- At-Large - lists.icann.org

Fwd: Calling for ISOC to not associate with the nomination process for IGF Leadership Panel
by parminder Nov. 29, 2021

Nov. 29, 2021

IT for Change and Just Coalition sent the below email to ISOC's CEO Andrew Sullivan urging him to (1) protest UN SG's decision to set up a Leadership Panel, going against the outcomes of UN SG's own public consultation on the subject, and (2) ensure that ISOC does not associate with the nomination process for constituting the Leadership Panel, which ISOC had so strongly opposed during the consultation . We also remind him of the time when ISOC had successfully opposed setting up a similar high level body for Internet Governance at the World Economic Forum. ISOC's stand on an issue cannot merely depend on the chance of success. Thee are larger matters of principles, and safeguarding long term public interest in the area of global IG. We further request members of different ISOC chapters who may be this elist to share this email and the enclosed letters with their chapter members, and consider the matter of technical community's stand on this issue. parminder -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Calling for ISOC to not associate with the nomination process for IGF Leadership Panel Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2021 13:35:02 +0530 From: parminder <parminder(a)itforchange.net> To: Andrew Sullivan <sullivan(a)isoc.org> CC: Constance Bommelaer <bommelaer(a)isoc.org>, Mark Carvell <markhbcarvell(a)gmail.com>, Milton L Mueller <mueller(a)syr.edu> 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://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/93a-public-responses>: "...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://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/index.php?q=filedepot_download/111…> 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

1 0

REGISTER - At-Large Intercultural Virtual Workshop on Monday 29 November 2021 at 13:00 UTC
by ICANN At-Large Staff Nov. 29, 2021

Nov. 29, 2021

PLEASE REGISTER AND JOIN US! Registrarse para zoom Inscrivez-vous pour Zoom! Dear All, Please join the At-Large Intercultural Virtual Workshop on Monday 29 November 2021 at 13:00 UTC for 90 minutes (English, French and Spanish interpretation). What you need to know when working in an intercultural organisation? Que devez-vous savoir lorsque vous travaillez dans une organisation interculturelle? Qué necesitas saber cuando trabajas en una organización intercultural? The topic of the first workshop on Monday, 29 November at 13:00 UTC is “The Art of Small Talk”. Agenda and joining details: https://tinyurl.com/yy34e2nb [tinyurl.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tinyurl.com/yy34e2nb__;!!PtGJab4!qGf4gFz…> ZOOM REGISTRATION: https://icann.zoom.us/meeting/register/tJMlcuyqqDIiHNG9C2_-oLOJdeus9hGF0rHa [icann.zoom.us]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann.zoom.us/meeting/register/tJMlcuyqq…> If you require a dial-out please contact At-Large staff at staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> with your preferred number and language channel. Questions to be discussed are, inter alia: * What are do and don’ts in a small talk? * Which topics you should never touch? * How important, or less important, is small talk in a region for building trust or just as am matter of politeness? * How sensitive is a culture with regard to speed, tone, irony, volume? * How do you approach a person you would like to get to know? BACKGROUND: Working within ICANN can be challenging, for staff as well as for the numerous volunteers that form this international organisation. Collaboration across the globe and over various time zones, the different perspectives you have whether you participate as an employee or as a volunteer, as well as a lack of understanding for each other’s cultural background and behaviour are potential sources of conflict. However, a positive aspect is that the ICANN community has all the sources to overcome intercultural misunderstandings. We just have to talk and to listen to each other. The At-Large Capacity Building Working Group Sub Team would like to start a series of interactive workshops, addressing the global At-Large Community and increasing our ability to understand and appreciate each other’s challenges. During these workshops, we will explore the “secrets” of our different cultures on some dedicated examples such as: 1. Verbal communication (speed, tone, irony, volume) 2. The art of small talk 3. Time sensitivity 4. How to dress 5. Eating manners 6. What is expected from a community leader? 7. How work hierarchies in your country and which effect they have at your performance at ICANN? … just to name a few We will start the series with a topic related to communication - something that we possibly will need to re-fresh as we prepare to meet in person again - hopefully soon! If this initial workshop is a success, we will continue with this series in 2022 on the other topics and introduce the format to the wider ICANN Community. Source: Harassment presentation at ICANN Learn Thank you. Kind Regards, At-Large Staff ICANN Policy Staff in support of the At-Large Community Website: atlarge.icann.org [atlarge.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/atlarge.icann.org/__;!!PtGJab4!oE6rPDXmK…> Facebook: facebook.com/icann [facebook.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.facebook.com/icannatlarge__;!!PtGJab…>atlarge [facebook.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.facebook.com/icannatlarge__;!!PtGJab…> Twitter: @ [twitter.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge__;!!PtGJab4!oE6…>ICANNAtLarge [twitter.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge__;!!PtGJab4!oE6…>

