session I never miss! [image: livestream] <http://livestream.com/internetsociety/dc-civ2021>On *Friday 10 December 2021* at *8:30-10:00 UTC* the *Dynamic Coalition on Core Internet Values <https://www.intgovforum.org/content/dynamic-coalition-on-core-internet-valu…>* (DC-CIV) will hold its *IGF 2021 <https://www.intgovforum.org/en/dashboard/igf-2021>* session '*Internet Regulation during Crisis One Year Later <https://www.intgovforum.org/en/content/igf-2021-dc-civ-internet-regulation-…>* '. The Global Pandemic has now impacted our daily lives for a longer time than most of us would have imagined a year ago. In 2020, the Coalition's Session was entitled: "*Internet in Crisis Management and Renewal <https://archive.org/details/dc-civ2020>*" - and this Crisis has continued to be the past year's "new normal". The Internet's impact has increased dramatically in all aspects of everyone's lives. Technically, it has coped well with this increased use, but there have also been calls for increased control and regulation. The DC on Core Internet Values will discuss these developments and these calls for regulation --- and explore whether these break Core Internet Values - including a comparison with the *6F Framework <https://archive.org/download/dc-civ2020/dc-civ2020_Pisanty_SLIDES.pdf>*. *SPEAKERS* *Olivier Crépin-Leblond*, ISOC UK England *Olga Makarova*, MTS *Alison Harcourt*, University of Exeter *Bob Frankston* *Jutta Croll, *German Digital Opportunities Foundation. *Desiree Miloshevic*, Global Initiative for Human-centred Digital Governance *MODERATOR* *Alejandro Pisanty*, UNAM *RAPPORTEUR* *Sivasubramanian Muthusamy*, APG *LIVESTREAM http://livestream.com/internetsociety/dc-civ2021 <http://livestream.com/internetsociety/dc-civ2021>* *AGENDA https://www.intgovforum.org/en/content/igf-2021-dc-civ-internet-regulation-… <https://www.intgovforum.org/en/content/igf-2021-dc-civ-internet-regulation-…>* *PARTICIPATE VIA ZOOM https://bit.ly/3ye9flT <https://bit.ly/3ye9flT>* *REAL TIME TEXT https://www.streamtext.net/player?event=CFI-IGF-CR8 <https://www.streamtext.net/player?event=CFI-IGF-CR8>* *TWITTER #IGF2021 #coreinternetvalues #dcciv <https://bit.ly/31Rrvpf> @Olivier_CL lga Makarova @alieliale Desiree Miloshevic @BobFrankston Jutta Croll* SIMULCAST *https://youtu.be/duYfGeENup4 <https://bit.ly/31Rrvpf>* (IGF) *https://www.facebook.com/IntGovForum/live* <https://www.facebook.com/IntGovForum/live> *https://www.twitter.com/ISOC_Live/ <https://www.twitter.com/ISOC_Live/>* *https://www.twitch.tv/isoclive <https://www.twitch.tv/isoclive>* *https://www.facebook.com/liveisoc <https://www.facebook.com/liveisoc>* *https://www.facebook.com/CoreInternetValues <https://www.facebook.com/CoreInternetValues>* *ARCHIVE* *https://archive.org/details/dc-civ2021 <https://archive.org/details/dc-civ2021>* *Permalink* https://isoc.live/14864/ - -- -------------------------------------- Joly MacFie +12185659365 -------------------------------------- -

1 0

Fwd: [IGF 2021] Subject: Experience IGF Music Night!
by Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond Dec. 9, 2021

Dec. 9, 2021

FYI - so looking forward to a future GEMS concert.... Put your hands together for the stars of the day: Thomas, Wout and Michal. They rocked! Watch this now: https://youtu.be/pntuDFUgNRI?t=2909 and enjoy! O. -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [IGF 2021] Subject: Experience IGF Music Night! Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2021 18:29:29 +0000 From: IGF 2021 Participants <igf2021participants(a)intgovforum.org> Reply-To: igf2021participants(a)intgovforum.org To: igf2021participants(a)intgovforum.org <igf2021participants(a)intgovforum.org> Dear IGF 2021 Participants, Whether you’re here with us in Katowice, or you’ve been following the IGF online, you can experience the IGF’s legendary Music Night. Listen to talented members of the IGF Community show off their musical skills with a series of performances this evening (19.00-21.00 CET/18.00-20.00 UTC). Here’s How: 1. Navigate to igf2021.collectivibe.com 2. Go to Auditorium 3. Go to Concert Hall Do not hesitate to take this opportunity to network with colleagues by entering thorough the gate labeled “IGF 2021”. Enjoy! Best regards, IGF Secretariat

