Hi Jimsothe 10th anniversary IANA transition review in2026 is a great idea. Should be discussed now in Seattle and in June in Prague. 
 
Wolfgang 
 
Dr Jimson Olufuye via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> hat am 10.03.2025 15:03 CET geschrieben:
 
 
Greetings, all:
 
Many thanks for the perspectives provided so far!
 
The only thing we know that is constant is change. As we witness changes
in USG perspectives, we should not be surprised. I think Bill captured
the dynamics pretty well and that has to do with USG interest in
resource balancing across all spectrum of her interest. Let's not forget
that the background of most of the USG actors is heavily in the private
sector where interest primarily is in ROI. It does not mean disrespect
for individual human rights but in what is fair and balanced.
 
I could recall in 2018 at the twilight of the work of the CSTD WGEC,
Saudi-Arabia insisted on the creation of a government only institution
for Internet Governance and Digital Policy issues, (the reason WGEC
failed) and as such never liked the idea of IGF. But with someone else
(MBS) in power, they not only shifted their policy, they hosted the
world to a lavish IGF2024 in Riyadh. Earlier, a US official once told me
during the WG on IGF Improvement in 2012 that the USG "would never
relinquish" her oversight of IANA during his life-time but by October 1,
2016, USG did (thanks to many here that made it happen when the change
was first announced in 2014) and the rest is history.
 
So, I do not see any issue with ICANN and I do not forsee any take-over
by USG. It is commendable that ICANN has been playing its role well with
balanced oversight by the global Internet Community (especially with
regard to the request for the deactivation of .ru). What ICANN could
probably do now if not yet done is to conduct an audit of its compliance
with the terms of the Transition that saw its contract with NTIA expired
without any move for renewal by NTIA. With that audit in hand, there can
be no argument that would push a recourse to pre-October 2016
arrangement with NTIA as USG is not losing money after the end of its
oversight stewardship. This audit may well be one of the highlights of a
10-year Review of the end of USG oversight of the IANA in October 2026.
 
Cheers,
 
Jimson
 
On 2025-03-10 12:51, Alejandro Pisanty via wsis20 wrote:
Giacomo,
 
the flaw is a bit worse than "the global South governments have a
variety of views on human rights" (paraphrasing.) We in civil society,
academia, and the technical community are at odds - in the best of
cases - or in frank opposition, persecuted, denied voices and
participation, and in dire cases beaten silenced, repressed jailed by
those governments. I am baffled (a bit, honestly) again by the
recurrence of organizations that seek these exact governments' support
for an Internet the governments try to tame, suppress, fragment, or
shut off. If Europe is going to take the lead, it must look at the
communities mentioned, and probably a large part of industry as well,
directly and make sure space and voice are warranted. We were able to
get into the governance space thanks to having first implemented and
operated the Internet totally under the radar and against the
opposition of those governments and I do not think we will give up the
space easily.
 
Yours,
 
Alejandro Pisanty
 
On Sun, Mar 9, 2025 at 3:39 PM giacomo mazzone via wsis20
<wsis20@icann.org> wrote:
 
Dear Anriette,
 
I share entirely your view, and I think that Europe has a unique
opportunity to move in this direction and start to look around for
effective allies, beyond the US government. This is what we need to
do each one in its own field of competence and of regional origin…
 
One of the problem is that global south is not a monolithic entity
and not all of its members have the same views on HR fundamentals.
This could be a major obstacle.
 
But as you said, we have no other way then continue to struggle for
what we believe is the general interest and the common good.
 
Giacomo
 
PS: thank you Bill for the sincere analysis, directly inspired by
Socrates views… “scio me nihil scire”…
 
From: Anriette Esterhuysen via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org>
Sent: Sunday, March 9, 2025 9:58 PM
To: wsis20@icann.org
Subject: [wsis20] Re: [EXTERNAL] - Re: Data point: Shift in USG
position regarding the SDGs
 
Things change, and governments change. This happens all the time,
but of course it matters more when such a powerful state is
involved. As Bill says, it is a new environment.
 
That is precisely why we do need an international system, with
internationally agreed norms and standards. That a powerful
government like the US shows lack of support for this system and
these norms just affirms the importance of having such a system,
even if it does also challenge its sustainability. It might even
create the opportunity for a more level multilateral playing field
that - in a good case scenario - create new opportunities for
global South/Majority member states and for new North/South
alliances - particularly around topics like climate
change/environmental sustainability/social inclusion/fair trade.
 
In response to Jordan's question.... we continue doing what we have
been doing, but smartly and creatively. We strengthen existing
alliances and build new ones. There are still many member states -
in the developed and developing worlds - that tech community and
civil society people/organisations can work with collaboratively.
As for the private sector.... the way in which US-based tech
companies are shedding adherence to human rights (other than to a
simplistic notion of so-called free speech) is creating an
opportunity for businesses that do care about people and the planet
to come forward, show leadership, and join forces with those who
really care about inclusive multistakeholder approaches to tech
governance.
 
