One of the nice ripple effects of the dynamics unleashed by WSIS has been the increasing openness of access to some ITU documents, such as those of the Council Working Group on WSIS & SDGs (the backlash to WCIT helped too). Hence we’re able to read the RCC’s missive and have this conversation elicited by Pari. However, the contributions made to the other WSIS+20 processes like the consultations for the High Level Event and the CSTD's review are not accessible. We went through this with the GDC process as well, and it was arguably consequential. The inability to see what states and stakeholders are inputting into these processes as they unfold limits dialogue, strategic cooperation and coalition building, and impactful responses.

I’ve not noticed this issue being raised much in the submissions that have been shared thus far; transparency just gets flagged as something stakeholders favor and practice in ICANN etc., but would it not be useful to call for the WSIS+20 review to be as open as the WSIS process itself was?

Cheers

Bill

PS: On Alex’s points on stakeholders, the TC and WGIG, if anyone’s interested there are nice pieces by Alex, Avri, Wolfgang on others on this nexus in this open access book https://www.apc.org/sites/default/files/IG_10_Final_0.pdf

On Feb 5, 2025, at 9:27 PM, Alejandro Pisanty via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> wrote:

Mark,

good point re the definition of stakeholders. You may know that I was in the WGIG (as a few others in this list.) WGIG was the Working Group on Internet Governance created by the first phase of WSIS in 2003, charged with producing a report with a definition of Internet Governance and some proposals to move forward, for the second phase in 2005. The definition of stakeholder groupings was a major issue then and we settled into government, business ("private sector" has different meanings in the US and elsewhere), civil society and the technical community. Unfortunately we couldn't get the final documents to list the technical community as a separate stakeholder, not the least because at the same time it was recognized that the people in the technical community may have their jobs indistinctly in government (say, research laboratories, computing, IT and telecommunications departments in government, standards organizations, even universities if they are public), industry both large and small, and organizations classified as civil society (their techies among others.) Later on the IGF in practice has always listed the technical community separately. The differentiated presence of the technical community is indispensable and it cuts two ways - sometimes it has to say "no,, that thing you are imagining is not technically possible, or it is unreasonable, or it breaks the Internet" and sometimes it says to other parties "we can actually do better than you are thinking and maybe already are" - and sometimes, very often rather, we have to tell people, especiallly in governments, "no, it doesn' work that way" and enter long explanations.

Now picking on the second part of your statement: with fuzzy borders, we can say that one thing is the definition of the stakeholder groupings, as above, and another, complementary one, is the assignment of specific individuals to stakeholder groups at a given point in time. Also especially in developing countries we do continue to find that a small number of people fulfill many roles at the same time and thus can be simultaneously ascribed to more than one stakeholder group. Someone working in business (or even owining one) may come to Internet governance with that knowledge but acting through an organization like an NGO oriented to education or development or community networks, and or sit on an advisory committee to a telecoms or competition regulator. We have made progress in the last 20 years towards clearer roles and against conflicts of interest but this fluidity remains and also is very valuable.

We should convey this clearly to the skeptics and also know that it is a facetious argument invoked with ill intent while fully knowing the above.

Yours,

Alejandro Pisanty

On Wed, Feb 5, 2025 at 7:53 PM Mark W. Datysgeld via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> wrote:

One idea presented by the document that cannot just be waved away is that "stakeholder roles remain undefined". They do. I understand Pari's relevant answer to that point, but it does not address the fact that stakeholder identity is incredibly liquid. Take any set of IGF applications and you are likely to quickly find the same speaker submitted as 3 different stakeholders in different applications.

This is a subject that cannot be put aside in the upcoming discussion and the High-Level Event itself, because it is a weakness of our multistakeholder models that can and will be used against us by governments in their bid for increased control.

Regards,

On 5 Feb 2025 07:03, Pari Esfandiari via wsis20 wrote:

This review of the RCC’s submission in the lead-up to the WSIS+20 examines its call for a state-led approach to Internet governance and its implications for the multistakeholder model. It explores how the RCC frames its arguments around digital sovereignty, interoperability, and regulatory frameworks while assessing the potential impact on global Internet governance structures, innovation, and access. Additionally, the article considers the broader geopolitical context of the submission and its alignment—or divergence—with international efforts to maintain an open, inclusive, and secure digital environment.

https://circleid.com/posts/rcc-pushes-for-state-led-internet-governance-ahead-of-wsis20-review

Cheers,

Pari

CONFIDENTIALITY

This email may contain material that is confidential, privileged and/or work product for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, reliance or distribution by others or forwarding without express permission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.