Parsi,

 

Thanks for the post on CirceID and the follow up on this list. I reposted your article in LinkedIn to try to reach American business leaders. They should know what is being proposed.

 

Thanks for all you do for our community.

 

Kind regards,

Paul McGrady

 

 

 

From: Pari Esfandiari via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 6, 2025 4:09 AM
To: wsis20@icann.org
Subject: [wsis20] Re: RCC Pushes for State-Led Internet Governance Ahead of WSIS+20 Review

 

Dear all,

Thank you for the thoughtful and engaging discussion around my recent article on CircleID regarding the RCC’s push for a state-led Internet governance model. The diverse perspectives shared here highlight the significance of this issue and the need for continued vigilance in safeguarding the multistakeholder model.

Addressing Key Points Raised:

  1. Armenia’s Alignment with RCC – Shifting Alliances?
    • @Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, your observation on Armenia’s stance is indeed intriguing, considering its usual alignment with Western digital policies. However, recent geopolitical tensions and regional dependencies may have influenced this decision. Whether Armenia stands to lose or gain from this move will depend on how other global actors respond.
  1. Hidden Agendas and Misleading Framing of Internet Governance
    • @Wolfgang Kleinwächter, your detailed analysis of Section 3 of the RCC proposal is crucial. While the call for an equitable, neutral, and geopolitically immune governance system is commendable, the assertion that the multistakeholder model fails to meet these requirements is misleading. ICANN’s structure, particularly through the GAC, already embodies sovereign equality and neutrality. The example of ICANN’s refusal to remove Russian domain names during the Ukraine conflict underscores its resilience against political pressures. Moving towards state-controlled governance would, paradoxically, introduce more geopolitical interference rather than eliminate it.
  1. Misuse of the “Public Core” Concept
    • @Joseph Lorenzo Hall and @Tatiana Tropina, your point on the RCC’s misrepresentation of the “public core” concept is well taken. The original GCSC definition was carefully crafted through a multistakeholder process to protect essential Internet infrastructure, whereas the RCC’s broader framing risks enabling greater state intervention. As you rightly pointed out, conflating the “public core” with “critical resources” could open the door to increased governmental control over fundamental Internet operations, which would be detrimental to the open and decentralized nature of the Internet.
  1. The RCC Proposal’s Conflict with WSIS Principles
    • @Dr. Jimson Olufuye, you highlight a fundamental flaw in the RCC proposal—it contradicts the very foundations of WSIS, the Tunis Agenda, and the Global Digital Compact (GDC), all of which emphasize multistakeholder engagement. While the proposal may be “dead on arrival” in some forums, it still serves as a strategic tool for certain governments to justify expanding their control over the Internet. This is why continued advocacy and engagement remain necessary.
  1. Diplomatic Engagement and Advocacy Strategy
    • @Nick Ashton-Hart, @Israel Rosas, and @Remmy Nweke, I fully agree that diplomatic engagement is critical at this juncture. Many diplomats dealing with WSIS+20 and broader digital governance discussions may not have a deep understanding of the multistakeholder model’s nuances. The RCC narrative, if left unchallenged, could appeal to those who prioritize state sovereignty over openness. Strengthening outreach efforts, capacity-building initiatives, and direct engagement with policymakers will be essential to countering this influence.
  1. Potential ITU Involvement in IP Addressing and Protocol Governance
    • @Nick Ashton-Hart, your point about the potential push to shift IP protocol governance to the ITU is an alarming but not surprising development. Given past efforts to exert greater governmental control over core Internet functions, vigilance is needed to ensure that governance remains within the multistakeholder ecosystem, where technical bodies like the IETF and RIRs maintain their crucial roles.
  1. The Issue of Undefined Stakeholder Roles
    • @Mark W. Datysgeld and @Alejandro Pisanty, the issue of fluid stakeholder identities is a valid concern. While the multistakeholder model is designed to be inclusive and adaptable, the lack of clear stakeholder categorization has been exploited by certain actors to challenge its legitimacy. As Alejandro notes, the original WSIS definitions were already a compromise, and while we have made progress in differentiating stakeholder roles, ambiguity remains. Addressing this issue transparently in WSIS+20 discussions could help prevent its use as a pretext for government overreach.
  1. Potential Impact on Network Neutrality and Platform Regulation
    • @Alejandro Pisanty, your warning about threats to network neutrality and regulations like Section 230 is well-founded. If these principles are eroded in democratic contexts, it will provide authoritarian governments with further justification to impose stricter controls on online content and access. Ensuring that digital governance remains rights-based and independent of political agendas must be a key focus moving forward.

The Road Ahead

The RCC’s proposal is not just a theoretical debate—it is part of a broader geopolitical effort to shift Internet governance towards a more state-controlled model. While it may not succeed in its current form, the underlying ideas will likely persist, making it crucial for the Internet governance community to remain proactive.

As many of you pointed out, we must:

  • Continue engaging with diplomats and policymakers who may not be fully aware of the implications of state-led governance.
  • Strengthen capacity-building efforts to educate stakeholders on the benefits of multistakeholder governance.
  • Push back against misrepresentations of concepts like the “public core” to prevent them from being used as pretexts for increased governmental control.
  • Reinforce the neutrality and resilience of existing governance structures, particularly within ICANN and technical organizations.
  • Monitor and counteract attempts to shift key Internet governance functions to intergovernmental bodies like the ITU.

I appreciate all your insights and contributions to this discussion. Let’s continue this dialogue and work collectively to uphold the principles of an open, secure, and inclusive Internet.

Cheers,
Pari Esfandiari

 

On Thu, Feb 6, 2025 at 2:28 AM Alejandro Pisanty <apisanty@gmail.com> 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.  

Cheers, 

Pari

 

 

--

Pari Esfandiari

President

Pario - Architects of Ideas

Tel: +1-202-735-1415 (Office)

     : +1-310-435-0888 (Cell)

     : +44-731-210-4049 (Cell)



_______________________________________________
 
 
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.

--
Mark W. Datysgeld
Director at Governance Primer [governanceprimer.com]
Project Lead Developer at ICANNWiki [icannwiki.org]

_______________________________________________


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
.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .


 

--

Pari Esfandiari

President

Pario - Architects of Ideas

Tel: +1-202-735-1415 (Office)

     : +1-310-435-0888 (Cell)

     : +44-731-210-4049 (Cell)