What Parminder proposes is another consultation process (rolling back). This is a senseless waste of time and the very limited ressources. It could lead to ICANN at its worst. 10 years of discussion around new gTLDs. This is the way, to make the IGF irrelevant, to make it an IGF Minus. And than it is better to close it in 2025 and to re-invent something like another IGF during WSIS+20 (top down?).

If you compare the critical remarks from the consultation process, summarized by the UN, with the proposed mandate and procedure for the MLP (November 2021), than you will recognize, that the majority of the critical remarks from the consultation process has been incorporated into the new proposal. Bottom up multistakeholder discussions, which took place in spring & summer 2021, produced reasonable results. All pros and cons were put on the table. The outcome is not perfect. Bit it seems to be workable and useful, in particular via its strong interlinkage with the MAG and the whole IGF community.The bottom up PDP - a unique format for an organisation like the UN - did work. One can see this as a positive surprise.

There is a permanent "learning from doing". The proposed MLP mandate and its procedures are flexible enough to be adjusted when needed, according to "lessons learned". At this moment, I do not recognize any party who sees - as it stands now - that the MLP will become "the big beast", the "regulatory monster" which will control the Internet world of tomorrow in the interest of "big government" and "big money". I agree that the world is full of autocrats and ego-shooters. But my expecation is that those autocrats will look at a body with strong civil society participation with a lot of mistrust.They will continue to prefer to establish a purely intergovernmental leadership/oversight panel/council, keeping civil society at arms length and outside their discussions.

But indeed, the MLP is not only about policies alone, it is about persons and procedures. The final selection process will be in the hand of the UNSG. I trust him - after he has invested five years into promoting a human centric information society which sees bridging the digital divide and serving the public interest in cyberspace as a first priority - that his decision will be guided by those values and commitments. If he has enough good candidates, fresh air could come through this new window of oppoprtunity.

The MLP doesn´t replace anything, it is an innovation and will be an additional instrument, a tool which can help to move forward into the new complexity of the still unknown territory of cyberspace. It enhances legitimacy, authority and accountabulity of the outcome of the multistakeholder IGF discussions. It could evolve into a mechanism of "enhanced communication" among stakeholders and between the multistakeholder IGF community and the (growing) intergovernmental community, which is negotiating Internet related public policy issues, dislinked from the IGF discussions.

With civil society on "equal footing" in the MLP, it gives civil society a great opportunity to go beyond its traditional role, to critisize intergovernmental processes as "outsiders" from the "balcony".  To enhance civil society engagement in the many new Internet related public policy processes is a good thing. To boycott such an opportunity reduces the role of civil society, undermines its credibility and is very counterproductive. What is the alternative?  

The world is not waiting for our turning in circles within this small IGF civll society bubble. We all know: Form has to follow function. There are big challenges: OEWG, AHC, LAWS, HRC, JCI, DMA, DCA etc. Look at the 41st UNESCO General Conference and its historic decision (last week) to adopt an instrument on Ethics and AI. How many civil society experts from the IGF communicty has been involved? Parminder keeps them busy discussing the questions of yesterday. 

Wolfgang

https://www.jurist.org/news/2021/11/un-countries-adopt-first-global-agreement-on-ai-ethics/


parminder via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> hat am 27.11.2021 05:36 geschrieben:





-------- 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@gmail.com>
To: cdel@firsthand.net
CC: internetpolicy@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, 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. And here a summary.

And here is the ISOC's response 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... It 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@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


_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@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.