1 0

ccNSO Newsletter November 2021 - Issue 34
by Maureen Hilyard Nov. 28, 2021

Nov. 28, 2021

In today's ccNSO newsletter there are two highlights 1) a report from the ccNSO Internet Governance Liaison Committee by Lianna Galstyan, APRALO Vice Chair. Lianna is shadowing our current ccNSO Liaison, Barrack Otieno so that she can take over these duties after ICANN73. Of further note, Lianna is also a Member participant in the ALAC EPDP on Internationalised Domain Names (IDNs) and has recently been appointed by the PIR to their Advisory Council. She will serve alongside fellow APRALO member, Nadira Al Araj who is also a PIRAC member. 2) a report on the ccNSO DNS Abuse sessions during ICANN72. Links to recordings are also attached. In keeping with her upcoming Liaison duties, Lianna will send any future ccNSO newsletters out to the At-Large community, with any highlights to be brought to our attention. [image: ccNSO-logo.jpeg] ccNSO News November 2021 | Issue 34 [image: Screenshot 2021-08-02 at 12.51.32.png] Nominations are now open We seek one ccNSO Council member for the EU Region Giovanni Seppia has indicated he will step down from the ccNSO Council at the end of 2021. ccNSO members in the European Region will now need to select a candidate for the remainder of Giovanni's term (until March 2023). The call for nominations closes Thursday, 2 December 2021 (23:59 UTC). Read more <https://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001ZnRbfhGp5s91lv9LWhg2pTtQL35FbEZIICaN6RLEQ0g…> Make your voice heard! ccNSO members from the Asia-Pacific region select their preferred candidate Elections for one ccNSO Council member for the Asia-Pacific region are still open. ccNSO Members from the Asia-Pacific region can vote until Thursday, 25 November 2021 (23:59 UTC). Two candidates applied: Anil Kumar Jain and Jordan Carter. Read more <https://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001ZnRbfhGp5s91lv9LWhg2pTtQL35FbEZIICaN6RLEQ0g…> [image: Screenshot 2021-11-19 at 09.47.10.png] Stay informed about the ccNSO Working Groups & Committees [image: Screenshot 2021-09-27 at 15.20.52.png] In preparation of each ccNSO Council meeting, a written update regarding the work by the various working groups and committees is sent to Council. It includes information about the current status, next steps and what the activities are about. Read more about: - ccPDP3 Retirement - ccPDP3 Review Mechanism Working Group (ccPDP3-RM) - ccPDP4 Working Group on the (de)selection of IDN ccTLD strings (ccPDP4-IDN) - Guidelines Review Committee (GRC) - Internet Governance Liaison Committee (IGLC) - Meetings Programme Committee (MPC) - Outreach and Involvement Standing Committee (OISC) - Strategic and Operational Planning Committee (SOPC) - Triage Committee - Tech Working Group - TLD-OPS Standing Committee - Empowered Community Administration (ECA) - Customer Standing Committee (CSC) Read more <https://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001ZnRbfhGp5s91lv9LWhg2pTtQL35FbEZIICaN6RLEQ0g…> Webinar on New ccNSO Rules: Save The Date [image: Picture 1.png] The ccNSO Guidelines Review Committee subgroup on Rules invites the ccTLD Community to join a public webinar on Thursday, 9 December 2021 at 13:00 UTC, to present their final draft of the updated ccNSO Rules. Based on the feedback, the Working Group will finalize its draft, which will then be put before the ccNSO membership for adoption through a voting process. Date: Thursday, 9 December 2021 Time: 13:00 UTC Join meeting: https://icann.zoom.us/j/94200072453pwd=Z3pOd1NMMm5GQXc0VDR0NlRmWGR2dz09 <https://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001ZnRbfhGp5s91lv9LWhg2pTtQL35FbEZIICaN6RLEQ0g…> Background The new Rules will have a direct impact on the governance structure of the ccNSO, specifically on the respective roles and responsibilities of the Council and ccNSO membership. ICANN72 marked the 4th ccNSO Governance Session, building on the previous sessions at ICANN69, ICANN70 and ICANN71, where the ccNSO Council and Members have been discussing the need to update the internal rules of the ccNSO, which were adopted in 2004. A ccNSO Working Group held various consultations with the ccNSO membership to identify issues, find solutions and to update about progress. Looking back at ICANN72 [image: ICANN72_Remote_Marker_no dates_Black_Vertical.png] The Policy Outcomes Report is out now Written by the ICANN organization Policy Development Support team, the ICANN72 Policy Outcomes Report captures decisions and outcomes from the Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees. This report also summarizes the plenary session, reviews additional activities of the ICANN community, looks to next steps, and provides resources to enable sustained engagement on important issues. <https://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001ZnRbfhGp5s91lv9LWhg2pTtQL35FbEZIICaN6RLEQ0g…>Read more <https://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001ZnRbfhGp5s91lv9LWhg2pTtQL35FbEZIICaN6RLEQ0g…> Thank you for your input! The ccNSO Meetings Programme Committee (MPC) thanks those that answered the ICANN72 satisfaction survey. Your input is valuable, and provides useful guidance for future ccNSO Member Meetings. The MPC has now finalised its “feedback-on-feedback”. This document aims to evaluate the community feedback received regarding the Virtual ccNSO Members meeting at ICANN72, and provides the feedback from the MPC in response. Read more <https://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001ZnRbfhGp5s91lv9LWhg2pTtQL35FbEZIICaN6RLEQ0g…> Looking ahead: ICANN73 [image: Screenshot 2021-11-19 at 10.33.43.png] The MPC welcomes any suggestions you may have. Contact the ccNSO Secretariat <ccnsosecretariat(a)icann.org> Soon you can respond to a call for presentation proposals for the pre-ICANN73 ccTLD News Sessions. Keep an eye out for the announcements on the ccNSO website! [image: LG_2021.jpg] Read the report by Lianna Galstyan on the Armenian IGF Lianna Galstyan (Vice Chair Board at .am/․հայ) is a member of the ccNSO Internet Governance Liaison Committee (IGLC). In this report, Lianna reflects on the discussions and outcomes of the 6th Armenian IGF, held in October 2021. She also talks about the 5th anniversary of ․հայ, the Armenian IDN top-level domain. Read the report by Lianna here. <https://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001ZnRbfhGp5s91lv9LWhg2pTtQL35FbEZIICaN6RLEQ0g…> ccNSO Council Highlights [image: Screenshot 2021-09-27 at 15.21.09.png] The ccNSO role on DNS Abuse: Next Steps The ccNSO Council did not meet in November. Instead, the ccNSO Council invited the ccTLD Community to join a public workshop on Thursday, 18 November 2021 at 12:00 UTC to further discuss the suggestions regarding what the ccNSO should do or should not do with respect to DNS abuse, in addition to what is already happening at the local and regional ccTLD level. The ccNSO has organized various sessions on Domain Name System (DNS) abuse in recent ICANN Public Meetings. ccTLD managers and others shared their experiences with respect to mitigating DNS abuse, focusing on what ccTLDs do nationally and regionally. During ICANN72, the conversation shifted to focus on exploring the potential role of the ccNSO itself. Both ccTLDs and other stakeholders suggested activities the ccNSO could undertake to complement existing work being done by the community. The ccNSO Council will now develop a plan which will be presented to the ccTLD community in early 2022. The goal is to launch the ccNSO activities aimed at mitigating DNS abuse by ICANN73. Recordings: - ICANN72 ccNSO session on DNS Abuse <https://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001ZnRbfhGp5s91lv9LWhg2pTtQL35FbEZIICaN6RLEQ0g…> - November ccNSO Workshop <https://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001ZnRbfhGp5s91lv9LWhg2pTtQL35FbEZIICaN6RLEQ0g…> The ccNSO Council will reconvene on 16 December 2021 at 18:00 UTC. Council meetings are open to observers. Contact the ccNSO Secretariat <ccnsosecretariat(a)icann.org> for participation details. country code Names Supporting Organisation https://ccnso.icann.org <https://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001ZnRbfhGp5s91lv9LWhg2pTtQL35FbEZIICaN6RLEQ0g…> | ccnsosecretariat(a)icann.org <https://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001ZnRbfhGp5s91lv9LWhg2pTtQL35FbEZIICaN6RLEQ0g…> [image: Facebook] <https://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001ZnRbfhGp5s91lv9LWhg2pTtQL35FbEZIICaN6RLEQ0g…> [image: Twitter] <https://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001ZnRbfhGp5s91lv9LWhg2pTtQL35FbEZIICaN6RLEQ0g…> ICANN | 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300, Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536