We work with governments that care about inclusion and rights and we
challenge and hold accountable those who don't. And we remember that
no government is monolithic.. it is almost always possible to find
people within "hostile" governments to work with. We just have to do
it with more nuance and sensitivity.
 
It it is also not as if the US government has been the worlds
greatest supporter of the WSIS goals, or of global development....
in fact the US has pretty consistently pushed back and tried to
contain commitments to debt relief, access to knowledge, access to
medicines, open source, net neutrality etc.
 
Of course losing the US as an ally in the Human Rights Council, and
in some of the WSIS negotiations on some aspects of the WSIS such as
the renewal of the IGF's mandate, for example, will have a massive
impact, but it might also galvanise other states to be more
effective in countering this impact. In business and human rights
discussions I don't think the US will be missed all that much.. but
the human rights people can correct me on that :)
 
Personally what I will miss most, should it come to that, are
several of the individuals in US missions, the State Department and
other US government agencies that we have been working with in this
space over the past decades/years; people that I have learnt from
and whom I value - even if I did not always agree with them.
 
What about ICANN itself? Any risks to its autonomy as an
institution? Or is the fact that it is incorporated under California
State Law sufficient protection?
 
Is it perhaps time to think of an IANA Transition 2.0?
 
:)
 
Anriette (in my personal capacity)
 
Anriette Esterhuysen - anriette@apc.org//anriette@gmail.com
 
Senior advisor global and regional internet governance
 
Association for Progressive Communications
 
www.apc.org//afrisig.org [1]
 
On 2025/03/08 21:26, Jordan Carter via wsis20 wrote:
 
Bill, all… what is it we need to do, then, in your view?
 
Cheers
 
Jordan
 
Jordan Carter — .au Domain Administration
 
+61-417-243-647 on Signal or iMessage
 
-------------------------
 
From: William Drake via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org>
Sent: Saturday, March 8, 2025 8:43:04 AM
To: Israel Rosas <rosas@isoc.org>
Cc: wsis20@icann.org <wsis20@icann.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] - [wsis20] Re: Data point: Shift in USG position
regarding the SDGs
 
Hi Isra
 
Needless to say, this is more than a data point, it’s a new
environment. Probably they’re just getting started and there’s
lots more stuff laying around waiting to be broken. According to a
State Dept report I read yesterday, as of FY 2022 the US pays 22% of
the overall UN budget (not counting arrears) and over $21 billion to
179 international organizations and multilateral entities (85%
voluntary funds, 15% assessed). As the cultural revolution’s
march through the institutions proceeds, one has to assume the
administration will claim to find lots more “woke/DEI/waste, fraud
and abuse” in those budgets, as well as lots more treaties and
agreements to abandon.
 
Taking a "business as usual" approach to WSIS20 and related might
lead to some surprises down the road...
 
Cheers
 
Bill
 
On Mar 7, 2025, at 3:22 PM, Israel Rosas via wsis20
<wsis20@icann.org> wrote:
 
Hi all,
 
I'd like to bring your attention to the remarks delivered on 4 March
by the US Minister Counselor to ECOSOC regarding the USG position
about the Agenda 2030. This is a significant shift that can have
serious implications in the WSIS+20 review, particularly in a
context where many of us have advocated for the Internet as a force
for good that helps advance global development.
 
The remarks are located here:
 
https://usun.usmission.gov/remarks-at-the-un-meeting-entitled-58th-plenary-meeting-of-the-general-assembly/
A couple of concerning extracts:
 
"We have a concern that this resolution is a reaffirmation of Agenda
2030 and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Although framed
in neutral language, Agenda 2030 and the SDGs advance a program of
soft global governance that is inconsistent with U.S. sovereignty
and adverse to the rights and interests of Americans."
 
"Put simply, globalist endeavors like Agenda 2030 and the SDGs lost
at the ballot box. Therefore, the United States rejects and
denounces the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the
Sustainable Development Goals, and it will no longer reaffirm them
as a matter of course."
 
Best,
 
Isra
 
Isra Rosas, Director, Partnerships and Internet Development
 
Internet Society
 
_______________________________________________
 
Learn more about the WSIS+20 Outreach Network and review relevant
resources: https://go.icann.org/wsis20
 
Read the public archives for this mailing list:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/
 
_______________________________________________
 
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.
[2]
Virus-free.www.avast.com [2]
 
_______________________________________________
 
Learn more about the WSIS+20 Outreach Network and review relevant
resources: https://go.icann.org/wsis20
 
Read the public archives for this mailing list:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/
 
_______________________________________________
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.
 
--
 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
Facultad de Química UNAM
Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
+525541444475
Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty
Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn,
http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614
Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty
---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 
Links:
------
[1] http://www.apc.org/afrisig.org
[2]
https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient
_______________________________________________
 
 
Learn more about the WSIS+20 Outreach Network and review relevant
resources: https://go.icann.org/wsis20
 
Read the public archives for this mailing list:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/
 
_______________________________________________
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.
_______________________________________________
 
 
Learn more about the WSIS+20 Outreach Network and review relevant resources: https://go.icann.org/wsis20
 
Read the public archives for this mailing list: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/
 
_______________________________________________
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.