Hi all This now appears to have been released: https://www.un.org/techenvoy/sites/www.un.org.techenvoy/files/Global_Digital... On a quick first read, the role of the technical community has been recognised, and the follow up process proposed is through existing mechanisms, not a new Digital Cooperation Forum. Those seem to be wins. Cheers Jordan Jordan Carter Internet Governance and Policy Director .au Domain Administration
Thanks Jordan: key are paras 61 to 64 which establish an entirely new follow-up process, which most probably would attract all attention on digital governance issues, and de facto would render existing processes (such as IGF) quite disempowered… There is as well a narrative of clustering the IGF and Internet governance as a merely technical matter, which is not pertinent to other aspects of the GDC (see Paras 25:26 and how they stand v-a-v the rest)… just some first personal impressions… Jorge ________________________________ Von: Jordan Carter via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> Datum: 2. April 2024 um 01:28:06 MESZ An: ICANN wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> Betreff: [wsis20] GDC zero draft Hi all This now appears to have been released: https://www.un.org/techenvoy/sites/www.un.org.techenvoy/files/Global_Digital... On a quick first read, the role of the technical community has been recognised, and the follow up process proposed is through existing mechanisms, not a new Digital Cooperation Forum. Those seem to be wins. Cheers Jordan Jordan Carter Internet Governance and Policy Director .au Domain Administration
Hi Jorge, It would be great to hear the rationale behind those proposals. I hope the upcoming Webinar will clarify this. Regards On Tue, Apr 2, 2024 at 9:00 AM Jorge.Cancio--- via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> wrote:
Thanks Jordan: key are paras 61 to 64 which establish an entirely new follow-up process, which most probably would attract all attention on digital governance issues, and de facto would render existing processes (such as IGF) quite disempowered…
There is as well a narrative of clustering the IGF and Internet governance as a merely technical matter, which is not pertinent to other aspects of the GDC (see Paras 25:26 and how they stand v-a-v the rest)…
just some first personal impressions…
Jorge
________________________________
Von: Jordan Carter via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> Datum: 2. April 2024 um 01:28:06 MESZ An: ICANN wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> Betreff: [wsis20] GDC zero draft
Hi all
This now appears to have been released:
https://www.un.org/techenvoy/sites/www.un.org.techenvoy/files/Global_Digital...
On a quick first read, the role of the technical community has been recognised, and the follow up process proposed is through existing mechanisms, not a new Digital Cooperation Forum.
Those seem to be wins.
Cheers Jordan
Jordan Carter Internet Governance and Policy Director
.au Domain Administration
_______________________________________________ wsis20 mailing list wsis20@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/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.
-- Barrack O. Otieno +254721325277 +254733206359 Skype: barrack.otieno PGP ID: 0x2611D86A
I know you most people on this list are primarily concerned with IG and the creation of new mechanisms vs strengthening existing ones... but I want to point out how extremely disappointing the text is when it comes to connectivity - surely a priority. There is insufficient recognition of the fact that current models have not worked and NO mention of bottom-up, community driven solutions. Quite the contrary in fact - it profiles World Bank, multi-lateral, private sector: precisely the mechanisms that have failed to effectively connect the unconnected: "10 (b) Develop innovative financing mechanisms and incentives, in collaboration with the World Bank Group other multilateral developments banks and the private sector, to connect the remaining 2.6 billion people to the Internet and to improve the affordability of connectivity. Our goal is entry-level broadband subscription costs at less than 2 percent of average income of the bottom 40 percent of national populations (SDGs 1 & 9);" No mention of the need to diversify access markets and including through community networks and small and medium locally owned internet enterprises. References to WSIS are cursory and the draft completely fails to effectively inter-connect WSIS, the SDGs and the GDC. Mentions of the WSIS UN agencies sound somewhat condescending - I trust this in unintentional - and the focus on centering coordination in New York is sad news for civil society in particular, and, developing countries in general. But there is also some good content. I hope that we can engage with the co-facilitators directly and through member states to make sure concerns are addressed effectively. Anriette Anriette Esterhuysen -anriette@apc.org//anriette@gmail.com Senior advisor global and regional internet governance Association for Progressive Communications www.apc.org//afrisig.org On 2024/04/02 08:31, Barrack Otieno wrote:
Hi Jorge,
It would be great to hear the rationale behind those proposals. I hope the upcoming Webinar will clarify this.
Regards
On Tue, Apr 2, 2024 at 9:00 AM Jorge.Cancio--- via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> wrote:
Thanks Jordan: key are paras 61 to 64 which establish an entirely new follow-up process, which most probably would attract all attention on digital governance issues, and de facto would render existing processes (such as IGF) quite disempowered…
There is as well a narrative of clustering the IGF and Internet governance as a merely technical matter, which is not pertinent to other aspects of the GDC (see Paras 25:26 and how they stand v-a-v the rest)…
just some first personal impressions…
Jorge
________________________________
Von: Jordan Carter via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> Datum: 2. April 2024 um 01:28:06 MESZ An: ICANN wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> Betreff: [wsis20] GDC zero draft
Hi all
This now appears to have been released:
https://www.un.org/techenvoy/sites/www.un.org.techenvoy/files/Global_Digital...
On a quick first read, the role of the technical community has been recognised, and the follow up process proposed is through existing mechanisms, not a new Digital Cooperation Forum.
Those seem to be wins.
Cheers Jordan
Jordan Carter Internet Governance and Policy Director
.au Domain Administration
_______________________________________________ wsis20 mailing list wsis20@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/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.
-- Barrack O. Otieno +254721325277 +254733206359 Skype: barrack.otieno PGP ID: 0x2611D86A
_______________________________________________ wsis20 mailing list wsis20@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/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.