1 0

REGISTER - At-Large Intercultural Virtual Workshop on Monday 29 November 2021 at 13:00 UTC
by ICANN At-Large Staff Nov. 28, 2021

Nov. 28, 2021

PLEASE REGISTER AND JOIN US! Registrarse para zoom Inscrivez-vous pour Zoom! Dear All, Please join the At-Large Intercultural Virtual Workshop on Monday 29 November 2021 at 13:00 UTC for 90 minutes (English, French and Spanish interpretation). What you need to know when working in an intercultural organisation? Que devez-vous savoir lorsque vous travaillez dans une organisation interculturelle? Qué necesitas saber cuando trabajas en una organización intercultural? The topic of the first workshop on Monday, 29 November at 13:00 UTC is “The Art of Small Talk”. Agenda and joining details: https://tinyurl.com/yy34e2nb [tinyurl.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tinyurl.com/yy34e2nb__;!!PtGJab4!qGf4gFz…> ZOOM REGISTRATION: https://icann.zoom.us/meeting/register/tJMlcuyqqDIiHNG9C2_-oLOJdeus9hGF0rHa [icann.zoom.us]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann.zoom.us/meeting/register/tJMlcuyqq…> If you require a dial-out please contact At-Large staff at staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> with your preferred number and language channel. Questions to be discussed are, inter alia: * What are do and don’ts in a small talk? * Which topics you should never touch? * How important, or less important, is small talk in a region for building trust or just as am matter of politeness? * How sensitive is a culture with regard to speed, tone, irony, volume? * How do you approach a person you would like to get to know? BACKGROUND: Working within ICANN can be challenging, for staff as well as for the numerous volunteers that form this international organisation. Collaboration across the globe and over various time zones, the different perspectives you have whether you participate as an employee or as a volunteer, as well as a lack of understanding for each other’s cultural background and behaviour are potential sources of conflict. However, a positive aspect is that the ICANN community has all the sources to overcome intercultural misunderstandings. We just have to talk and to listen to each other. The At-Large Capacity Building Working Group Sub Team would like to start a series of interactive workshops, addressing the global At-Large Community and increasing our ability to understand and appreciate each other’s challenges. During these workshops, we will explore the “secrets” of our different cultures on some dedicated examples such as: 1. Verbal communication (speed, tone, irony, volume) 2. The art of small talk 3. Time sensitivity 4. How to dress 5. Eating manners 6. What is expected from a community leader? 7. How work hierarchies in your country and which effect they have at your performance at ICANN? … just to name a few We will start the series with a topic related to communication - something that we possibly will need to re-fresh as we prepare to meet in person again - hopefully soon! If this initial workshop is a success, we will continue with this series in 2022 on the other topics and introduce the format to the wider ICANN Community. Source: Harassment presentation at ICANN Learn Thank you. Kind Regards, At-Large Staff ICANN Policy Staff in support of the At-Large Community Website: atlarge.icann.org<https://atlarge.icann.org/> Facebook: facebook.com/icann<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge>atlarge<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge> Twitter: @<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>ICANNAtLarge<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>

1 1

Fwd: [Governance] Seeking roll back of IGF Leadership Panel
by parminder Nov. 28, 2021

Nov. 28, 2021

-------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: [Governance] Seeking roll back of IGF Leadership Panel Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2021 15:24:40 +0530 From: parminder via Governance <governance(a)lists.igcaucus.org> Reply-To: parminder <parminder(a)itforchange.net> To: Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com>, governance(a)lists.igcaucus.org <governance(a)lists.igcaucus.org> Dear Olivier, Thanks for your response, which I take as a constructive engagement. First of all, it is simply NOT PRACTICAL that in a communication to the UN SG where we reject the specific idea of IGF Leadership Panel as a bad idea, and describe why so in a few paras, we then use a few more pages to put out our entire alternative vision of global digital governance. These things do not work like that. Please do not put impossible expectations on us, and then be disappointed that these are not met. Apart from the practical need to be short, succinct and to the point when addressing a letter to high authorities regarding a specific new institutional proposal, there was also this other equally important consideration. While an overwhelming number of civil society and tech community people actually hate this new LP proposal, one cannot expect them all to agree on a design for a future global digital governance architecture. Any letter putting a detailed alternative proposal would have diverted all attention towards various alternative views about such a future architecture -- bringing up intense contentions and arguments and counter-arguments -- distracting from the part people agree on; which is that, whatever be the other differences, the LP is certainly a very bad idea and should not exist. We wished and still wish to create and use such an agreement within civil society and technical community groups 'on this one point' towards the objective of resisting the formation of the LP. That is simply how advocacy works. (Evan, you called me non-strategic.. But that is how one actually is strategic .. Not by saying in the same email that LP may be a cure worse than the disease, and that at a cursory reading it looks like taking us to ICANN style corporate capture of governance but what the heck, lets still support that LP idea. That is NOT strategic.) For instance Milton and I would not agree on our visions and proposals for the future of global digital governance. But just because there still exist a few alternative ideas around for this future (perhaps all better than the LP proposal), you cannot use that diversity and lack of consensus to say, ok, the next bad idea given by UN SG is therefore accepted .. Any such logic sounds absolutely strange is to me, and that is the crux of most people's responses here to our joint letter. parminder ps: Dont worry, I will indeed still address in full detail your issue about "the status quo is no longer fit for purpose", and "what next", in two subsequent emails. Although I do find it strange that so many have said that I do not present alternatives, which I have done almost every 6 months for the last almost 15 years on these elists, as well in form of institutional submissions to NetMundial, various CSTd WGs, WSIS plus 10, the IGF, you name it , .. All of them public .. You are therefore just dead wrong to say I dont present alternatives (and thus have no right to criticize the LP). I'd provide the proof to rejig your conveniently sieve like memory for my concrete proposals. I started at the very first IGF in 2006 with a proposal for a Framework Law on IG, right at the very first IGF, at a workshop cosponsored by Internet Governance Project, and have not stopped since.... . That proposal had the support of a colleague of Milton's at the IGP, and the government of Brazil, .... I can write a few pages about the proposals I/ we have made since then ... You dont have to agree those proposals to accept that we have regularly made concrete proposals, which is something you seem to deny or forget, which does disappoint me :) On 26/11/21 5:31 pm, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond wrote: > Dear Parminder, > > I understand from your letter with Milton that you are *against* the > creation of an IGF Leadership Panel. What I'd like to hear is what you > and Milton propose instead. It is easy to be against all sorts of > things, but the world isn't static and from the IGF conultations, it > is clear that the current status quo is no longer fit for purpose. > There needs to be evolution. > So what next? > > Thanks, > > Olivier Crépin-Leblond > (speaking on my own behalf) > > On 24/11/2021 15:32, parminder via Governance wrote: >> >> >> Dear All, >> >> Please find enclosed a letter addressed to the UN Secretary General >> appealing to him to roll back the decision for an IGF Leadership Panel. >> >> The letter is co-signed by Dr Milton Mueller, on behalf of the >> Internet Governance Project, Georgia Institute of Technology School >> of Public Policy, and Parmider Jeet Singh, for IT for Change, and the >> Just Net Coalition. >> >> The letter is cc-ed to representatives of civil society and technical >> community groups requesting them to refrain from sending nominations >> for the IGF Leadership Panel, and thus legitimizing it. >> >> The letter argues how the IGF Leadership Panel militates against the >> basic idea, objectives and structure of the IGF, and will weaken it. >> >> Best, parminder >> >> >

