Completely agree with wolfgang regarding this. The Civil society space is not a space for a few powerful organizations to move around and work around with limitations of power shared, in fact it should be the platform of voice of people from the Globe. The dynamics of Internet governance is not limited to power control but a more diplomatic way of keeping things straight facilitating the value of multistakeholder practice in lobbying and safeguarding the standard. It is more about collaboration and how Civil society keeps up with the other stakeholders in creating better values of standards for them to adopt and recommend things for a collaborative internet ecosystem. Regards Shreedeep ______________________ *Shreedeep Rayamajhi * *ICT4D Consultant | Editor Rayznews Founder Learn Internet Governance * [image: Professionally Connect with SR] <https://np.linkedin.com/in/shreedeeprayamajhi> +1(301)485-9395(US) *DISCLAIMER:* This message is intended only for the recipient. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 2:27 AM Wolfgang Kleinwächter via At-Large < at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> 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-l...

https://circleid.com/posts/20200426-cross-pollination-in-cyberspace-internet...

parminder via At-Large <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@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.

_______________________________________________ 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.

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-l... <https://circleid.com/posts/20210304-framing-the-internet-governance-debate-l...>

https://circleid.com/posts/20200426-cross-pollination-in-cyberspace-internet... <https://circleid.com/posts/20200426-cross-pollination-in-cyberspace-internet...>

...

parminder via At-Large <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@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@intgovforum.org To unsubscribe or manage your options please go to http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-strategy_intgovforum.org

-- Carlos A. Afonso [emails são pessoais exceto quando explicitamente indicado em contrário] [emails are personal unless explicitly indicated otherwise] Instituto Nupef - https://nupef.org.br

Dear all, I am by and large in agreement with Evan. The IGF situation reminds me of a case study during my MBA, that can be titled: “Changing or persevering?” and that I can summarise below. If a chosen strategy does not give the expected results, there are two possibilities: one is to rethink the matter and come up with a different approach, the other one is to pour more resources in support of the current approach. There are pros and cons to either way, and in theory it has much to do with the assessment of the chances that the current approach is the correct one. In practice, however, it has much to do with the stubbornness of the leaders and the resistance to change - in summary, the inability to recognise failure. However, the letter that originates this thread seems to suggest a third way, that is to stay as we are because all is good - which is something on which I fully disagree. I am in favour of looking for other ways to progress. I am not an insider of the IGF, and participate if and when I can, so I do not have the expertise to provide an educated guess on whether the UNSG’s proposal is the good one, but I would nevertheless state what I consider the condition “sine-qua-non” the new approach can work: to make the leadership team fully representative of the multi-stakeholder model, in particular removing the obstacles that prevent the model to be “global” and “equal”. In short, avoid that this LT is tilted towards specific stakeholder groups. Provided that this can be avoided, I believe that it is worth trying this new approach - that I understand will not substitute but complement the basic work carried on by the rank and file in the current IGF, in particular in the local and regional environments, where wider participation is possible. Cheers, Roberto On 25.11.2021, at 11:15, Evan Leibovitch via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>> wrote: Disclaimer: I have been to a few regional IGFs but never the global one. I keep a relationship with the Internet Governance bubble and attempt to stay informed, but remain at arms length because of the general detachment of this bubble from society at large. These days I only get involved when something really egregious happens that directly affects the public interest, such as the PIR/EthosCapital fiasco. I will try to be as brief in my point as possible, but there are many premises behind these conclusions. And while I speak for myself, I have had many conversations with people I trust who have come to similar conclusions to mine but just don't dare to express it: To those outside the bubble, IGF only had one job, but it was an important one: Come up with one or more workable ideas for Internet Governance that suffer neither the industry capture of ICANN and ISOC nor the state capture of ITU. At this task, despite more than a decade offered, the IGF has only been notable in its preference of talk over action. So if the IGF in its current form can't execute the one thing it was trusted by the world to do, it is only to be expected that those who created it may lose patience and seek a different approach. As a result ... I applaud the UNSG's exhaustion with the IGF status quo. I am unsure whether his cure is worse than the disease, but there is a disease, make no mistake, one whose main symptom appears to be entropy. It's been nearly 20 years since WSIS with no discernable public benefit yet. This letter asserts that the IGF's role is not to form consensus, which perfectly illustrates the entropy and justifies the UNSG action. It indicates that its participants prefer IGF to forever remain an elitist talk shop among self-appointed experts. That's all well and good for those inside that bubble who enjoy endless bickering as an end in itself, rather than seeking action that would actually improve society. But clearly the UNSG, correctly in my opinion, has determined that going forward "talk" needs to eventually turn to "do". The IGF either needs to (a) reform itself and its mandate into the more-difficult pursuit of outcomes, or (b) go off in a virtual corner to talk amongst yourselves till the end of time, finding another patron who will support that kind of thing, while putting the reform that the IG world desperately needs now in the hands of others ready to take on that role. At very least the letter is highly ignorable in rejecting the UNSG proposal without offering alternative reform. The status quo has expired. If you don't provide an evolutionary path then your patron will do it for you. Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada @evanleibovitch / @el56 On Wed, 24 Nov 2021 at 10:15, parminder via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.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<mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> 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) 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. _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto: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.