Thanks to those who have already shared their first impressions. It is really helpful to see those perspectives. This is the zero draft so I think as others have said, work to be done. For those on the list that are governments that opportunity is apparent, any further information on how non-government stakeholders can provide input? I thought someone had posted to the list there would an informal stakeholder input session, but I haven't seen any specifics. Have others? This seems particularly critical given paragraph 54 asks the private sector, technical and academic communities, and civil society to endorse the GDC. My take on the zero draft: * agree with Jordan, some good text on IGF and including all stakeholders; * seems an unusual omission that the connectivity section doesn't reference or call out the work of the ITU, since connectivity is their primary mission and in the deep dives last year and the 2 consultations this year, all commenters were very pro ITU. There is also a whole host of other work around meaningful connectivity, including the ITU Parter2Connect program and ICANN's UA work that could be mentioned. Anriette also makes great points on concerns with this section; * the AI section looks very expansive and perhaps is a cut and paste from the AI High Level Advisory Board report. That seems premature since that work is ongoing and has not been endorsed or agreed by Member States; and, * the draft falls short in a few places on avoiding duplication and using existing mechanisms, another clear point of consensus in the earlier discussions. Specially the call for an annual AI dialogue seems duplicative of the existing AI for Good annual meeting. And then for the follow up and implementation, it starts ok, but another clear omission, this time the WSIS Forum which seems particularly odd given the earlier call to have WSIS +20 update the WSIS action lines. But the proposal for a high level meeting every 2 years seems completely unnecessary, duplicative and wasteful given all the follow up and implementation already identified. It seems to be that those last two paragraphs, 64 and 65, could just be deleted. Look forward to hearing others perspectives. Fiona ________________________________ From: wsis20 <wsis20-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2024 4:30 AM To: wsis20@icann.org <wsis20@icann.org> Subject: Re: [wsis20] GDC zero draft External Email: Use caution with links and attachments. I know you most people on this list are primarily concerned with IG and the creation of new mechanisms vs strengthening existing ones... but I want to point out how extremely disappointing the text is when it comes to connectivity - surely a priority. There is insufficient recognition of the fact that current models have not worked and NO mention of bottom-up, community driven solutions. Quite the contrary in fact - it profiles World Bank, multi-lateral, private sector: precisely the mechanisms that have failed to effectively connect the unconnected: "10 (b) Develop innovative financing mechanisms and incentives, in collaboration with the World Bank Group other multilateral developments banks and the private sector, to connect the remaining 2.6 billion people to the Internet and to improve the affordability of connectivity. Our goal is entry-level broadband subscription costs at less than 2 percent of average income of the bottom 40 percent of national populations (SDGs 1 & 9);" No mention of the need to diversify access markets and including through community networks and small and medium locally owned internet enterprises. References to WSIS are cursory and the draft completely fails to effectively inter-connect WSIS, the SDGs and the GDC. Mentions of the WSIS UN agencies sound somewhat condescending - I trust this in unintentional - and the focus on centering coordination in New York is sad news for civil society in particular, and, developing countries in general. But there is also some good content. I hope that we can engage with the co-facilitators directly and through member states to make sure concerns are addressed effectively. Anriette Anriette Esterhuysen - anriette@apc.org//anriette@gmail.com<mailto:anriette@apc.org//anriette@gmail.com> Senior advisor global and regional internet governance Association for Progressive Communications www.apc.org//afrisig.org<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.apc.org/*afrisig.org__;Lw!!IaT_gp1N!3...> On 2024/04/02 08:31, Barrack Otieno wrote: Hi Jorge, It would be great to hear the rationale behind those proposals. I hope the upcoming Webinar will clarify this. Regards On Tue, Apr 2, 2024 at 9:00 AM Jorge.Cancio--- via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org<mailto:wsis20@icann.org>> wrote: Thanks Jordan: key are paras 61 to 64 which establish an entirely new follow-up process, which most probably would attract all attention on digital governance issues, and de facto would render existing processes (such as IGF) quite disempowered… There is as well a narrative of clustering the IGF and Internet governance as a merely technical matter, which is not pertinent to other aspects of the GDC (see Paras 25:26 and how they stand v-a-v the rest)… just some first personal impressions… Jorge ________________________________ Von: Jordan Carter via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org<mailto:wsis20@icann.org>> Datum: 2. April 2024 um 01:28:06 MESZ An: ICANN wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org<mailto:wsis20@icann.org>> Betreff: [wsis20] GDC zero draft Hi all This now appears to have been released: https://www.un.org/techenvoy/sites/www.un.org.techenvoy/files/Global_Digital_Compact_Zero_Draft.pdf<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.un.org/techenvoy/sites/www.un.org.techenvoy/files/Global_Digital_Compact_Zero_Draft.pdf__;!!IaT_gp1N!3iHxrmWHAygDTWu1Fh7zVjU0qneP_hQR5siwXMpZNfAQZwO2e4BE3tSpBNk_9qt9DwrBelAOeniO75JMzg$> On a quick first read, the role of the technical community has been recognised, and the follow up process proposed is through existing mechanisms, not a new Digital Cooperation Forum. Those seem to be wins. Cheers Jordan Jordan Carter Internet Governance and Policy Director .au Domain Administration _______________________________________________ wsis20 mailing list wsis20@icann.org<mailto:wsis20@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wsis20<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wsis20__;!!IaT_gp1N!3iHxrmWHAygDTWu1Fh7zVjU0qneP_hQR5siwXMpZNfAQZwO2e4BE3tSpBNk_9qt9DwrBelAOenhmrhy6gw$> _______________________________________________ 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<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy__;!!IaT_gp1N!3iHxrmWHAygDTWu1Fh7zVjU0qneP_hQR5siwXMpZNfAQZwO2e4BE3tSpBNk_9qt9DwrBelAOenhL8RLBGA$>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos__;!!IaT_gp1N!3iHxrmWHAygDTWu1Fh7zVjU0qneP_hQR5siwXMpZNfAQZwO2e4BE3tSpBNk_9qt9DwrBelAOenjUhYUhVw$>). 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. -- Barrack O. Otieno +254721325277 +254733206359 Skype: barrack.otieno PGP ID: 0x2611D86A _______________________________________________ wsis20 mailing list wsis20@icann.org<mailto:wsis20@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wsis20<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wsis20__;!!IaT_gp1N!3iHxrmWHAygDTWu1Fh7zVjU0qneP_hQR5siwXMpZNfAQZwO2e4BE3tSpBNk_9qt9DwrBelAOenhmrhy6gw$> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy__;!!IaT_gp1N!3iHxrmWHAygDTWu1Fh7zVjU0qneP_hQR5siwXMpZNfAQZwO2e4BE3tSpBNk_9qt9DwrBelAOenhL8RLBGA$>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos__;!!IaT_gp1N!3iHxrmWHAygDTWu1Fh7zVjU0qneP_hQR5siwXMpZNfAQZwO2e4BE3tSpBNk_9qt9DwrBelAOenjUhYUhVw$>). 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.
Thanks, Fiona. Indeed, strange that the work of the ITU is not mentioned; hopefully member states, who are participating in this list, are taking notes, and will suggest recognition of the great work the ITU is doing; also around the WSIS Forum. Here are my three points as of now: The technical community is recognized as a separate stakeholder, and not part of any other stakeholder group. The Multistakeholder model of Internet governance and the Internet Governance Forum are supported in several different instances. The creation of the (UN Secretary-General’s) multilateral Digital Cooperation Forum is not supported. However, we could reach out to our respected national governments, and bring to their attention the issues we see in the zero draft. After all, that’s what they will discuss in April and May – how to make the document better. Best, v/ From: wsis20 <wsis20-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Fiona Alexander <fionaa@american.edu> Date: Tuesday, April 2, 2024 at 08:40 To: "wsis20@icann.org" <wsis20@icann.org>, "anriette@gmail.com" <anriette@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [wsis20] GDC zero draft Thanks to those who have already shared their first impressions. It is really helpful to see those perspectives. This is the zero draft so I think as others have said, work to be done. For those on the list that are governments that opportunity is apparent, any further information on how non-government stakeholders can provide input? I thought someone had posted to the list there would an informal stakeholder input session, but I haven't seen any specifics. Have others? This seems particularly critical given paragraph 54 asks the private sector, technical and academic communities, and civil society to endorse the GDC. My take on the zero draft: agree with Jordan, some good text on IGF and including all stakeholders; seems an unusual omission that the connectivity section doesn't reference or call out the work of the ITU, since connectivity is their primary mission and in the deep dives last year and the 2 consultations this year, all commenters were very pro ITU. There is also a whole host of other work around meaningful connectivity, including the ITU Parter2Connect program and ICANN's UA work that could be mentioned. Anriette also makes great points on concerns with this section; the AI section looks very expansive and perhaps is a cut and paste from the AI High Level Advisory Board report. That seems premature since that work is ongoing and has not been endorsed or agreed by Member States; and, the draft falls short in a few places on avoiding duplication and using existing mechanisms, another clear point of consensus in the earlier discussions. Specially the call for an annual AI dialogue seems duplicative of the existing AI for Good annual meeting. And then for the follow up and implementation, it starts ok, but another clear omission, this time the WSIS Forum which seems particularly odd given the earlier call to have WSIS +20 update the WSIS action lines. But the proposal for a high level meeting every 2 years seems completely unnecessary, duplicative and wasteful given all the follow up and implementation already identified. It seems to be that those last two paragraphs, 64 and 65, could just be deleted. Look forward to hearing others perspectives. Fiona
Some additional thoughts from me: I think one can see the challenge of this document written by NY as opposed to Geneva folks — I really think we would be having a much different document if it were written by folks in Geneva, who have the institutional and historical context. Like others, I also found it extremely surprising that the WSIS Forum or the work the ITU has been doing for the past 20 years is not acknowledged. The other thing that caught my eye is the use of “multistakeholder cooperation” — not “governance or approach”. In the case of the latter, stakeholders can steer and even impact the way the conversations get shaped; in the case of “cooperation”, things are a bit more fluid; it just feels a much weaker term to use. I don’t necessarily agree with the assessment on the IGF — I re-read the doc twice and both times it felt as if there was this very lukewarm endorsement of the IGF. The GDC seems to have missed a great opportunity to strengthen the IGF by assigning its follow-up and implementation; instead, we are seeing that the IGF is one of the many options used. Additionally, the whole 61 paragraph is creating a Digital Cooperation Forum without creating a Digital Cooperation Forum. It seems as if the proposal for the creation of an office under SG is creating a new body without going through the process of creating a body — i.e. member state sign off. Which brings me to the final observation: the draft has too many ideas for the creation of new things — a scientific panel on AI, something on data governance, a human rights multistakeholder panel, a fund and this coordination office. Also, the CSTD is getting additional duties and, for those of us who have followed a bit the CSTD, this is another process that is highly multilateral and top down. To me, it is becoming rather apparent that the UN is aiming at centralising the governance digital issues under its umbrella, slowly departing from more inclusive processes that have either been established or they are in the process of. Finally, on Anriette’s point on connectivity — I absolutely agree. The draft literally continues this monolithic view on connectivity and fails to take into account all the work that has been done. There is no question that more work is required but some examples of community networks and blended financing mechanisms could have been recognised. It is really a shame that the draft does not reflect any of these. And, also plus one to Fiona’s comment on the AI outline — I had the same reaction. This seems to be jumping the gun as it reflects some ideas in the HLAB report that has not yet been endorsed by member states. This indicates some cross-fertilisation which is rather interesting. I am still absorbing the draft as I am sure others do. Konstantinos Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis Resident Senior Fellow, Global and Democratic Governance, DFRLab, The Atlantic Council kkomaitis@atlanticcouncil.org On 2 Apr 2024, at 15:54, Veni Markovski <veni.markovski@icann.org> wrote: Thanks, Fiona. Indeed, strange that the work of the ITU is not mentioned; hopefully member states, who are participating in this list, are taking notes, and will suggest recognition of the great work the ITU is doing; also around the WSIS Forum. Here are my three points as of now: * The technical community is recognized as a separate stakeholder, and not part of any other stakeholder group. * The Multistakeholder model of Internet governance and the Internet Governance Forum are supported in several different instances. * The creation of the (UN Secretary-General’s) multilateral Digital Cooperation Forum is not supported. However, we could reach out to our respected national governments, and bring to their attention the issues we see in the zero draft. After all, that’s what they will discuss in April and May – how to make the document better. Best, v/ From: wsis20 <wsis20-bounces@icann.org<mailto:wsis20-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Fiona Alexander <fionaa@american.edu<mailto:fionaa@american.edu>> Date: Tuesday, April 2, 2024 at 08:40 To: "wsis20@icann.org<mailto:wsis20@icann.org>" <wsis20@icann.org<mailto:wsis20@icann.org>>, "anriette@gmail.com<mailto:anriette@gmail.com>" <anriette@gmail.com<mailto:anriette@gmail.com>> Subject: Re: [wsis20] GDC zero draft Thanks to those who have already shared their first impressions. It is really helpful to see those perspectives. This is the zero draft so I think as others have said, work to be done. For those on the list that are governments that opportunity is apparent, any further information on how non-government stakeholders can provide input? I thought someone had posted to the list there would an informal stakeholder input session, but I haven't seen any specifics. Have others? This seems particularly critical given paragraph 54 asks the private sector, technical and academic communities, and civil society to endorse the GDC. My take on the zero draft: * agree with Jordan, some good text on IGF and including all stakeholders; * seems an unusual omission that the connectivity section doesn't reference or call out the work of the ITU, since connectivity is their primary mission and in the deep dives last year and the 2 consultations this year, all commenters were very pro ITU. There is also a whole host of other work around meaningful connectivity, including the ITU Parter2Connect program and ICANN's UA work that could be mentioned. Anriette also makes great points on concerns with this section; * the AI section looks very expansive and perhaps is a cut and paste from the AI High Level Advisory Board report. That seems premature since that work is ongoing and has not been endorsed or agreed by Member States; and, * the draft falls short in a few places on avoiding duplication and using existing mechanisms, another clear point of consensus in the earlier discussions. Specially the call for an annual AI dialogue seems duplicative of the existing AI for Good annual meeting. And then for the follow up and implementation, it starts ok, but another clear omission, this time the WSIS Forum which seems particularly odd given the earlier call to have WSIS +20 update the WSIS action lines. But the proposal for a high level meeting every 2 years seems completely unnecessary, duplicative and wasteful given all the follow up and implementation already identified. It seems to be that those last two paragraphs, 64 and 65, could just be deleted. Look forward to hearing others perspectives. Fiona _______________________________________________ wsis20 mailing list wsis20@icann.org<mailto:wsis20@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/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.
I recall that the public consultation from NETmundial+10 is still open to contributions. The fragmentation of the governance space, the further development and application of the multistakeholder model, and the role of the IGF are main issues to be considered by NETmundial+10. And, among other questions, the consultation asks the community which are the key messages that NETmundial+10 could send to the GDC. These messages shall be reflected in the final NETmundial+10 outcome document. Flávio
Some additional thoughts from me:
I think one can see the challenge of this document written by NY as opposed to Geneva folks — I really think we would be having a much different document if it were written by folks in Geneva, who have the institutional and historical context. Like others, I also found it extremely surprising that the WSIS Forum or the work the ITU has been doing for the past 20 years is not acknowledged.
The other thing that caught my eye is the use of “multistakeholder cooperation” — not “governance or approach”. In the case of the latter, stakeholders can steer and even impact the way the conversations get shaped; in the case of “cooperation”, things are a bit more fluid; it just feels a much weaker term to use.