4 3

IGF 2021 WS #13 Digital transformation challenges in developing countries
by Matthias M. Hudobnik Dec. 7, 2021

Dec. 7, 2021

My dear At-Large Community, I want to warmly invite you to the following IGF session ;): Title: IGF 2021 WS #13 Digital transformation challenges in developing countries Date/Time: Wednesday, 8th December, 2021 (15:05 CET) - (16:35 CET) Speakers: Speaker 1: Vint Cerf, Private Sector, Western European and Others Group (WEOG) Speaker 2: Antonio Garcia Zaballos, Intergovernmental Organization, Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC) Speaker 3: Ndeye Maimouna DIOP, Civil Society, African Group Speaker 4: Gitanjali Sah, Intergovernmental Organization, Intergovernmental Organization Speaker 5: Matthias Hudobnik, Civil Society, Western European and Others Group (WEOG) Moderator: Olga Cavalli, Civil Society, Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC) Online Moderator: Patricia Vargas, Technical Community, Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC) Rapporteur: Mónica María Trochez Arboleda, Private Sector, Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC) Meeting room: Conference Room 3 Link: https://www.intgovforum.org/en/content/igf-2021-ws-13-digital-transformatio… Have a nice day! Best, Matthias ________________________________ Ing. Mag. Matthias M. Hudobnik FIP • CIPP/E • CIPT • DPO • CIS LA matthias(a)hudobnik.at http://www.hudobnik.at @mhudobnik

1 0

Inviting JNC members and friends to a workshop on JNC's new directions of work
by parminder Dec. 4, 2021

Dec. 4, 2021

To be (constructively) provocative, let me call the below as an exercise in exploring post-multistakeholderism models of participatory digital policy making, since MS ism is mostly corporate captured now: ... Worth some collective thought perhaps. We welcome your engagement. parminder Dear All The Just Net Coalition (JNC) is doing a 2.5 hours event, consisting of 3 panels, on ***"Digital policy making from below -- Ask the impacted sectors first"*, on *December 6th*, from 09.30 to 12.00 UTC. Those at the venue of the Internet Governance Forum in Katowice, Poland, the physical place will be Ballroom A. As will be clear from the workshop note below, and enclosed, the event is around discussing *a new paradigm of digital policy development*, which in our view should be the best way of discovering and anchoring public interest with respect to our digital future. In pursuance of this belief of JNC, which is still shaping up, and this event is a part of that exercise, it is also expected that JNC will re-orient itself more consciously to this new direction in its work -- developing the required networks of civil society groups, from inside and outside digital arena, and proposing and advocating for institutions that would best enable and facilitate this new context and the needs of the proposed new paradigm of digital policy making. The event should therefore be interesting and useful for *all JNC members and friends*, as well as *all those who grapple with* *institutional issues around how to best develop digital policies*, so key to humanity's future. We invite all of you to attend. Instructions on how to attend are in the workshop note. For those never been to an IGF and/or not registered for this one, please do *register right away - -meaning today* - -to be able to participate. See you at the discussions. parminder /*Digital Policy Making from Below – Ask the Impacted Sectors First*/ *Hybrid****e**vent organized by Just Net Coalition at **the* *16th **United National Internet Governance Forum (IGF)* *December 06, 09.30-12.00 UTC* *Ballroom A (onsite) /Online * The Just Net Coalition <https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact…>(JNC) invites you to our hybridevent, ‘/*Digital Policy Making from Below – Ask the Impacted Sectors First’*/, taking place on December 6^th 2021, from 09.30 to 12.00 UTC. JNC has been conveningregular events at the UN Internet Governance Forum’s (IGF) annual meetings, bringing key contemporary issues in digital justice, as well asJNC’s work and journey, intoa public discussion. At the last in-person meeting, at the IGF Berlin in December 2019, we released the _JNC Manifesto for Digital Justice_ <https://justnetcoalition.org/digital-justice-manifesto>. In 2020, our virtual session at the IGFon‘Digital Justice Conversations’, witha keynote from Saskia Sassen,saw a renewed commitment and dialoguetowards a _Digital New Deal_ <https://itforchange.net/digital-new-deal/>. This year, the IGF will be held at Katowice, Poland, in a hybrid formant and we convene again to push the needle on aprogressive agenda for digital justice. It is crucial to open up avenues and create spaces for organizations and civil society from sectorsthat are actually impacted by the ‘digital’ – health, education, agriculture, labor, trade, finance, media, etc., that enable them toinfluenceand shapedigital policies. They should be able to engage with central digital policy issues such as 'who owns data’, 'what are the appropriate rules of platform management’, what is ‘just and fair AI', etc. Such ‘sectoral actors’ need to be put intoa sustained dialogue with actors in the digital arena on digital policy issues. This has to be undertakenin a manner that respects and employs their respective competences to together determine what is public interest in a digital society. This we think must bethe future of how digital policy is made. Just Net Coalition plans to orient itself towards building such possibilities, and appropriate networks and institutions, for cross-sectoral, participatory, digital policy making. The Coalition has embarked on a project in this regard, working with leading progressive organizations in various sectors. At theevent on/*Digital Policy Making from Below – Ask the Impacted Sectors First’, */the first panel discussion will bring together some of the ‘sectoral organisations’ collaboratingwith JNC to present their views, ideas, as well as the current work that they are undertakingin JNC’sproject on cross-sectoral engagement for digital policy making. A second panel will pick up from the first panel’s presentions to build upa more general discussion about the way digital policies should be shaped with equitable and empowering participation of actors from the ‘impacted sectors’, ***towards **a new****paradigm of digital policy **making**. * In the end, we will have an open discussion on what role the Just Net Coalition, and other progressive groups, both in the digital arena and the ‘impacted sectors’, couldplay to develop the needed networks, as well as advocate for development of *the**institutional **conditions **required **for **the new policy paradi**gm**.*Here wewill zoom in to explore some specific directions that JNC maytake in the coming years. We invite you to be a part of this urgent and important conversation. *How to join:* * If attending in person, please join us at Ballroom A at the IGF venue in Katowice, Poland * If attending virtually o If you are already registered to attend IGF, please add our session <https://www.intgovforum.org/en/content/igf-2021-day-0-event-64-digital-poli…>to your IGF schedule and click the register and attend option 24 hours before to receive your meeting link. o If you haven’t registered for the IGF 2021, you can do so here <https://www.intgovforum.org/en/content/igf-2021-registration>to attend our sessions as well as other workshops. *Agenda* *Time Slot (UTC) * *Session Details * 9.30 to 9.35 Check-in 9.35 to 9.45 Opening remarks Sean O'Siochru & Parminder Jeet Singh , Just Net Coalition – who will also anchor the event with its three panels 9.45 to 11.00 *Session**1 – **A view from the sectors impacted by the ‘digital’* * Lara Merling, International Trade Union Confederation * Jun Ho Jung, People’s Health Movement * Chee Yoke Ling, Third World Network * C/é/dric Leterme, The Tricontinental Centre * Elenita Dāno, ETC Group 11.00-11.30 *Session 2 – ‘Impacted sectors first’ – A new paradigm of digital policy making* *Speakers* * Deborah James, Centre for Economic Policy and Research * Nachiket Udupa, Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan * Richard Hill, Association for Proper Internet Governance * Amber Sinha, Center for Internet and Society 11.30-11.55 *Open discussion on the future role and directions of Just Net Coalition, and other progressive actors interested in digital policies * 11.55-12.00 *Closing remarks *

1 0

JNC event at the IGF: "Digital policy making from below -- Ask the impacted sectors first"
by parminder Dec. 1, 2021

Dec. 1, 2021

Dear All Just Net Coalition (JNC) has been regularly doing half day events at the UN Internet Governance Forum's annual meetings, bringing some key contemporary issues in JNC's work and journey to a public discussion. At the last in-person meeting we did at the IGF, Berlin, in Dec, 2019, we released the JNC's Manifesto for Digital Justice <https://justnetcoalition.org/digital-justice-manifesto> and organized a panel around it. In 2020, we had a virtual session at the IGF, because the IGF itself was fully virtual. This year, the IGF is to be held in Katowice, Poland, in a part virtual part physical manner... Most of us would not be attending in person. But we would have a few persons from JNC there. Just Net Coalition plans a two and half hour event on December 6th, from 930 to 1200 UTC, on what is emerging as *the key way JNC would like to organize and work going forward*. Let me explain. We have been developing an umbrella project this year, which has sub-projects co-led along with JNC by a top global progressive group in a particular sector undergoing digitalisation -- from trade, agro- diversity and labor to health, gender, finance, media and welfare state. These specific sector- oriented sub projects bring together 'sectoral' experts and digital experts to (1) map the terrain of digitalisation in that sector -- its challenges and opportunities, and (2) try to come up with some early norms and principles that must guide how digitalisation should be undertaken in that sector. The JNC has always been a coalition that consisted not just of 'core' digital area activists, but also various organizations in different sectors that have become increasingly interested in issues of digital fairness and justice especially as it intersects with their area of work. Our new initiative has the objective of giving these '*sectoral' (as against 'core' digital) organizations a greater role in influencing and shaping digital policies that strongly impact all of them*. This requires first of all to build their 'confidence' to step right up to directly address core digital governance issues like 'who owns data', and 'what are the appropriate rules of platform management', what is 'just and fair AI' and so on. It of course calls for collective capacity building of all actors in and with respect to a given sector. Digital actors thus learn as much about the digital phenomenon from 'sectoral' actors as vice versa, because it is the latter who know what is the 'digital' actually 'doing'. The basic premise of the project, and JNC's approach generally, is that new paradigms of digital policy development should emerge from these cross -sectoral spaces, even as the digital phenomenon becomes one of the strongest determinants of our collective futures. To illustrate: Understanding the dynamics and the needs of governance of health data needs health related expertise. What does 'data governance', in any case, mean other than governance of health data, education data, agriculture data, military data, and so on? But, then there are also generic attributes of 'digital data' and processes around it, that requires generic expertise of the 'digital area' . Digital policy and governance must be based on an acknowlegement and understanding of this complex and dynamic web of digital policy and governance relevant facts, knowledge and expertise. Going forward, the key strategic focus of JNC will be to work most on developing and sustaining institutionalized interactions among digital actors and actors from different 'impacted sectors' as a principal need and basis of digital policy development. ... JNC would also bring together actors from different sectors in one 'place' to take a cross-sectoral view of the digital phenomenon, so that best fit policies most appropriate for the society can be developed. Our JNC event on Dec 6th is titled*"Digital policy making from below -- Ask the impacted sectors first"* . The first panel will have organizations from different sectors that are engaging with JNC in these efforts present their views and their current work as a part of this JNC initiative. A second panel will then take up a general discussion about the thinking behind and the objectives of the new approach of JNC (which actually is only the fine-tuning of and making explicit its existing approach), how different impacted sectors can best and continually be involved in digital policy making, and how to structure standing cross-sectoral interactions in this regard. The last section of this virtual event will be in the form of an open session to discuss JNC's thinking and work plans for the coming year. Some may have advice and suggestions, others may have questions -- about this new approach of JNC, or about JNC in general. All are welcome. * * More details will follow soon. Thanks, and best regards parminder

1 0

Fwd: [Governance] Fwd: Calling for ISOC to not associate with the nomination process for IGF Leadership Panel
by parminder Dec. 1, 2021

