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@itforchange.net> To: Andrew Sullivan <sullivan@isoc.org> CC: Constance Bommelaer <bommelaer@isoc.org>, Mark Carvell <markhbcarvell@gmail.com>, Milton L Mueller <mueller@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/1113...> 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