1 0

Re: [At-Large] [Internet Policy] Seeking roll back of the IGF Leadership Panel
by Evan Leibovitch Nov. 27, 2021

Nov. 27, 2021

> PS: All this talk of 'what is the alternative' is very distractive... We > have a clear problem here, and our discussions are around that clear > problem. An invitation to open up all the deep contestations on how global > digital governance should actually be going forward would achieve just one > purpose here -- cloud and bury this specific issue that we face right now. > If you come away with nothing else from this thread, it ought to be the realization that this is not a distraction, it is core. Perception of credible and commonly-desirable alternatives as a lesser side issue is why, through complete fault of your own (and those who share this lack of strategy), you will fail in this effort and get exactly what you are fighting against. - Evan

2 1

Fwd: [Internet Policy] Seeking roll back of the IGF Leadership Panel
by parminder Nov. 27, 2021

Nov. 27, 2021

-------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: [Internet Policy] Seeking roll back of the IGF Leadership Panel Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2021 10:02:55 +0530 From: parminder <parminder.js(a)gmail.com> To: cdel(a)firsthand.net CC: internetpolicy(a)elists.isoc.org On 25/11/21 7:56 pm, Christian de Larrinaga wrote: > does anyone have a handy link to the UN decision and process? The UN decision is described here <https://www.intgovforum.org/en/content/internet-governance-forum-leadership…>, but the process is not provided. The IGF MAG/ sect was asked to do a public consultation on what should be done. An overwhelming number of responses did not want the kind of structure that has now been set up, the IGF Leadership Panel (LP(, .. See here the responses to the consultation <https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/93a-public-responseshttps://www.in…>. And here a summary <https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/index.php?q=filedepot_download/111…>. And here is the ISOC's response <https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/93a-public-responses> which is especially clear it does not want any such structure. To quote it: "However, 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." > If this is a "firm" decision it goes against advice from what seemed > a strong consensus I noted at the UK IGF steering team and I expect > other many other groups. Indeed, just yesterday a nomination process for the proposed LP set up by some civil society groups (my group boycotted it) collapsed due to lack of interest from civil society people and groups. What does all this say... I*t is clear that the LP decision is NOT supported by an overwhelming majority of civil society and technical community groups and people.* The question then is, for a decision that will be so important to the future of the (much loved) IGF, and global digital governance, *why cant civil society and technical community and ISOC just write to the UN SG that they are dismayed about the LP decision, and that it goes against what came out of the 'public consultations'* , and that the decision be rolled back. *The least they can do is to not participate in the nomination process - -thus denying the LP any legitimacy ... This is how stakeholder and people's democratic power is exercised from below.* This is simply and exactly what Milton's and my letter does, which has been put to such intense criticism and questioning here... I do not understand; are we to just accept and go along with every decision of the UN SG about the IGF and global digital gov architecture, without even protesting and questioning it. *What is the point of doing a public consultation when the powers-that-be were to then go against the outcomes of the consultation*, and do as they wish. This is what I mean when I say that the civil society and technical community, which, in their democratic and policy influencing role, are tasked to 'speak to power' have unfortunately become status quo ist, and meek. People seem more worried about their own location within 'the system', and their prospects in it, rather looking out for the interests of the public, and their constituencies, and representing and voicing them. We appeal to civil society people/ groups, tech community people/ groups including the ISOC to not associate with the nomination process, which gives legitimacy to the UN SG's decision to make a LP, which is inappropriate both in substance and process. If YOU remain silent and say nothing now, and just go along, you lose your stakeholder/ representative power, and will be handed down more such decisions. Your constituents and the public, as well as history, will judge you very poorly for it. In this manner, it is YOU who *weakens multistakeholder participation and power by being cowed down*. parminder PS: All this talk of 'what is the alternative' is very distractive... We have a clear problem here, and our discussions are around that clear problem. An invitation to open up all the deep contestations on how global digital governance should actually be going forward would achieve just one purpose here -- cloud and bury this specific issue that we face right now. Having said that, I have never been amiss on giving alternatives.. I give full bodied ones almost every six months on these elists, and have been doing it for years.. Sure, I'd do it again. But cant allow that (legitimately) expansive, complicated and often divisive discussion to bury this important specific thing we face now. So pl give your views on this thing, rather than raise all kinds of distractions. > > > On Wed 24 Nov 2021 at 14:34, parminder via InternetPolicy > <internetpolicy(a)elists.isoc.org> wrote: > > >> Dear All, >> >> Please find enclosed a letter addressed to the UN Secretary General >> appealing to him to roll back the decision for an IGF Leadership Panel. >> >> The letter is co-signed by Dr Milton Mueller, on behalf of the Internet >> Governance Project, Georgia Institute of Technology School of Public >> Policy, and Parmider Jeet Singh, for IT for Change, and the Just Net >> Coalition. >> >> It is cc-ed to representatives of civil society and technical community >> groups requesting them to refrain from sending nominations for the IGF >> Leadership Panel, and thus legitimizing it. >> >> The letter argues how the IGF Leadership Panel militates against the >> basic idea, objectives and structure of the IGF, and will weaken it. >> >> Best, parminder > >

2 1

Fwd: [Internet Policy] Fwd: [WG-Strategy] Seeking roll back of the IGF Leadership Panel
by parminder Nov. 26, 2021