Dec. 1, 2021

-------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: [Governance] Fwd: Calling for ISOC to not associate with the nomination process for IGF Leadership Panel Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2021 10:37:05 -0500 From: Andrew Sullivan via Governance <governance(a)lists.igcaucus.org> Reply-To: Andrew Sullivan <sullivan(a)isoc.org> To: governance(a)lists.igcaucus.org Dear colleagues, In reply to Parminder's email, I have sent the following. I forward it here because, since his note was effectively an open letter, I think it requires an open reply: Dear Parminder, Thanks for your note. I had already seen the letter you and Milton sent to the UN Secretary General, but I appreciate you bringing it to my attention specifically. You are quite correct that the Internet Society previously opposed a proposal to create a panel like the one that has been announced, and that we oppose this Leadership Panel. The Internet Society will not, as the Internet Society, nominate anyone to the panel. In addition, no staff members shall participate in the panel. There is a semi-formal group called the Internet Technical Collaboration Group, which has George Sadowsky (in his personal capacity) as its chair, and for which we provide minimal secretariat services. It is possible that group will nominate someone, but it will not be a nomination from the Internet Society as such. Given the clear expressions made during the public comment and the UN decision to proceed anyway, I am sad to say I think it is a waste of time to appeal to the Secretary General again, so I will not be writing. It seems to me we have to accommodate ourselves to this change in the nature of the Internet Governance Forum. That does not mean supporting or nominating potential members. We will of course monitor the group's activity, especially if it seems likely to threaten the Internet. Some would argue that it would be better to try to join this panel and influence it from the inside. My view is that such participation would convey a kind of legitimacy to the Leadership Panel that I do not believe it can have. Let me explain. When the Internet emerged as a large-scale social phenomenon in the 1990s, there was a great deal of contention about who would be in charge. This is to be expected with a large, transformative technology. Moreover, the early history of the Internet may have tended to encourage the idea of someone being "in charge", since of course the earliest Internet sites were all under the supervision of the US DoD. Over time, however, everyone seemed to come to realize that, in a network of networks, it is not really possible to establish who is in charge: since there is no centre, there is no centre of control. Instead, we had to work out always-contingent consensus approaches, using forums like the IGF to identify issues and figure out who might be able to address them. This, of course, is a parallel to the fundamental operational realities of the Internet's design. And it tended, I think, to be reinforced by the nature of the burgeoning Internet: there were just so many players that ruling by authority would be impractical. Something has become gradually more apparent, however: with consolidation and concentration on the Internet, it becomes logistically realistic to get "the important players" into a room. Realistically, when the number of firms with overwhelming traffic dominance on the Internet falls to perhaps 20 or fewer, it is tempting to squeeze those firms and just treat everything else as mostly unimportant noise. And this is, of course, a pattern that is discernable in various acts both by governments, and by very large firms who are clamoring for regulation. Industrial history teaches us that, when a large incumbent insists it needs regulation, it is unlikely to be an effort to ensure the market is open to new players. So, those of us who believe in the open, globally-connected, secure, and trustworthy Internet are now engaged in the fight of our lives. Our vision of the Internet is being supplanted, really, by a giant corporatist enclosure movement. It aims to turn the Internet into a well-controlled, sanitized utility, operated overwhelmingly by a few large, trustworthy organizations at the behest of this or that government. Probably such a utility would have different properties in different places and would interoperate in the more-awkward, more geopolitically-oriented manner of the old telephone system than like the Internet we are used to. It would likely not be the infrastructure of empowered edges that we have known in the opening stages of the Internet. It wouldn't, really, be an internet at all, even though people will probably still call it "internet". I do not believe we are too late to stop this from coming true, but we are definitely at a late hour. Under these circumstances, I think it would be dangerous to participate in—or support in any way—a Leadership Panel that is practically tailor-made for Internet-enclosure thinking. As designed, it is a group of Important People, where the selection criteria are opaque and the remit is vague. It will inevitably be under pressure to support Internet enclosure, and given the political sensitivity of many of the panelists' "day jobs" the panel as a whole will almost certainly have to bow to that pressure. This will be true, in my opinion, no matter how worthy and independent-minded I think are many of the nominees I have heard suggested. The institutional design is fundamentally wrong, and I cannot support it. I have a number of thoughts about how the IGF could more effectively pursue the useful job it has. I have shared those previously