- At-Large - lists.icann.org

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

Invitation to Webinar on Community Networks from ISoc India Hyderabad Chapter
by K Mohan Raidu Nov. 26, 2021

Nov. 26, 2021

Invitation to Webinar on CommunityNetworks from ISoc India Hyderabad Chapter by Mr.NaveedHaq, Regional Director, Internet Society. Date:Saturday, November 27, 2021 Time:10.30 - 11.30 AM IST (5.00 – 6.00 AMUTC ) GoogleJoining Link: https://meet.google.com/gnb-ghki-ipk To join by phone instead, dial (US)+1 402-759-9231 and enter this PIN: 597 578 237# More phone numbers: https://tel.meet/gnb-ghki-ipk?pin=2232116156405 -KMohan Raidu President ISoc India Hyderabad Chapter +919985033566

1 0

Fwd: [Governance] NOTICE: CSCG nomination process for IGF Leadership Panel
by parminder Nov. 26, 2021

Nov. 26, 2021

-------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: [Governance] NOTICE: CSCG nomination process for IGF Leadership Panel Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2021 15:39:20 +0530 From: parminder <parminder(a)itforchange.net> To: governance(a)lists.igcaucus.org This shows the complete absence of support and enthusiasm among civil society groups and persons for Leadership Panel . On the ISOC list, I saw this posting "does anyone have a handy link to the UN decision and process? 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." ENDS As I mentioned I have got offline messages from many showing dismay with the Leadership Panel ... *Now, the problem is, much less the LP process being stopped, or even being de-legitimized , I suspect the UN Secy General's office and that of the Tech Envoy wouldnt even hear of and know the fact that there is widespread, near total, non-acceptance of and dismay at the LP in civil society and technical community circles... * This doesn't speak about the UN SG or his LP initiative: it speaks about where the IG civil society is currently -- totally in the dumps. parminder On 26/11/21 3:22 pm, Sheetal Kumar via Governance wrote: > Dear all, > > We did not receive a requisite number of eligible nominations for this > process launched last week. We are therefore unable to proceed with > the nomination process for the Leadership Panel as CSCG. > > While this does not constitute a boycott, we understand that the level > of doubt and concerns around the Leadership Panel may indicate that > there isn't the support required. > > We will continue to follow the process and to demand the transparency > and diversity required in all areas of the IGF, and to work towards > strengthening it in the coming years with the view to realising the > true spirit of the IGF's multistakeholder mission. More on our > previous/relevant position here: > https://www.apc.org/en/pubs/open-letter-interpretation-paragraph-93a-un-sec… > <https://www.apc.org/en/pubs/open-letter-interpretation-paragraph-93a-un-sec…>. > There we say "Multistakeholderism, diversity and inclusion should > guide any new structure, building on the IGF legacy thus far and be > the basis for putting the structure in function of shaping the global > internet governance agenda in a way that effectively addresses the > persistent, exacerbated and new challenges derived from the pandemic > situation, including the increasing power of some parts of the > industry, in particular the large technology companies, and the lack > of voices from more vulnerable and marginalised groups." > > We do not want this to be seen as discouragement to anyone planning to > nominate themselves. However, as a network, it is clear that we don't > have the support or interest to continue with this specific nomination > process. > > Best > Sheetal and Bruna > > On Fri, 19 Nov 2021 at 16:25, Sheetal Kumar <sheetal(a)gp-digital.org > <mailto:sheetal@gp-digital.org>> wrote: > > Dear all, > > This is a polite reminder to share your nominations to the CSCG > for the IGF's leadership panel, as per the process outlined below. > We request this is done by _*COB November 22 *_so that we are able > to submit by the deadline of _*November 29. > *_ > > _* > *_ > > We look forward to receiving your nomination/s._* > *_ > > Best > Sheetal > > > > > > On Mon, 15 Nov 2021 at 13:51, Sheetal Kumar > <sheetal(a)gp-digital.org <mailto:sheetal@gp-digital.org>> wrote: > > Dear all, > > As you may have seen, the IGF Secretariat has launched the > nomination process at the request of the Executive Office of > the United Nations Secretary-General for the *inaugural > Leadership Panel of the 2022 and 2023 Internet Governance > Forum (IGF) cycles* > <https://www.intgovforum.org/en/content/internet-governance-forum-leadership…>. > > > > > Following several rounds of open consultations, the Leadership > Panel is a response to the Secretary-General’s Roadmap for > Digital Cooperation <https://undocs.org/A/74/821>, which calls > for strengthening of the IGF through, among other aspects, > /’’creating a strategic and empowered multi-stakeholder > high-level body, building on the experience of the existing > multi-stakeholder advisory group, which would address urgent > issues, coordinate follow-up action on Forum discussions and > relay proposed policy approaches and recommendations from the > Forum to the appropriate normative and decision-making forums/.’’ > > > CSCG, and for this process, this includes APC and IGC, will > run a nomination process to identify nominees for the two > categories: > > * Two [2] at-large members (distinguished or prominent > persons who do not fall under above stakeholder groups) and > * Two [2] CEO-level (or deputy-level) representatives from > each of the other three stakeholder groups (civil society) > > Please note, this does not mean we endorse the process or the > mechanism itself. We will send a letter with the nominations > that clearly reiterates our previous publicly stated positions > (such as this Open letter on the interpretation of paragraph > 93(a) of the UNSG's Roadmap on Digital Cooperation > <https://www.apc.org/en/pubs/open-letter-interpretation-paragraph-93a-un-sec…> > and this on the future of the IGF > <https://www.apc.org/en/pubs/why-inclusive-transparent-and-accessible-global…>on > the Leadership Panel/Higher-level MAG > <https://www.apc.org/en/pubs/why-inclusive-transparent-and-accessible-global…>), > including the importance of maintaining the MAG's current role > and not supplanting it, the importance of diversity and > inclusion, transparency etc and make clear that our submission > of nominees should not be read as endorsement. > > > We intend that our nominations reflect the above criteria. > Please note that to receive a CSCG nomination for the IGF > leadership panel you'll need to send us (me and Valeria and > Bruna cc'd) the information required on the online form > <https://www.intgovforum.org/en/content/leadership-panel-nomination-2022>. > We request this is done by _*COB November 22 *_so that we are > able to submit by the deadline of _*November 29. > *_ > > _* > *_ > > We look forward to receiving your nomination/s._* > *_ > > Best > Sheetal > > > -- > * > * > *Sheetal Kumar* > Head of Global Engagement and Advocacy | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| Time zone: GMT | M: +44 (0)7739569514 | > PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B > E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| > > > > > > -- > * > * > *Sheetal Kumar* > Head of Global Engagement and Advocacy | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| Time zone: GMT | M: +44 (0)7739569514 | > PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 > 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| > > > > > > -- > * > * > *Sheetal Kumar* > Head of Global Engagement and Advocacy | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| Time zone: GMT | M: +44 (0)7739569514 | > PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 > DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| > > > >

