- At-Large - lists.icann.org

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

Dec. 4, 2021

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

1 0

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

Dec. 1, 2021

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

1 0

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

Dec. 1, 2021

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

1 0

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

Nov. 30, 2021

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

1 0

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