Nov. 26, 2021

-------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: [Internet Policy] Fwd: [WG-Strategy] [At-Large] Seeking roll back of the IGF Leadership Panel Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2021 10:57:21 +0530 From: parminder <parminder.js(a)gmail.com> To: internetpolicy(a)elists.isoc.org Contrary to Evan's view, Wolfgang considers the IGF to be extremely successful, and it is in this path of its spectacular evolutionary success that the Leadership Panel (LP) is placed as a kind of necessary and very useful development .. Not just the past, but the two also fundamentally disagree on there future expectations from the LP... Evan thinks that the LP will somehow magically address and solve pressing digital policy issues, about solving which he (like me) is very eager. Wolfgang is clear that the LP is "not the "new Internet policy makers", they function like a "post office", bringing the messages from the multistakeholder IGF to the intergovernmental negotiation table and vice versa". Since whatever little support the LP has focuses on this "messages" and "post office" and "bridge' function, and it is also the crux of Wolfgang's argument, let me focus on it. It should be noted that UN SG wants a star cast for the LP, and calls for only CEO and deputy CEO levels to apply... These are big-ego people very fond of expressing and touting their views... These are just not the people who act as message carriers and post office - an archetypical description of bureaucracy's function, enough of which exists and links between the IGF and decision making bodies. (If you want you can work on improving that part which is what meets the role and objective description you provide for the LP. Not a group of CEOs.). Therefore there is a fundamental, and in my view, fatal, dis-junction between the HR description and institutional objectives sought. May you please explain this. I would invite you to expound your views with clear practical examples. To help that, lets take that a LP has been set up with an hypothetical membership of the ministers of France and Indonesia, a Senior VP of Microsoft and CEO of TCS (Indian software major), and CEOs of ISOC and APNIC, and ok let me not speculate on civil society leaders chosen (but believe me, their egos can be bigger than those of industry CEOs). Lets say one of these IGF Leaders is at an important global meeting, and is introduced as such , as being a part of IGF's Leadership Group/ Panel. Wolfgang, please try to give us some concrete examples of what s/he might do, in nature of a "post office" and carrier of messages from the IGF, and back... Would s/he hand over and describe, say the outcome document of an IGF's Best Practices Forum... Lets take the example of the BPF on data and new technologies ... I dont see a minister or an industry CEO (or ISOC CEO) setting aside her/ his views on such a globally hot topic like data, and share some lame as well as politically controversial views from this BFP's outcome paper <https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/filedepot_download/9655/2393>. But I am happy to hear from you your description of what would likely happen in such a scenario, which is the embodiment of your main argument in favour of LP. And if the LP person is just to hand over the outcome paper to the meeting or read its summary (which s/he cannot do other than in a selective manner, given her/ his inevitable own strong views on data etc), why is this function not much better done by the bureaucracy, which does it best (and knows where to stop). So if you may, just add 2-3 more people to the IGF sect or the UNDESA's IGF desk ... But sure, Wolfgang, pl you illuminate us how such a thing will actually fold out -- using a hypothetical as above, or another of your own ... Speaking in abstract in terms of messages and post offices and bridges means nothing .. We are at a serious fork in the evolution of institutions of digital governance. So, please lets get real. Currently, the MAG Chair at a global meeting limits herself to describing the process functions and the greatness of the IGF .. Show us a picture of IGF leaders getting 'substantive' in their outside communication, and I'd show what is fatally wrong with the LP idea. Let us know how a groups of Leaders will actually perform the function you lay out, and why that function is not better performed by strengthening the bucreaucracy link between IGF and others, it being to my mind an archetypical bureacracy function. parminder On 26/11/21 9:46 am, parminder wrote: > I have views on both Wolfgang's and Evan's responses to our letter, > and their position vis a vis the new IGF Leadership Panel. > > What however completely passes me is how anyone can agree with both > Evan's and Wolfgang's positions, as some have some... Unless, no > offense, but one is just desperate to somehow agree with whatever is > happening, and looks difficult to change. > > Evan's and Wolfgang's positions come from fundamentally opposed > premises, and have fundamentally different expectations from the > Leadership Panel. In fact there positions like in two opposite > extremes from mine, or in other words mine is actually somewhere in > the middle. I therefore find it difficult to in the same email argue > against the two positions. > > Meanwhile, I'd request those supporting both positions to help me > understand how both can be right. Thanks. > > Evan considers the IGF to a bubble removed from world's reality, > something which has entirely failed. It is so dead or nearly so, that > Even is happy if it can be given a last squeeze, everything being > otherwise so dismal, that something good may come out.. He himself > says he is not sure, and I am paraphrasing, if his medicine is worse > than the cure. He just thinks that the IGF is all talk, ineffective, > etc, and anything outcome- oriented is better than that. He seems to > have applied no mind to what that outcome- oriented would be, how it > would work, and what kind of outcomes can be expected (obviously, not > all outcomes are describable.) I consider it kind of desperate kind of > view, which, my apologies, but does not deserve any serious > consideration among people who concern themselves with long term > nature and implications of governance institutions. It is quite like, > and as desperate as, crying out, all this bloody liberal democracy > just doesn't work, bring in a good dictator inside, we would at least > see some action! > > This is despite that I normally have quite respected Evan's views, > agree with him that the IGF has become an insiders bubble, and had a > disease needing cure, etc. He is completely wrong that in indicated > that we as letter writers have any intention to perpetuate the status > quo, live off it, etc, which I think he need to know more about how > much we fight the status quo every day, including the IGFs. He is also > wrong that no alternatives are offered; we so regularly offer them, > and we were also one of the most active members of the CSTD WG on IGF > improvements. > > To sum; I take Evan's critique to be of an outsider, who has rightly > seem a lot of problems with the IGF, but not been invested enough, nor > thought through the new Leadership Panel's nature and likely > implications, whereby his statement of the problem is fine, but > accepting the Leadership Panel as a solution to try out way off .. > Since he himself says he isnt sure if the uure is better than the > disease, I think he confirms my summing of his position. I read it as > genuine expression of desperation with the current IGF, which I > considerably share, and nothing more -- nothing that can really be > taken serious about the actual discussion here, about the new > Leadership Panel .. > > parminder > > On 25/11/21 5:37 pm, Winthrop Yu via InternetPolicy wrote: >> >> Not that i disagree with what Wolfgang is saying here, but i am more >> fully in accord with the comments on this by Evan and Roberto on the >> At-Large list. (We have a forked discussion.) >> >> WYn >> >> On 25 Nov 2021 7:18 pm, Carlos Afonso via InternetPolicy wrote: >>> Careful and relevant considerations by Wolfgang. >>> >>> A lot is still on the discussion table regarding how this HL will >>> work and relate to the overall IGF community. One option is to >>> discard it, another is to keep it and make sure we participate in >>> the process from the beginning. >>> >>> []s fraternos >>> >>> --c.a. >>> >>> On 24/11/2021 16:47, Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I disagree with the letter, signed by Parminder and