+1. At minimum, the UNSG's action intuitively suggests a yearning for some long-held vision on outcome. CAS ===================== *Carlton A Samuels* *Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 5:16 AM Evan Leibovitch via At-Large < at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote:

Disclaimer: I have been to a few regional IGFs but never the global one. I keep a relationship with the Internet Governance bubble and attempt to stay informed, but remain at arms length because of the general detachment of this bubble from society at large. These days I only get involved when something really egregious happens that directly affects the public interest, such as the PIR/EthosCapital fiasco. I will try to be as brief in my point as possible, but there are many premises behind these conclusions. And while I speak for myself, I have had many conversations with people I trust who have come to similar conclusions to mine but just don't dare to express it:

To those outside the bubble, IGF only had one job, but it was an important one: Come up with one or more workable ideas for Internet Governance that suffer neither the industry capture of ICANN and ISOC nor the state capture of ITU. At this task, despite more than a decade offered, the IGF has only been notable in its preference of talk over action. So if the IGF in its current form can't execute the one thing it was trusted by the world to do, it is only to be expected that those who created it may lose patience and seek a different approach.

As a result ... I applaud the UNSG's exhaustion with the IGF status quo. I am unsure whether his cure is worse than the disease, but there is a disease, make no mistake, one whose main symptom appears to be entropy. It's been nearly 20 years since WSIS with no discernable public benefit yet.

This letter asserts that the IGF's role is not to form consensus, which perfectly illustrates the entropy and justifies the UNSG action. It indicates that its participants prefer IGF to forever remain an elitist talk shop among self-appointed experts. That's all well and good for those inside that bubble who enjoy endless bickering as an end in itself, rather than seeking action that would actually improve society. But clearly the UNSG, correctly in my opinion, has determined that going forward "talk" needs to eventually turn to "do". The IGF either needs to (a) reform itself and its mandate into the more-difficult pursuit of outcomes, or (b) go off in a virtual corner to talk amongst yourselves till the end of time, finding another patron who will support that kind of thing, while putting the reform that the IG world desperately needs now in the hands of others ready to take on that role.

At very least the letter is highly ignorable in rejecting the UNSG proposal without offering alternative reform. The status quo has expired. If you don't provide an evolutionary path then your patron will do it for you.

Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada @evanleibovitch / @el56

On Wed, 24 Nov 2021 at 10:15, parminder via At-Large < at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.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.

_______________________________________________ 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.

FWIW I think Evan's comment is very well stated and if you skipped it deserves a read. On November 25, 2021 at 05:15 at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org (Evan Leibovitch via At-Large) wrote:

Disclaimer: I have been to a few regional IGFs but never the global one. I keep a relationship with the Internet Governance bubble and attempt to stay informed, but remain at arms length because of the general detachment of this bubble from society at large. These days I only get involved when something really egregious happens that directly affects the public interest, such as the PIR/EthosCapital fiasco. I will try to be as brief in my point as possible, but there are many premises behind these conclusions. And while I speak for myself, I have had many conversations with people I trust who have come to similar conclusions to mine but just don't dare to express it:

To those outside the bubble, IGF only had one job, but it was an important one: Come up with one or more workable ideas for Internet Governance that suffer neither the industry capture of ICANN and ISOC nor the state capture of ITU. At this task, despite more than a decade offered, the IGF has only been notable in its preference of talk over action. So if the IGF in its current form can't execute the one thing it was trusted by the world to do, it is only to be expected that those who created it may lose patience and seek a different approach.

As a result ... I applaud the UNSG's exhaustion with the IGF status quo. I am unsure whether his cure is worse than the disease, but there is a disease, make no mistake, one whose main symptom appears to be entropy. It's been nearly 20 years since WSIS with no discernable public benefit yet.

This letter asserts that the IGF's role is not to form consensus, which perfectly illustrates the entropy and justifies the UNSG action. It indicates that its participants prefer IGF to forever remain an elitist talk shop among self-appointed experts. That's all well and good for those inside that bubble who enjoy endless bickering as an end in itself, rather than seeking action that would actually improve society. But clearly the UNSG, correctly in my opinion, has determined that going forward "talk" needs to eventually turn to "do". The IGF either needs to (a) reform itself and its mandate into the more-difficult pursuit of outcomes, or (b) go off in a virtual corner to talk amongst yourselves till the end of time, finding another patron who will support that kind of thing, while putting the reform that the IG world desperately needs now in the hands of others ready to take on that role.

At very least the letter is highly ignorable in rejecting the UNSG proposal without offering alternative reform. The status quo has expired. If you don't provide an evolutionary path then your patron will do it for you.

Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada @evanleibovitch / @el56

On Wed, 24 Nov 2021 at 10:15, parminder via At-Large < at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.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.

_______________________________________________ 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.

-- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo*