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.