1 0

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 12:39:33 +0530 From: parminder <parminder.js(a)gmail.com> To: sivasubramanian muthusamy <6.internet(a)gmail.com> CC: internetpolicy(a)elists.isoc.org <internetpolicy(a)elists.isoc.org> On 26/11/21 11:44 am, sivasubramanian muthusamy wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 10:57 AM parminder via InternetPolicy > <internetpolicy(a)elists.isoc.org > <mailto:internetpolicy@elists.isoc.org>> wrote: > > 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 .. > > The view that IGF is removed from World's reality and the criticisms > such as it is nothing more than a Talk shop --- all this comes from a > general difficulty in measuring the immeasurable. It appeared to be a > talk shop (Parminder is definitely among those who talked, wasn't > he?), no decisions were made, no recommendations were formally made, > but hasn't the IGF worked in ways we can't measure? How would anyone > measure IGF's influence on Internet Policy? Because the effect of the > IGF is not quantifiable, it is not quite unfair to comment in such > adverse terms. IGF is indeed on a path of evolution, it is spectacular > in its evolution because in such a short time as 15 years, the IGF has > seated stakeholders inside the room where Policy used to be framed > only on the basis of what Governments understood (or misunderstood). Very well, you have a right to these views. I may just only remind you that to Evan's email where he called the IGF as a bubble removed from the society, an elitist talk shop, and having only created entropy in these last 15 years (that was almost all he said in the email about the IGF) ... you responded yesterday on the At-Large elist in the following manner, and I quote > Dear all, > > I am by and large in agreement with Evan. ENDs In this part of the email, I was just asking you - and others like you who seemed to be agreeing to both sides -- to make up your mind one way or the other .. Please stop confusing people. That would really raise the quality of the debate.... parminder > If the past 15 years have given the IGF a frame, the leadership panel > will breathe life into the IGF. > > 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... > > How is this characterization made here? > > 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). > > That is an over-simplified example. > > 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. > > It is just the opposite of a design of bureaucracy. > > > 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, 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/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…> >>>>> <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> >>>>>> <mailto:at-large@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 >>>>>> <mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> >>>>>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large >>>>>> <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large> >>>>>> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org >>>>>> <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 >>>>>> <https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>) and the website Terms >>>>>> of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos >>>>>> <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 <mailto:WG-Strategy@intgovforum.org> >>>>> To unsubscribe or manage your options please go to >>>>> http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-strategy_intgovforum.org >>>>> <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 <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/ <https://www.internetsociety.org/become-a-member/code-of-conduct/> > _______________________________________________ > To manage your Internet Society subscriptions > or unsubscribe, log into the Member Portal at > https://admin.internetsociety.org/622619/User/Login > <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/ > <https://www.internetsociety.org/become-a-member/code-of-conduct/> >

3 5

Invitation to participate in the first India IGF 2021 (25 Nov 2021, 04:00 UTC)
by Satish Babu Nov. 25, 2021

Nov. 25, 2021

Dear all, The IIGF2021 Coordination Team cordially invites you to participate in the *first India Internet Governance Forum* (IIGF 2021) starting 25 November, 2021 9:30 IST or 4:00 UTC. The overarching theme this year is *Empower India through the Power of the Internet*. The three sub themes are India & Internet: India's Digital Journey & her Global Role; Equity, Access & Quality: High Speed Internet for all and Cyber Norms & Cyber Ethics in Internet Governance. IIGF 2021 is a 3-day event (25 -27 November, 2021) where apart from the inaugural and valedictory sessions, there are three plenary sessions and thirteen workshops. Speakers from diverse stakeholder groups both from India and overseas will be participating to share their perspectives on various topics during these three days. You can view the program schedule using this link <https://indiaigf.in/iigf21-event-structure/> To attend the session please access this link <https://meeting.indiaigf.in/community> and set up your password to participate. Do watch this short video <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4C1e6udSW0&feature=youtu.be> to know more about the program. Look forward to your participation in the forum to shape India's IG discussions. With kind regards, satish (On behalf of the IIGF2021 Team)

11 13

Re: [At-Large] At-Large Digest, Vol 160, Issue 10
by mohammed bamidele Nov. 23, 2021

Nov. 23, 2021

What is this forum all about? Sir mallambaba baba On Tue, Nov 23, 2021, 13:00 <at-large-request(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote: > Send At-Large mailing list submissions to > at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > at-large-request(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > at-large-owner(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of At-Large digest..." > Today's Topics: > > 1. GoDaddy says data breach exposed over a million user accounts > (Olivier MJ Cr?pin-Leblond) > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: "Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond" <ocl(a)gih.com> > To: At-Large Worldwide <at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > Cc: > Bcc: > Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2021 20:09:21 +0100 > Subject: [At-Large] GoDaddy says data breach exposed over a million user > accounts > Ouch, that's some security breach.... > > https://techcrunch.com/2021/11/22/godaddy-breach-million-accounts/?guccount… > > _______________________________________________ > At-Large mailing list > At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large > _______________________________________________ > 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.

1 0

GoDaddy says data breach exposed over a million user accounts
by Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond Nov. 22, 2021

Nov. 22, 2021

Ouch, that's some security breach.... https://techcrunch.com/2021/11/22/godaddy-breach-million-accounts/?guccount…

1 0