I don’t necessarily agree with the assessment on the IGF — I re-read the doc twice and both times it felt as if there was this very lukewarm endorsement of the IGF. The GDC seems to have missed a great opportunity to strengthen the IGF by assigning its follow-up and implementation; instead, we are seeing that the IGF is one of the many options used. Additionally, the whole 61 paragraph is creating a Digital Cooperation Forum without creating a Digital Cooperation Forum. It seems as if the proposal for the creation of an office under SG is creating a new body without going through the process of creating a body — i.e. member state sign off.
Which brings me to the final observation: the draft has too many ideas for the creation of new things — a scientific panel on AI, something on data governance, a human rights multistakeholder panel, a fund and this coordination office. Also, the CSTD is getting additional duties and, for those of us who have followed a bit the CSTD, this is another process that is highly multilateral and top down. To me, it is becoming rather apparent that the UN is aiming at centralising the governance digital issues under its umbrella, slowly departing from more inclusive processes that have either been established or they are in the process of.
Finally, on Anriette’s point on connectivity — I absolutely agree. The draft literally continues this monolithic view on connectivity and fails to take into account all the work that has been done. There is no question that more work is required but some examples of community networks and blended financing mechanisms could have been recognised. It is really a shame that the draft does not reflect any of these.
And, also plus one to Fiona’s comment on the AI outline — I had the same reaction. This seems to be jumping the gun as it reflects some ideas in the HLAB report that has not yet been endorsed by member states. This indicates some cross-fertilisation which is rather interesting.
I am still absorbing the draft as I am sure others do.
Konstantinos
Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis Resident Senior Fellow, Global and Democratic Governance, DFRLab, The Atlantic Council
kkomaitis@atlanticcouncil.org
On 2 Apr 2024, at 15:54, Veni Markovski <veni.markovski@icann.org> wrote:
Thanks, Fiona. Indeed, strange that the work of the ITU is not mentioned; hopefully member states, who are participating in this list, are taking notes, and will suggest recognition of the great work the ITU is doing; also around the WSIS Forum. Here are my three points as of now:
* The technical community is recognized as a separate stakeholder, and not part of any other stakeholder group. * The Multistakeholder model of Internet governance and the Internet Governance Forum are supported in several different instances. * The creation of the (UN Secretary-General’s) multilateral Digital Cooperation Forum is not supported.
However, we could reach out to our respected national governments, and bring to their attention the issues we see in the zero draft. After all, that’s what they will discuss in April and May – how to make the document better. Best, v/ *From:*wsis20 <wsis20-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Fiona Alexander <fionaa@american.edu> *Date:*Tuesday, April 2, 2024 at 08:40 *To:*"wsis20@icann.org" <wsis20@icann.org>, "anriette@gmail.com" <anriette@gmail.com> *Subject:*Re: [wsis20] GDC zero draft Thanks to those who have already shared their first impressions. It is really helpful to see those perspectives. This is the zero draft so I think as others have said, work to be done. For those on the list that are governments that opportunity is apparent, any further information on how non-government stakeholders can provide input? I thought someone had posted to the list there would an informal stakeholder input session, but I haven't seen any specifics. Have others? This seems particularly critical given paragraph 54 asks the private sector, technical and academic communities, and civil society to endorse the GDC. My take on the zero draft:
* agree with Jordan, some good text on IGF and including all stakeholders;
* seems an unusual omission that the connectivity section doesn't reference or call out the work of the ITU, since connectivity is their primary mission and in the deep dives last year and the 2 consultations this year, all commenters were very pro ITU. There is also a whole host of other work around meaningful connectivity, including the ITU Parter2Connect program and ICANN's UA work that could be mentioned. Anriette also makes great points on concerns with this section;
* the AI section looks very expansive and perhaps is a cut and paste from the AI High Level Advisory Board report. That seems premature since that work is ongoing and has not been endorsed or agreed by Member States; and,
* the draft falls short in a few places on avoiding duplication and using existing mechanisms, another clear point of consensus in the earlier discussions. Specially the call for an annual AI dialogue seems duplicative of the existing AI for Good annual meeting. And then for the follow up and implementation, it starts ok, but another clear omission, this time the WSIS Forum which seems particularly odd given the earlier call to have WSIS +20 update the WSIS action lines. But the proposal for a high level meeting every 2 years seems completely unnecessary, duplicative and wasteful given all the follow up and implementation already identified. It seems to be that those last two paragraphs, 64 and 65, could just be deleted.
Look forward to hearing others perspectives. Fiona _______________________________________________ wsis20 mailing list wsis20@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/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.
_______________________________________________ wsis20 mailing list wsis20@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/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.
-- Prof. Flávio Rech Wagner Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul Instituto de Informática Porto Alegre, Brasil Presidente da Internet Society Brasil flavio@inf.ufrgs.br,info@isoc.org.br https://www.isoc.org.br Twitter: @ISOCBrasil https://www.facebook.com/isocbrasil/ https://www.youtube.com/isocbrasil https://www.instagram.com/isocbrasil/ https://www.linkedin.com/company/isoc-brasil/
Greetings Listers, Reading through the report after receiving it with some initial bias: 1. It has a broad base and covers many interdependent issues on the Digital Landscape. 2. It addresses many of the issues that we need to pay attention to in our efforts to bridge the digital divide. I agree with many comments raised previously that it has not sufficiently acknowledged some of the efforts designed to address existential challenges such as Connectivity, i remain hopeful that subsequent drafts will address this concerns while ensuring that the document remains lean. 3. There is significant effort to enhance the role of governments or ensure they are active participants. In my humble opinion, a step in the right direction. 4. It recognizes the role of the Internet Governance Forum and affirms it. Not sure if this is adequate in my humble opinion , it is reassuring. Overall comments, it is a breath of fresh air. Well executed, it will complement the efforts and gains made by the World Summit on the Information Society, IGF and other processes. Best Regards On Tue, Apr 2, 2024 at 5:57 PM Flávio Rech Wagner <flavio@inf.ufrgs.br> wrote:
I recall that the public consultation from NETmundial+10 is still open to contributions.
The fragmentation of the governance space, the further development and application of the multistakeholder model, and the role of the IGF are main issues to be considered by NETmundial+10.
And, among other questions, the consultation asks the community which are the key messages that NETmundial+10 could send to the GDC. These messages shall be reflected in the final NETmundial+10 outcome document.
Flávio
Some additional thoughts from me:
I think one can see the challenge of this document written by NY as opposed to Geneva folks — I really think we would be having a much different document if it were written by folks in Geneva, who have the institutional and historical context. Like others, I also found it extremely surprising that the WSIS Forum or the work the ITU has been doing for the past 20 years is not acknowledged.
The other thing that caught my eye is the use of “multistakeholder cooperation” — not “governance or approach”. In the case of the latter, stakeholders can steer and even impact the way the conversations get shaped; in the case of “cooperation”, things are a bit more fluid; it just feels a much weaker term to use.