Milton. I do >>>> not share their arguments. I believe, that Parminders and Miltons >>>> proposal, to "urge civil society and technical community, to >>>> refrain from sending any nominations for the IGF Leadership Panel" >>>> is very counterproductive, undermines the future role of the IGF >>>> and weakens civil society engagement in Internet related public >>>> policy making at the global level. >>>> >>>> The IGF is indeed a unique experiment in the UN system. Its key >>>> purpose is to broaden the participatory base of digital policy >>>> making. Since 2006 it has enabled a broad variety of voices to be >>>> heard, including those voices otherwise marginalized.It was (and >>>> is) a kitchen to cook new ideas. Discussion without barriers. >>>> Bottom Up. This was the intention. It has worked, but it did have >>>> also its limits. >>>> >>>> As a member of the UN Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG), >>>> which proposed the establishment of the IGF in 2005, I think we >>>> were very right to create the IGF as a "discussion plattform" >>>> (forum function) without any decision making capacity. The fear >>>> was, that if the IGF becomes a negotiation body, this will kill >>>> free and frank discussions. And indeed, the informal nature of the >>>> IGF did open "mouths and minds" of all stakeholders. >>>> >>>> I was also a member of the UNCSTD IGF Improvement Working Group >>>> (2012). In this group we agreed that the IGF should continue as a >>>> discussion platform, but needs more tangible outputs. >>>> >>>> The outcome of the IGF are its (sometimes controversial) >>>> "messages". There are no "IGF positions": some stakeholders say so, >>>> others say so. It is a bottom up process. And this is good for a >>>> discussion platform., >>>> >>>> However, the digital world has moved forward in the last 17 years. >>>> Internet Governance isn´t anymore a "technical issue with political >>>> implications", it is a "political issue with a technical >>>> component". For many Internet related public policy issues new >>>> bodies have been created outside the WSIS process and dislinked >>>> from the IGF. In the 2020s, there are more than a dozen global >>>> negotiation bodies where issues like cybersecurity, digital >>>> economy, sustainable development or human rights in the digital age >>>> are disucssed. Those issues are on the agenda of the IGF since its >>>> beginning. But the reality is, that the policy makers in the new >>>> negotiation bodies, which are primarily intergovernmental bodies, >>>> are in many cases not informed about the IGF discussions. They even >>>> have very often no clue what was discussed at the IGF. There is >>>> neither a formal nor an informal linkage between the "discussion >>>> layer" (the multistakeholder IGF) and the the "decision making >>>> layer" (new intergovernmental negotiation bodies). >>>> >>>> There is a need to bring the expertise, knowledge and ideas from >>>> the multistakeholder IGF to the intergovernmental negotiation >>>> table. And the IGF will benefit, if the diplomats report back - >>>> formally or informally - to the IGF sessions. The idea of the >>>> Multistakeholder Leadership Panel (MLP) is driven by this idea to >>>> build bridges. >>>> >>>> The proposal for the Multistakeholder IGF Leadership Panel is the >>>> result of a years long multistakeholder discussion process, where >>>> all pros and cons of such a new unit were critically evaluated and >>>> considered by many different groups, including many civil society >>>> organisations. It was inspired by the UNCSTD work. It started with >>>> the UNSG High Level Panel on Digital Cooperation (2018). It was >>>> developed by the Option Paper 5A&B (2019) and further specified in >>>> the UNSG Roadmap (2020). >>>> >>>> Risks, which were articulated in various statements of civil >>>> society organisations, that a new unit will emerge outside the IGF >>>> and could lead to a competitive situation, duplication or >>>> overlapping of functions, with the potential to weaken the IGF, has >>>> been heard by the UNSG. My understanding of the multistakeholder >>>> leadership panel - with its very limited mandate - is, that it is >>>> part of the general IGF structure and rooted in the (broader) MAG. >>>> It is like an executive committee for the MAG and will make the >>>> work of the whole MAG more efficent and effective. It makes the >>>> IGF stronger, more visible on the international scene and will open >>>> the door for a more enhanced bottom up cooperation among all >>>> stakeholders in global Internet policy making. It is an IGF+. >>>> Members of the new Panel will act as ambassadors between the >>>> discussion and decision-making layers. They are not the "new >>>> Internet policy makers", they function like a "post office", >>>> bringing the messages from the multistakeholder IGF to the >>>> intergovernmental negotiation table and vice versa. >>>> >>>> This is a unique opportunity for civil society. And civil society >>>> organisations, in particular from the Global South, should make use >>>> of it. Strong civil society representation in the multistakeholder >>>> leadership panel will contribute to build a human centric >>>> information society, based on the Civil Society WSIS Declaration >>>> (2003), the Tunis Agenda (2005) and the Multistakeholder NetMundial >>>> Statement (2014). And it will pave the way for a strong civil >>>> society voice in the process towards a "Global Digital Compact" >>>> (2023). >>>> >>>> Best wishes >>>> >>>> Wolfgang >>>> >>>> Below are links to our "multistakeholder statement" for the Option >>>> Paper 5A&B (2020) and the outcome from a multistakeholder expert >>>> seminar (2021) where a lot of civil society organisations where >>>> represented. >>>> >>>> https://circleid.com/posts/20210304-framing-the-internet-governance-debate-… >>>> <https://circleid.com/posts/20210304-framing-the-internet-governance-debate-…> >>>> >>>> >>>> https://circleid.com/posts/20200426-cross-pollination-in-cyberspace-interne… >>>> <https://circleid.com/posts/20200426-cross-pollination-in-cyberspace-interne…> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> parminder via At-Large <at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> hat am >>>>> 24.11.2021 16:12 geschrieben: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Dear All, >>>>> >>>>> Please find enclosed a letter addressed to the UN Secretary >>>>> General appealing to him to roll back the decision for an IGF >>>>> Leadership Panel. >>>>> >>>>> The letter is co-signed by Dr Milton Mueller, on behalf of the >>>>> Internet Governance Project, Georgia Institute of Technology >>>>> School of Public Policy, and Parmider Jeet Singh, for IT for >>>>> Change, and the Just Net Coalition. >>>>> >>>>> It is cc-ed to representatives of civil society and technical >>>>> community groups requesting them to refrain from sending >>>>> nominations for the IGF Leadership Panel, and thus legitimizing it. >>>>> >>>>> The letter argues how the IGF Leadership Panel militates against >>>>> the basic idea, objectives and structure of the IGF, and will >>>>> weaken it. >>>>> >>>>> Best, parminder >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing >>>>> list At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>>>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large At-Large >>>>> Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org >>>>> _______________________________________________ By submitting your >>>>> personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data >>>>> for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with >>>>> the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) >>>>> and the website Terms of Service >>>>> (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos) You can visit the Mailman >>>>> link above to change your membership status or configuration, >>>>> including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or >>>>> disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> WG-Strategy mailing list >>>> WG-Strategy(a)intgovforum.org >>>> To unsubscribe or manage your options please go to >>>> http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-strategy_intgovforum.org >>>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> To manage your Internet Society subscriptions >> or unsubscribe, log into the Member Portal at >> https://admin.internetsociety.org/622619/User/Login >> and go to the Preferences tab within your profile. >> - >> View the Internet Society Code of Conduct: https://www.internetsociety.org/become-a-member/code-of-conduct/