with people who I thought might be in a position to try to undertake some of it, and I won't reproduce it here, except to note ruefully that I was apparently not convincing enough. Best regards, Andrew On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 01:35:02PM +0530, parminder wrote: > Dear Andrew, > > Please find enclosed a letter addressed to the UN Secretary General that > Milton Mueller's and my organization wrote recently seeking the rollback > of the decision to set up an IGF Leadership Panel (LP). The letter also > appeals to civil society and technical community groups to not associate > with nomination process for the LP. > > As you know, in the public consultations on the issue, most civil > society groups and technical community had opposed any such new high > level groups being formed outside the MAG. > > ISOC was clear in asserting > <https://us-west-2.protection.sophos.com?d=intgovforum.org&u=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3c…>: > > "...as we have indicated in previous contributions to the UN HLPDC > process, ISOC is not convinced that a new higher-level body of > representatives needs to be established." > > The official summary of the responses > <https://us-west-2.protection.sophos.com?d=intgovforum.org&u=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3c…> > to the public consultation on creation of a Multistakeholder High Level > Body (MHLB) itself says: > > "Broadly speaking, the option that seems to have received the most > support is to create the MHLB within the MAG." > > To put it in other words, creation of an MHLB outside the MAG did not > have much or enough support. > > Soon after these public consultations, the UN Secretary General goes > right ahead and creates a MHLB outside the MAG, in the form of a IGF > Leadership Panel. > > I do not see the point in doing a public consultation when one is not > going to go by its outcomes, and in any case impose one's will on the > public -- in this case in the form of IGF LP. > > The announcement for establishing an LP has been received with great > dismay among civil society and technical community groups. > > *A civil society nomination process, involving the main civil society > groups and networks most engaged with global IG processes, which was set > up with a clear declaration that it did not amount to an endorsement of > the LP, still collapsed after a few days because there was not enough > support from the community. * > > Anyway, that is for the UN Secretary General to consider. > > My appeal is to those who clearly opposed such a body during the > consultation, like ISOC did, to write to the UN SG, opposing ( on a > procedural count) his decision to ignore the outcomes of the public > consultation, and (on a substantive count) his decision to form the IGF > Leadership Panel. > > In fully ignoring the views of the 'stakeholder community', the UN SG > has clearly gone against the basic tenets of multistakeholderism. > Whether ISOC stands for multistakeholderism or not depends on whether it > is ready to stand up and speak against such blatant violation of > multistakeholder principles and practice. Such a strong and > well-respected body cannot accept such things - with a fundamental > impact on the future of global IG ecosystem - just because they have now > been ordained by the powers-that-be. ISOC cannot allow itself to be > cowed down in such matters. The world is watching. > > The least that ISOC can do at this stage is to not enter into a process > of providing nominations for constituting the IGF LP. At least not do it > in the very first round of LP processes itself, just a few months after > it opposed the formation of such a body. This would compromise ISOC's > moral authority and practical strength with respect to global IG. > > There is after all no point in making a clamor for multistakholderism if > the involved groups and people cannot speak up when the voice of > multi-stakeholder community is ignored, and new structures of Internet > governance contrary to its majority view are imposed on it. It would be > an even bigger travesty if the community then meekly begins to almost > immediately participate in providing nominations for the very structures > (LP) they spoke against. > > I do not know whether ISOC is sending nominations for the LP, but if it > is, we would like to appeal to you to not do so. Even if nominations > have already been sent, we appeal to you to withdraw them. > > *This is a good time to be reminded of the stellar role ISOC played in a > somewhat similar situation when an attempt was made to put up a new IG > body at the World Economic Forum, as an extremely ill-advised follow-up > to the Net Mundial conference. ISOC had at that time stoutly opposed the > formation of any such new body, and it was considerably owing to ISOC's > opposition that the WEF based IG body eventually did not come to pass. > *I shudder to think where we would have been now with the anchor of > global IG being at the WEF. * > * > > I will like ISOC to once again employ its moral leadership in the area > of global IG ecosystem, and refuse to accept the new IG body being > foisted upon us in the face of clearly expressed public opinion against it. > > Happy to engage further on this issue. > > Best regards, > > Parminder > > IT for Change, and Just Net Coalition > > > > > > > -- Andrew Sullivan President & CEO, Internet Society sullivan(a)isoc.org +1 416 731 1261 -- Andrew Sullivan President & CEO, Internet Society sullivan(a)isoc.org +1 416 731 1261 -- Governance mailing list Governance(a)lists.igcaucus.org https://lists.igcaucus.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

