Re: [At-Large] [Internet Policy] Fwd: [WG-Strategy] Seeking roll back of the IGF Leadership Panel
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@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
Hi Parminder and all, As someone who usually likes and closely follows your positions related to IG, it seems to me that the efforts you are promoting here will most likely be in vain if they do not have a broad adherence at least from civil society, so treating divergent opinions with condescendence or irony does not seem to be an effective path to achieve this. Even though I'm a newcomer to this ecosystem, it didn't seem to me that either Evan's or Wolfgang's opinions are unsubstantiated or fragile as you presented them in your answer - I, for one, am also a big supporter of giving the IGF greater practical influence, even though I agree the LP as it was presented would be the wrong tool to achieve that. But, you see, there is room for honest and straightforward debate. If the main idea of the IGF (and its most positive aspect) is to discuss controversial topics broadly and deeply, we can apply this philosophy here as well and at least try to make it clear to everyone that reads this list what (specifically) are the main problems of the proposal, whether they are attenuable, if there are tools to exert some kind of control over the entity, etc. This way, even if the main idea of blocking the proposal does not work, at least there would be a plan B on what to watch out for to minimize damages or try to freeze capture, even if this is done through an external approach to the LP. Cordially, *Pedro de Perdigão Lana* Lawyer, OAB/PR 90.600 @ Faria Santos <https://cutt.ly/RfkTFrK>, Professor @ ISULPAR <https://www.isulpar.edu.br/> LLM in Corporate Law @ UCoimbra, Researcher @ GEDAI/UFPR <https://www.gedai.com.br/> Board member of Youth SIG <https://youthsig.org/> (Internet Society), Creative Commons Brazil <https://br.creativecommons.net/> and IODA <https://ioda.org.br/> The information available in this email is restricted to the sender and the intended recipient(s). Em sex., 26 de nov. de 2021 às 08:52, Evan Leibovitch via InternetPolicy < internetpolicy@elists.isoc.org> escreveu:
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@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 _______________________________________________ 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/
participants (2)
-
Evan Leibovitch -
Pedro de Perdigão Lana