3 3

Re: [At-Large] [Internet Policy] Fwd: [WG-Strategy] Seeking roll back of the IGF Leadership Panel
by Evan Leibovitch Nov. 26, 2021

Nov. 26, 2021

I have neither the time nor patience for an extended back-and-forth. On Thu, 25 Nov 2021 at 23:17, parminder via InternetPolicy < internetpolicy(a)elists.isoc.org> wrote: > Evan considers the IGF to a bubble removed from world's reality, something > which has entirely failed. It is so dead or nearly so, that Even is happy > if it can be given a last squeeze, everything being otherwise so dismal, > that something good may come out. > One is welcome to read into my comments, sentiments and motivations that don't exist; I can't stop that. But the above is not what I said. My core point is simple; rejection of the LP proposal, without offering an alternative path to reform, is rightfully begging to be ignored. I am not advocating for the LP, indeed from cursory glance it does appear like an express path to ICANN-style industry capture. But I am asserting that the status quo has become unacceptable to all outside the talk-shop bubble, and refusing to acknowledge (let alone making a proposal to address) this is guaranteed to lead to undesired outcomes. Worse than a blown opportunity, it is a thoroughly avoidable own-goal. If the response to this PoV is that it > does not deserve any serious consideration among people who concern > themselves with long term nature and implications of governance institutions > ... well, good luck with that level of condescension. Maybe this explains why consensus is so undesirable within the IGF status quo. Yes, there is desperation to be sure. The current state of IG is leading to a visible deterioration of global society before our eyes; meanwhile the elites (very much including civil society elites) have shirked their responsibility to the public interest, because actual outputs are too messy and might actually demand compromise and diplomacy. Into this vacuum we will see authoritarians and populists step forward, while the IGF just keeps on talking. Cue the UNSG and its leadership folks. This is your fault. > He is completely wrong that in indicated that we as letter writers have > any intention to perpetuate the status quo, live off it, etc, which I think > he need to know more about how much we fight the status quo every day, > including the IGFs. He is also wrong that no alternatives are offered; we > so regularly offer them, and we were also one of the most active members of > the CSTD WG on IGF improvements. > As yes, the venerable IG Working Group, the gold standard of bikeshedding. Discussing what colour to paint the doors while the house burns down. That's not fighting the status quo, that's being an agent for it. The reality is that the IGF, as a component of IG infrastructure, has next to nothing to offer society given a nearly two-decade existence. Something's got to change. If not the UNSG's path, then what? - Evan

2 1

Fwd: [Internet Policy] Fwd: [WG-Strategy] Seeking roll back of the IGF Leadership Panel
by parminder Nov. 26, 2021