1 0

#IGF #COVID local update
by jkuleszaicann＠gmail.com Nov. 30, 2021

Nov. 30, 2021

Dear all, Please disregard this message if you're not planning to participate in the IGF in Katowice in person and thank you for bearing with me spamming your inbox. This is a local update on the latest COVID restrictions in Poland, active as of tomorrow, Dec. 1st. In summary: at the moment of writing this, the IGF is proceeding as originally planned, in the hybrid format; no additional restrictions have been officially announced, you might however want to consider these latest updates when planning your travel: NEW RESTRICTIONS: Due to the increasing number of COVID infections in Poland [https://is.gd/3TiBZz] and the Omicron variant being detected in neighboring countries, new pandemic restrictions are being implemented locally as of Dec. 1st [source: https://www.gov.pl/web/koronawirus/nowe-zasady-kwarantanny-dla-podrozujacych -i-zmienione-limity-osob in Polish ] * TRAVEL BAN: From November 30 to December 13, Poland is banning flights from high-risk countries: Botswana, Eswatini, Lesotho, Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa, Zimbabwe. People returning from these countries will have to undergo a 14-day quarantine period. This obligation does not apply to fully vaccinated people who hold the EU digital COVID certification. * ACCESS LIMITS: From December 1 to December 17, 2021, the limits of people, incl. in restaurants, hotels, sports facilities, and churches have been further increased: * Gyms, clubs and fitness centers, gambling, museums, art galleries, fairs, exhibitions, congresses, conferences, shops and shopping malls - 1 person per 15 m2 (currently 1 person per 10 m2) [JK: emphasis added, please note the current IGF venue likely meets these new restrictions] * Churches, restaurants, hotels, cinemas, theaters, operas, philharmonics, houses and cultural centers, concerts, circus shows, swimming pools and water parks - 50% occupancy (currently 75% of occupancy). * Assemblies, weddings, communions, consolations, meetings, discos - max. 100 people (currently 150 people). * Extended quarantine for travelers from non-Schengen countries: From December 1 to December 17, 2021, we are also introducing changes to the quarantine rules for travelers from non-Schengen countries. We extend the quarantine to 14 days. Early release from quarantine will be possible in the case of a negative result of the PCR test, which was performed after 8 days from the date of crossing the border. Quarantine does not apply to fully vaccinated people who have the EU digital COVID certification. For latest local IGF related updates, you might want to follow the website of the chancellery of the Prime Minister of Poland who is managing the event on the host's side: https://www.gov.pl/web/igf2021 as well as the latest COVID updates: https://www.gov.pl/web/koronawirus [both available in English, whereas the English language version does not seem to include all the latest info]. I am also attaching the official infographics (in Polish), published yesterday. Unofficial: I have been informed by the local hosts that those who wish to enter the venue in Katowice will be tested or required to show an EU COVID pass or a recent negative test result (taken no later than 48 hours prior to being presented). Please note however that as per the current Polish law there is no vaccine mandate in place, i.e. there is no legal basis for any authority to require anyone to show a proof of vaccination/negative test result. These are considered sensitive health data and can only be required based on a valid provision of law. This might result in a situation where some of those who want to enter the venue without presenting a test result/COVD pass, will be able to successfully oppose such a requirement as per the current Polish law. There have also been recently reported cases of a growing market for false COVID certificates, which are now being prosecuted [in Polish: https://polskieradio24.pl/5/1222/Artykul/2846337,Handel-certyfikatami-covido wymi-powaznym-problemem-Kombinatorzy-nie-sa-jednak-bezkarni ] Thank you for reading all the way through, keep safe everyone! All best wishes, Joanna

1 0