Nov. 26, 2021

Forwarded as a response to Evan's email on this subject on this elist .. parminder -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: [Internet Policy] Fwd: [WG-Strategy] [At-Large] Seeking roll back of the IGF Leadership Panel Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2021 09:46:58 +0530 From: parminder <parminder.js(a)gmail.com> To: internetpolicy(a)elists.isoc.org I have views on both Wolfgang's and Evan's responses to our letter, and their position vis a vis the new IGF Leadership Panel. What however completely passes me is how anyone can agree with both Evan's and Wolfgang's positions, as some have some... Unless, of offense, but one is just desperate to somehow agree with whatever is happening, and looks difficult to change. Evan's and Wolfgang's positions come from fundamentally opposed premises, and have fundamentally different expectations from the Leadership Panel. In fact there positions like in two opposite extremes from mine, or in other words mine is actually somewhere in the middle. I therefore find it difficult to in the same email argue against the two positions. Meanwhile, I'd request those supporting both positions to help me understand how both can be right. Thanks. Evan considers the IGF to a bubble removed from world's reality, something which has entirely failed. It is so dead or nearly so, that Even is happy if it can be given a last squeeze, everything being otherwise so dismal, that something good may come out.. He himself says he is not sure, and I am paraphrasing, if his medicine is worse than the cure. He just thinks that the IGF is all talk, ineffective, etc, and anything outcome- oriented is better than that. He seems to have applied no mind to what that outcome- oriented would be, how it would work, and what kind of outcomes can be expected (obviously, not all outcomes are describable.) I consider it kind of desperate kind of view, which, my apologies, but does not deserve any serious consideration among people who concern themselves with long term nature and implications of governance institutions. It is quite like, and as desperate as, crying out, all this bloody liberal democracy just doesn't work, bring in a good dictator inside, we would at least see some action! This is despite that I normally have quite respected Evan's views, agree with him that the IGF has become an insiders bubble, and had a disease needing cure, etc. He is completely wrong that in indicated that we as letter writers have any intention to perpetuate the status quo, live off it, etc, which I think he need to know more about how much we fight the status quo every day, including the IGFs. He is also wrong that no alternatives are offered; we so regularly offer them, and we were also one of the most active members of the CSTD WG on IGF improvements. To sum; I take Evan's critique to be of an outsider, who has rightly seem a lot of problems with the IGF, but not been invested enough, nor thought through the new Leadership Panel's nature and likely implications, whereby his statement of the problem is fine, but accepting the Leadership Panel as a solution to try out way off .. Since he himself says he isnt sure if the sure is better than the disease, I think he confirms my summing of his position. I read it as genuine expression of desperation with the current IGF, which I considerably share, and nothing more -- nothing that can really be taken serious about the actual discussion here, about the new Leadership Panel .. parminder On 25/11/21 5:37 pm, Winthrop Yu via InternetPolicy wrote: > > Not that i disagree with what Wolfgang is saying here, but i am more > fully in accord with the comments on this by Evan and Roberto on the > At-Large list. (We have a forked discussion.) > > WYn > > On 25 Nov 2021 7:18 pm, Carlos Afonso via InternetPolicy wrote: >> Careful and relevant considerations by Wolfgang. >> >> A lot is still on the discussion table regarding how this HL will >> work and relate to the overall IGF community. One option is to >> discard it, another is to keep it and make sure we participate in the >> process from the beginning. >> >> []s fraternos >> >> --c.a. >> >> On 24/11/2021 16:47, Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I disagree with the letter, signed by Parminder and Milton. I do not >>> share their arguments. I believe, that Parminders and Miltons >>> proposal, to "urge civil society and technical community, to refrain >>> from sending any nominations for the IGF Leadership Panel" is very >>> counterproductive, undermines the future role of the IGF and weakens >>> civil society engagement in Internet related public policy making at >>> the global level. >>> >>> The IGF is indeed a unique experiment in the UN system. Its key >>> purpose is to broaden the participatory base of digital policy >>> making. Since 2006 it has enabled a broad variety of voices to be >>> heard, including those voices otherwise marginalized.It was (and is) >>> a kitchen to cook new ideas. Discussion without barriers. Bottom Up. >>> This was the intention. It has worked, but it did have also its limits. >>> >>> As a member of the UN Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG), >>> which proposed the establishment of the IGF in 2005, I think we were >>> very right to create the IGF as a "discussion plattform" (forum >>> function) without any decision making capacity. The fear was, that >>> if the IGF becomes a negotiation body, this will kill free and frank >>> discussions. And indeed, the informal nature of the IGF did open >>> "mouths and minds" of all stakeholders. >>> >>> I was also a member of the UNCSTD IGF Improvement Working Group >>> (2012). In this group we agreed that the IGF should continue as a >>> discussion platform, but needs more tangible outputs. >>> >>> The outcome of the IGF are its (sometimes controversial) "messages". >>> There are no "IGF positions": some stakeholders say so, others say >>> so. It is a bottom up process. And this is good for a discussion >>> platform., >>> >>> However, the digital world has moved forward in the last 17 years. >>> Internet Governance isn´t anymore a "technical issue with political >>> implications", it is a "political issue with a technical component". >>> For many Internet related public policy issues new bodies have been >>> created outside the WSIS process and dislinked from the IGF. In the >>> 2020s, there are more than a dozen global negotiation bodies where >>> issues like cybersecurity, digital economy, sustainable development >>> or human rights in the digital age are disucssed. Those issues are >>> on the agenda of the IGF since its beginning. But the reality is, >>> that the policy makers in the new negotiation bodies, which are >>> primarily intergovernmental bodies, are in many cases not informed >>> about the IGF discussions. They even have very often no clue what >>> was discussed at the IGF. There is neither a formal nor an informal >>> linkage between the "discussion layer" (the multistakeholder IGF) >>> and the the "decision making layer" (new intergovernmental >>> negotiation bodies). >>> >>> There is a need to bring the expertise, knowledge and ideas from the >>> multistakeholder IGF to the intergovernmental negotiation table. And >>> the IGF will benefit, if the diplomats report back - formally or >>> informally - to the IGF sessions. The idea of the Multistakeholder >>> Leadership Panel (MLP) is driven by this idea to build bridges. >>> >>> The proposal for the Multistakeholder IGF Leadership Panel is the >>> result of a years long multistakeholder discussion process, where >>> all pros and cons of such a new unit were critically evaluated and >>> considered by many different groups, including many civil society >>> organisations. It was inspired by the UNCSTD work. It started with >>> the UNSG High Level Panel on Digital Cooperation (2018). It was >>> developed by the Option Paper 5A&B (2019) and further specified in >>> the UNSG Roadmap (2020). >>> >>> Risks, which were articulated in various statements of civil society >>> organisations, that a new unit will emerge outside the IGF and could >>> lead to a competitive situation, duplication or overlapping of >>> functions, with the potential to weaken the IGF, has been heard by >>> the UNSG. My understanding of the multistakeholder leadership panel >>> - with its very limited mandate - is, that it is part of the general >>> IGF structure and rooted in the (broader) MAG. It is like an >>> executive committee for the MAG and will make the work of the whole >>> MAG more efficent and effective. It makes the IGF stronger, more >>> visible on the international scene and will open the door for a more >>> enhanced bottom up cooperation among all stakeholders in global >>> Internet policy making. It is an IGF+. Members of the new Panel >>> will act as ambassadors between the discussion and decision-making >>> layers. They are not the "new Internet policy makers", they function >>> like a "post office", bringing the messages from the >>> multistakeholder IGF to the intergovernmental negotiation table and >>> vice versa. >>> >>> This is a unique opportunity for civil society. And civil society >>> organisations, in particular from the Global South, should make use >>> of it. Strong civil society representation in the multistakeholder >>> leadership panel will contribute to build a human centric >>> information society, based on the Civil Society WSIS Declaration >>> (2003), the Tunis Agenda (2005) and the Multistakeholder NetMundial >>> Statement (2014). And it will pave the way for a strong civil >>> society voice in the process towards a "Global Digital Compact" (2023). >>> >>> Best wishes >>> >>> Wolfgang >>> >>> Below are links to our "multistakeholder statement" for the Option >>> Paper 5A&B (2020) and the outcome from a multistakeholder expert >>> seminar (2021) where a lot of civil society organisations where >>> represented. >>> >>> https://circleid.com/posts/20210304-framing-the-internet-governance-debate-… >>> <https://circleid.com/posts/20210304-framing-the-internet-governance-debate-…> >>> >>> >>> https://circleid.com/posts/20200426-cross-pollination-in-cyberspace-interne… >>> <https://circleid.com/posts/20200426-cross-pollination-in-cyberspace-interne…> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> parminder via At-Large <at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> hat am >>>> 24.11.2021 16:12 geschrieben: >>>> >>>> >>>> Dear All, >>>> >>>> Please find enclosed a letter addressed to the UN Secretary General >>>> appealing to him to roll back the decision for an IGF Leadership >>>> Panel. >>>> >>>> The letter is co-signed by Dr Milton Mueller, on behalf of the >>>> Internet Governance Project, Georgia Institute of Technology School >>>> of Public Policy, and Parmider Jeet Singh, for IT for Change, and >>>> the Just Net Coalition. >>>> >>>> It is cc-ed to representatives of civil society and technical >>>> community groups requesting them to refrain from sending >>>> nominations for the IGF Leadership Panel, and thus legitimizing it. >>>> >>>> The letter argues how the IGF Leadership Panel militates against >>>> the basic idea, objectives and structure of the IGF, and will >>>> weaken it. >>>> >>>> Best, parminder >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing >>>> list At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large At-Large >>>> Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org >>>> _______________________________________________ By submitting your >>>> personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data >>>> for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with >>>> the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and >>>> the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos) >>>> You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership >>>> status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting >>>> digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a >>>> vacation), and so on. >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> WG-Strategy mailing list >>> WG-Strategy(a)intgovforum.org >>> To unsubscribe or manage your options please go to >>> http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-strategy_intgovforum.org >>> >> > > _______________________________________________ > To manage your Internet Society subscriptions > or unsubscribe, log into the Member Portal at > https://admin.internetsociety.org/622619/User/Login > and go to the Preferences tab within your profile. > - > View the Internet Society Code of Conduct: https://www.internetsociety.org/become-a-member/code-of-conduct/

4 3