I don’t necessarily agree with the assessment on the IGF — I re-read the doc twice and both times it felt as if there was this very lukewarm endorsement of the IGF. The GDC seems to have missed a great opportunity to strengthen the IGF by assigning its follow-up and implementation; instead, we are seeing that the IGF is one of the many options used. Additionally, the whole 61 paragraph is creating a Digital Cooperation Forum without creating a Digital Cooperation Forum. It seems as if the proposal for the creation of an office under SG is creating a new body without going through the process of creating a body — i.e. member state sign off.
Which brings me to the final observation: the draft has too many ideas for the creation of new things — a scientific panel on AI, something on data governance, a human rights multistakeholder panel, a fund and this coordination office. Also, the CSTD is getting additional duties and, for those of us who have followed a bit the CSTD, this is another process that is highly multilateral and top down. To me, it is becoming rather apparent that the UN is aiming at centralising the governance digital issues under its umbrella, slowly departing from more inclusive processes that have either been established or they are in the process of.
Finally, on Anriette’s point on connectivity — I absolutely agree. The draft literally continues this monolithic view on connectivity and fails to take into account all the work that has been done. There is no question that more work is required but some examples of community networks and blended financing mechanisms could have been recognised. It is really a shame that the draft does not reflect any of these.
And, also plus one to Fiona’s comment on the AI outline — I had the same reaction. This seems to be jumping the gun as it reflects some ideas in the HLAB report that has not yet been endorsed by member states. This indicates some cross-fertilisation which is rather interesting.
I am still absorbing the draft as I am sure others do.
Konstantinos
Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis Resident Senior Fellow, Global and Democratic Governance, DFRLab, The Atlantic Council
kkomaitis@atlanticcouncil.org
On 2 Apr 2024, at 15:54, Veni Markovski <veni.markovski@icann.org> <veni.markovski@icann.org> wrote:
Thanks, Fiona. Indeed, strange that the work of the ITU is not mentioned; hopefully member states, who are participating in this list, are taking notes, and will suggest recognition of the great work the ITU is doing; also around the WSIS Forum. Here are my three points as of now:
- The technical community is recognized as a separate stakeholder, and not part of any other stakeholder group. - The Multistakeholder model of Internet governance and the Internet Governance Forum are supported in several different instances. - The creation of the (UN Secretary-General’s) multilateral Digital Cooperation Forum is not supported.
However, we could reach out to our respected national governments, and bring to their attention the issues we see in the zero draft. After all, that’s what they will discuss in April and May – how to make the document better.
Best, v/
*From: *wsis20 <wsis20-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Fiona Alexander < fionaa@american.edu> *Date: *Tuesday, April 2, 2024 at 08:40 *To: *"wsis20@icann.org" <wsis20@icann.org>, "anriette@gmail.com" < anriette@gmail.com> *Subject: *Re: [wsis20] GDC zero draft
Thanks to those who have already shared their first impressions. It is really helpful to see those perspectives. This is the zero draft so I think as others have said, work to be done. For those on the list that are governments that opportunity is apparent, any further information on how non-government stakeholders can provide input? I thought someone had posted to the list there would an informal stakeholder input session, but I haven't seen any specifics. Have others? This seems particularly critical given paragraph 54 asks the private sector, technical and academic communities, and civil society to endorse the GDC.
My take on the zero draft:
- agree with Jordan, some good text on IGF and including all stakeholders;
- seems an unusual omission that the connectivity section doesn't reference or call out the work of the ITU, since connectivity is their primary mission and in the deep dives last year and the 2 consultations this year, all commenters were very pro ITU. There is also a whole host of other work around meaningful connectivity, including the ITU Parter2Connect program and ICANN's UA work that could be mentioned. Anriette also makes great points on concerns with this section;
- the AI section looks very expansive and perhaps is a cut and paste from the AI High Level Advisory Board report. That seems premature since that work is ongoing and has not been endorsed or agreed by Member States; and,
- the draft falls short in a few places on avoiding duplication and using existing mechanisms, another clear point of consensus in the earlier discussions. Specially the call for an annual AI dialogue seems duplicative of the existing AI for Good annual meeting. And then for the follow up and implementation, it starts ok, but another clear omission, this time the WSIS Forum which seems particularly odd given the earlier call to have WSIS +20 update the WSIS action lines. But the proposal for a high level meeting every 2 years seems completely unnecessary, duplicative and wasteful given all the follow up and implementation already identified. It seems to be that those last two paragraphs, 64 and 65, could just be deleted.
Look forward to hearing others perspectives.
Fiona _______________________________________________ wsis20 mailing list wsis20@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/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.
_______________________________________________ wsis20 mailing listwsis20@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/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.
-- Prof. Flávio Rech Wagner
Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul Instituto de Informática Porto Alegre, Brasil
Presidente da Internet Society Brasilflavio@inf.ufrgs.br, info@isoc.org.br https://www.isoc.org.br Twitter: @ISOCBrasilhttps://www.facebook.com/isocbrasil/ https://www.youtube.com/isocbrasilhttps://www.instagram.com/isocbrasil/ https://www.linkedin.com/company/isoc-brasil/
_______________________________________________ wsis20 mailing list wsis20@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/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.
-- Barrack O. Otieno +254721325277 +254733206359 Skype: barrack.otieno PGP ID: 0x2611D86A
Dear friends and colleagues, Thank you for your insightful feedback on the GDC zero draft. The draft appears to have taken into account a variety of community inputs. However, certain areas still need to be addressed, and the text needs to be refined. Echoing Fiona's feedback, I also find the draft’s treatment of connectivity to be lacking. It’s a pivotal aspect of the digital ecosystem that hasn’t been sufficiently addressed, with the draft failing to recognise the significant contributions and foundational work of the technical community, the ITU and other organisations, which are essential to the GDC's objectives. Moreover, the draft fails to clearly define a meaningful role for the IGF in the GDC's follow-up and implementation process, despite its mention providing some assurance. Additionally, the draft's introduction of new platforms and mechanisms prompts concern regarding potential overlaps and the trend toward centralising digital governance under the UN, casting doubt on the ITU’s future role within this evolving landscape. I propose consolidating these valuable insights into a unified document. This would facilitate a more coordinated approach to refining the GDC draft. Best Regards, Chafic Chaya
On 3 Apr 2024, at 9:06 AM, Barrack Otieno <otieno.barrack@gmail.com> wrote:
Greetings Listers,
Reading through the report after receiving it with some initial bias:
1. It has a broad base and covers many interdependent issues on the Digital Landscape. 2. It addresses many of the issues that we need to pay attention to in our efforts to bridge the digital divide. I agree with many comments raised previously that it has not sufficiently acknowledged some of the efforts designed to address existential challenges such as Connectivity, i remain hopeful that subsequent drafts will address this concerns while ensuring that the document remains lean. 3. There is significant effort to enhance the role of governments or ensure they are active participants. In my humble opinion, a step in the right direction. 4. It recognizes the role of the Internet Governance Forum and affirms it. Not sure if this is adequate in my humble opinion , it is reassuring.
Overall comments, it is a breath of fresh air. Well executed, it will complement the efforts and gains made by the World Summit on the Information Society, IGF and other processes.
Best Regards
On Tue, Apr 2, 2024 at 5:57 PM Flávio Rech Wagner <flavio@inf.ufrgs.br <mailto:flavio@inf.ufrgs.br>> wrote:
I recall that the public consultation from NETmundial+10 is still open to contributions.
The fragmentation of the governance space, the further development and application of the multistakeholder model, and the role of the IGF are main issues to be considered by NETmundial+10.
And, among other questions, the consultation asks the community which are the key messages that NETmundial+10 could send to the GDC. These messages shall be reflected in the final NETmundial+10 outcome document.
Flávio
Some additional thoughts from me:
I think one can see the challenge of this document written by NY as opposed to Geneva folks — I really think we would be having a much different document if it were written by folks in Geneva, who have the institutional and historical context. Like others, I also found it extremely surprising that the WSIS Forum or the work the ITU has been doing for the past 20 years is not acknowledged.
The other thing that caught my eye is the use of “multistakeholder cooperation” — not “governance or approach”. In the case of the latter, stakeholders can steer and even impact the way the conversations get shaped; in the case of “cooperation”, things are a bit more fluid; it just feels a much weaker term to use.
I don’t necessarily agree with the assessment on the IGF — I re-read the doc twice and both times it felt as if there was this very lukewarm endorsement of the IGF. The GDC seems to have missed a great opportunity to strengthen the IGF by assigning its follow-up and implementation; instead, we are seeing that the IGF is one of the many options used. Additionally, the whole 61 paragraph is creating a Digital Cooperation Forum without creating a Digital Cooperation Forum. It seems as if the proposal for the creation of an office under SG is creating a new body without going through the process of creating a body — i.e. member state sign off.
Which brings me to the final observation: the draft has too many ideas for the creation of new things — a scientific panel on AI, something on data governance, a human rights multistakeholder panel, a fund and this coordination office. Also, the CSTD is getting additional duties and, for those of us who have followed a bit the CSTD, this is another process that is highly multilateral and top down. To me, it is becoming rather apparent that the UN is aiming at centralising the governance digital issues under its umbrella, slowly departing from more inclusive processes that have either been established or they are in the process of.
Finally, on Anriette’s point on connectivity — I absolutely agree. The draft literally continues this monolithic view on connectivity and fails to take into account all the work that has been done. There is no question that more work is required but some examples of community networks and blended financing mechanisms could have been recognised. It is really a shame that the draft does not reflect any of these.
And, also plus one to Fiona’s comment on the AI outline — I had the same reaction. This seems to be jumping the gun as it reflects some ideas in the HLAB report that has not yet been endorsed by member states. This indicates some cross-fertilisation which is rather interesting.
I am still absorbing the draft as I am sure others do.
Konstantinos
Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis Resident Senior Fellow, Global and Democratic Governance, DFRLab, The Atlantic Council
kkomaitis@atlanticcouncil.org <mailto:kkomaitis@atlanticcouncil.org>
On 2 Apr 2024, at 15:54, Veni Markovski <veni.markovski@icann.org> <mailto:veni.markovski@icann.org> wrote:
Thanks, Fiona. Indeed, strange that the work of the ITU is not mentioned; hopefully member states, who are participating in this list, are taking notes, and will suggest recognition of the great work the ITU is doing; also around the WSIS Forum. Here are my three points as of now: The technical community is recognized as a separate stakeholder, and not part of any other stakeholder group. The Multistakeholder model of Internet governance and the Internet Governance Forum are supported in several different instances. The creation of the (UN Secretary-General’s) multilateral Digital Cooperation Forum is not supported.
However, we could reach out to our respected national governments, and bring to their attention the issues we see in the zero draft. After all, that’s what they will discuss in April and May – how to make the document better.
Best, v/
From: wsis20 <wsis20-bounces@icann.org <mailto:wsis20-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Fiona Alexander <fionaa@american.edu <mailto:fionaa@american.edu>> Date: Tuesday, April 2, 2024 at 08:40 To: "wsis20@icann.org <mailto:wsis20@icann.org>" <wsis20@icann.org <mailto:wsis20@icann.org>>, "anriette@gmail.com <mailto:anriette@gmail.com>" <anriette@gmail.com <mailto:anriette@gmail.com>> Subject: Re: [wsis20] GDC zero draft
Thanks to those who have already shared their first impressions. It is really helpful to see those perspectives. This is the zero draft so I think as others have said, work to be done. For those on the list that are governments that opportunity is apparent, any further information on how non-government stakeholders can provide input? I thought someone had posted to the list there would an informal stakeholder input session, but I haven't seen any specifics. Have others? This seems particularly critical given paragraph 54 asks the private sector, technical and academic communities, and civil society to endorse the GDC.
My take on the zero draft: agree with Jordan, some good text on IGF and including all stakeholders; seems an unusual omission that the connectivity section doesn't reference or call out the work of the ITU, since connectivity is their primary mission and in the deep dives last year and the 2 consultations this year, all commenters were very pro ITU. There is also a whole host of other work around meaningful connectivity, including the ITU Parter2Connect program and ICANN's UA work that could be mentioned. Anriette also makes great points on concerns with this section; the AI section looks very expansive and perhaps is a cut and paste from the AI High Level Advisory Board report. That seems premature since that work is ongoing and has not been endorsed or agreed by Member States; and, the draft falls short in a few places on avoiding duplication and using existing mechanisms, another clear point of consensus in the earlier discussions. Specially the call for an annual AI dialogue seems duplicative of the existing AI for Good annual meeting. And then for the follow up and implementation, it starts ok, but another clear omission, this time the WSIS Forum which seems particularly odd given the earlier call to have WSIS +20 update the WSIS action lines. But the proposal for a high level meeting every 2 years seems completely unnecessary, duplicative and wasteful given all the follow up and implementation already identified. It seems to be that those last two paragraphs, 64 and 65, could just be deleted.
Look forward to hearing others perspectives.
Fiona _______________________________________________ wsis20 mailing list wsis20@icann.org <mailto:wsis20@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/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.
_______________________________________________ wsis20 mailing list wsis20@icann.org <mailto:wsis20@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/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. -- Prof. Flávio Rech Wagner
Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul Instituto de Informática Porto Alegre, Brasil
Presidente da Internet Society Brasil flavio@inf.ufrgs.br <mailto:flavio@inf.ufrgs.br>, info@isoc.org.br <mailto:info@isoc.org.br> https://www.isoc.org.br <https://www.isoc.org.br/> Twitter: @ISOCBrasil https://www.facebook.com/isocbrasil/ https://www.youtube.com/isocbrasil https://www.instagram.com/isocbrasil/ https://www.linkedin.com/company/isoc-brasil/ _______________________________________________ wsis20 mailing list wsis20@icann.org <mailto:wsis20@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/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.
-- Barrack O. Otieno +254721325277 +254733206359 Skype: barrack.otieno PGP ID: 0x2611D86A
_______________________________________________ wsis20 mailing list wsis20@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/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.
Thanks Jorge. I have an impression from the para. 65: the "High-Level Review of the Global Digital Compact" seems to be made-up "Digital Cooperation Forum" Shin From: "Jorge.Cancio--- via wsis20" <wsis20@icann.org> Subject: [wsis20] GDC zero draft Date: 2024/04/02 Tue 14:59 +0900
Thanks Jordan: key are paras 61 to 64 which establish an entirely new follow-up process, which most probably would attract all attention on digital governance issues, and de facto would render existing processes (such as IGF) quite disempowered…
There is as well a narrative of clustering the IGF and Internet governance as a merely technical matter, which is not pertinent to other aspects of the GDC (see Paras 25:26 and how they stand v-a-v the rest)…
just some first personal impressions…
Jorge
________________________________
Von: Jordan Carter via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> Datum: 2. April 2024 um 01:28:06 MESZ An: ICANN wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> Betreff: [wsis20] GDC zero draft
Hi all
This now appears to have been released:
https://www.un.org/techenvoy/sites/www.un.org.techenvoy/files/Global_Digital...
On a quick first read, the role of the technical community has been recognised, and the follow up process proposed is through existing mechanisms, not a new Digital Cooperation Forum.
Those seem to be wins.
Cheers Jordan
Jordan Carter Internet Governance and Policy Director
.au Domain Administration
_______________________________________________ wsis20 mailing list wsis20@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/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.
indeed it‘s the „DCF strikes back“ ;) ________________________________ Von: Shin Yamasaki <yamasaki@nic.ad.jp> Datum: 2. April 2024 um 08:45:42 MESZ An: wsis20@icann.org <wsis20@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [wsis20] GDC zero draft Thanks Jorge. I have an impression from the para. 65: the "High-Level Review of the Global Digital Compact" seems to be made-up "Digital Cooperation Forum" Shin From: "Jorge.Cancio--- via wsis20" <wsis20@icann.org> Subject: [wsis20] GDC zero draft Date: 2024/04/02 Tue 14:59 +0900
Thanks Jordan: key are paras 61 to 64 which establish an entirely new follow-up process, which most probably would attract all attention on digital governance issues, and de facto would render existing processes (such as IGF) quite disempowered…
There is as well a narrative of clustering the IGF and Internet governance as a merely technical matter, which is not pertinent to other aspects of the GDC (see Paras 25:26 and how they stand v-a-v the rest)…
just some first personal impressions…
Jorge
________________________________
Von: Jordan Carter via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> Datum: 2. April 2024 um 01:28:06 MESZ An: ICANN wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> Betreff: [wsis20] GDC zero draft
Hi all
This now appears to have been released:
https://www.un.org/techenvoy/sites/www.un.org.techenvoy/files/Global_Digital...
On a quick first read, the role of the technical community has been recognised, and the follow up process proposed is through existing mechanisms, not a new Digital Cooperation Forum.
Those seem to be wins.
Cheers Jordan
Jordan Carter Internet Governance and Policy Director
.au Domain Administration
_______________________________________________ wsis20 mailing list wsis20@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/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.
_______________________________________________ wsis20 mailing list wsis20@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/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.
Hey all, Besides the "shy" DCF, theres more duplication throughout the text thats a bit concerning imho. Some of the "new" spaces are the following: (a) UN Digital Human Rights Advisory Service, (b) International Scientific Panel on AI, (c) annual global dialogue on AI governance, e (d) “High-Level Review of the Global Digital Compact” as a follow up mechanism every 2 years. And its not just the IGF, but some of them overlap with other events and spaces like AI For Good, the work performed by the OHCHR and so on. Im also not sure whether we need an annual forum on AI when again - both the ITU organized space and the IGF have already been addressing some of these issues. Cant help but agree that this effort might result in limiting the IGF on a more long term basis. Best, Bruna On Tue, Apr 2, 2024 at 10:04 AM Jorge.Cancio--- via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> wrote:
indeed it‘s the „DCF strikes back“ ;)
________________________________
Von: Shin Yamasaki <yamasaki@nic.ad.jp> Datum: 2. April 2024 um 08:45:42 MESZ An: wsis20@icann.org <wsis20@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [wsis20] GDC zero draft
Thanks Jorge.
I have an impression from the para. 65: the "High-Level Review of the Global Digital Compact" seems to be made-up "Digital Cooperation Forum"
Shin
From: "Jorge.Cancio--- via wsis20" <wsis20@icann.org> Subject: [wsis20] GDC zero draft Date: 2024/04/02 Tue 14:59 +0900
Thanks Jordan: key are paras 61 to 64 which establish an entirely new follow-up process, which most probably would attract all attention on digital governance issues, and de facto would render existing processes (such as IGF) quite disempowered…
There is as well a narrative of clustering the IGF and Internet governance as a merely technical matter, which is not pertinent to other aspects of the GDC (see Paras 25:26 and how they stand v-a-v the rest)…
just some first personal impressions…
Jorge
________________________________
Von: Jordan Carter via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> Datum: 2. April 2024 um 01:28:06 MESZ An: ICANN wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> Betreff: [wsis20] GDC zero draft
Hi all
This now appears to have been released:
https://www.un.org/techenvoy/sites/www.un.org.techenvoy/files/Global_Digital...
On a quick first read, the role of the technical community has been
recognised, and the follow up process proposed is through existing mechanisms, not a new Digital Cooperation Forum.
Those seem to be wins.
Cheers Jordan
Jordan Carter Internet Governance and Policy Director
.au Domain Administration
_______________________________________________ wsis20 mailing list wsis20@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/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.
_______________________________________________ wsis20 mailing list wsis20@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/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. _______________________________________________ wsis20 mailing list wsis20@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/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.
-- *Bruna Martins dos Santos *(she / her) Global Campaigns Manager, Digital Action Germany-based <https://digitalaction.co/>
Jorge Good morning for posting and for Observations; clearly work for us all to do and will demonstrate value of this list; Best Nigel -----Original Message----- From: wsis20 <wsis20-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Jorge.Cancio--- via wsis20 Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2024 6:59 AM To: jordan.carter@auda.org.au; wsis20@icann.org Subject: Re: [wsis20] GDC zero draft Thanks Jordan: key are paras 61 to 64 which establish an entirely new follow-up process, which most probably would attract all attention on digital governance issues, and de facto would render existing processes (such as IGF) quite disempowered... There is as well a narrative of clustering the IGF and Internet governance as a merely technical matter, which is not pertinent to other aspects of the GDC (see Paras 25:26 and how they stand v-a-v the rest)... just some first personal impressions... Jorge ________________________________ Von: Jordan Carter via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> Datum: 2. April 2024 um 01:28:06 MESZ An: ICANN wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> Betreff: [wsis20] GDC zero draft Hi all This now appears to have been released: https://www.un.org/techenvoy/sites/www.un.org.techenvoy/files/Global_Digital... On a quick first read, the role of the technical community has been recognised, and the follow up process proposed is through existing mechanisms, not a new Digital Cooperation Forum. Those seem to be wins. Cheers Jordan Jordan Carter Internet Governance and Policy Director .au Domain Administration _______________________________________________ wsis20 mailing list wsis20@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/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.
Thanks Jordan for sharing the document with the list. Objectives 1 to 5 are very much in alignment with the goals and objectives of WSIS. Moreover, inclusion of AI for the humanity emphasizes the importance of our commitment towards the entire planet. Key issues are being included in 60-65. Best regards, Hakikur ---- On Tue, 02 Apr 2024 12:51:57 +0600 Hickson, Nigel (DSIT) via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> wrote --- Jorge Good morning for posting and for Observations; clearly work for us all to do and will demonstrate value of this list; Best Nigel -----Original Message----- From: wsis20 <mailto:wsis20-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Jorge.Cancio--- via wsis20 Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2024 6:59 AM To: mailto:jordan.carter@auda.org.au; mailto:wsis20@icann.org Subject: Re: [wsis20] GDC zero draft Thanks Jordan: key are paras 61 to 64 which establish an entirely new follow-up process, which most probably would attract all attention on digital governance issues, and de facto would render existing processes (such as IGF) quite disempowered... There is as well a narrative of clustering the IGF and Internet governance as a merely technical matter, which is not pertinent to other aspects of the GDC (see Paras 25:26 and how they stand v-a-v the rest)... just some first personal impressions... Jorge ________________________________ Von: Jordan Carter via wsis20 <mailto:wsis20@icann.org> Datum: 2. April 2024 um 01:28:06 MESZ An: ICANN wsis20 <mailto:wsis20@icann.org> Betreff: [wsis20] GDC zero draft Hi all This now appears to have been released: https://www.un.org/techenvoy/sites/www.un.org.techenvoy/files/Global_Digital... On a quick first read, the role of the technical community has been recognised, and the follow up process proposed is through existing mechanisms, not a new Digital Cooperation Forum. Those seem to be wins. Cheers Jordan Jordan Carter Internet Governance and Policy Director .au Domain Administration _______________________________________________ wsis20 mailing list mailto:wsis20@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/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. _______________________________________________ wsis20 mailing list mailto:wsis20@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/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.
Hi All, While a lot of the text in the Zero draft is Developing country friendly, I echo Jorge's concern of limiting the Role of IGF and multistakeholder cooperation only to the" governance, content, and technical layers" and trying to create the High-Level Review of the Global Digital Compact, rather than used existing mechanism such as IGF, CSTD and UN mechanisms as proposed by many. Additionally the role of Multistakeholders seems problematic, especially the text " ...cooperation will involve all stakeholders, according to their respective mandates, functions and competencies"" This at times can be used to sideline stakeholders especially Civil Society. Regards, Amrita On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 at 12:22, Hickson, Nigel (DSIT) via wsis20 < wsis20@icann.org> wrote:
Jorge
Good morning for posting and for Observations; clearly work for us all to do and will demonstrate value of this list;
Best
Nigel
-----Original Message----- From: wsis20 <wsis20-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Jorge.Cancio--- via wsis20 Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2024 6:59 AM To: jordan.carter@auda.org.au; wsis20@icann.org Subject: Re: [wsis20] GDC zero draft
Thanks Jordan: key are paras 61 to 64 which establish an entirely new follow-up process, which most probably would attract all attention on digital governance issues, and de facto would render existing processes (such as IGF) quite disempowered...
There is as well a narrative of clustering the IGF and Internet governance as a merely technical matter, which is not pertinent to other aspects of the GDC (see Paras 25:26 and how they stand v-a-v the rest)...
just some first personal impressions...
Jorge
________________________________
Von: Jordan Carter via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> Datum: 2. April 2024 um 01:28:06 MESZ An: ICANN wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> Betreff: [wsis20] GDC zero draft
Hi all
This now appears to have been released:
https://www.un.org/techenvoy/sites/www.un.org.techenvoy/files/Global_Digital...
On a quick first read, the role of the technical community has been recognised, and the follow up process proposed is through existing mechanisms, not a new Digital Cooperation Forum.
Those seem to be wins.
Cheers Jordan
Jordan Carter Internet Governance and Policy Director
.au Domain Administration
_______________________________________________ wsis20 mailing list wsis20@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/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. _______________________________________________ wsis20 mailing list wsis20@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/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.
Dear all, Many thanks for sharing this GDC zero draft. I believe this is a good starting point. However, I agree with the points raised by Jorge, Nigel and Amrita and I’m looking forward to discussing these further. Especially, I think it is important to avoid duplication of efforts and to maintain and strengthen the role of the IGF. Kind regards, Ana. De: wsis20 <wsis20-bounces@icann.org> En nombre de Amrita Choudhury Enviado el: martes, 2 de abril de 2024 10:03 Para: Hickson, Nigel (DSIT) <nigel.hickson@dsit.gov.uk> CC: wsis20@icann.org Asunto: Re: [wsis20] GDC zero draft Hi All, While a lot of the text in the Zero draft is Developing country friendly, I echo Jorge's concern of limiting the Role of IGF and multistakeholder cooperation only to the" governance, content, and technical layers" and trying to create the High-Level Review of the Global Digital Compact, rather than used existing mechanism such as IGF, CSTD and UN mechanisms as proposed by many. Additionally the role of Multistakeholders seems problematic, especially the text " ...cooperation will involve all stakeholders, according to their respective mandates, functions and competencies"" This at times can be used to sideline stakeholders especially Civil Society. Regards, Amrita On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 at 12:22, Hickson, Nigel (DSIT) via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org<mailto:wsis20@icann.org>> wrote: Jorge Good morning for posting and for Observations; clearly work for us all to do and will demonstrate value of this list; Best Nigel -----Original Message----- From: wsis20 <wsis20-bounces@icann.org<mailto:wsis20-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Jorge.Cancio--- via wsis20 Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2024 6:59 AM To: jordan.carter@auda.org.au<mailto:jordan.carter@auda.org.au>; wsis20@icann.org<mailto:wsis20@icann.org> Subject: Re: [wsis20] GDC zero draft Thanks Jordan: key are paras 61 to 64 which establish an entirely new follow-up process, which most probably would attract all attention on digital governance issues, and de facto would render existing processes (such as IGF) quite disempowered... There is as well a narrative of clustering the IGF and Internet governance as a merely technical matter, which is not pertinent to other aspects of the GDC (see Paras 25:26 and how they stand v-a-v the rest)... just some first personal impressions... Jorge ________________________________ Von: Jordan Carter via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org<mailto:wsis20@icann.org>> Datum: 2. April 2024 um 01:28:06 MESZ An: ICANN wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org<mailto:wsis20@icann.org>> Betreff: [wsis20] GDC zero draft Hi all This now appears to have been released: https://www.un.org/techenvoy/sites/www.un.org.techenvoy/files/Global_Digital... On a quick first read, the role of the technical community has been recognised, and the follow up process proposed is through existing mechanisms, not a new Digital Cooperation Forum. Those seem to be wins. Cheers Jordan Jordan Carter Internet Governance and Policy Director .au Domain Administration _______________________________________________ wsis20 mailing list wsis20@icann.org<mailto:wsis20@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wsis20<https://secure-web.cisco.com/1_pyYcT8b43pwhRwMRhkp5vPu_ZmZzILtqImv3zTtvaxiob6ohrsg-B3wiSQJTm9gc4S3XpTe80-rGw2mlmCOTf3EVq50veoyoqClOvS0xdYWPM6a-1KbVTkxvihqmu_jXlYD6Fzifs6P1xw8ZYbCbtzVUALamJae8QptcBtuB9wUpNtb5SAoh5FvyZD-qjiRNRg8W8iTAWG2G4XxC5azlOWErqqcLRtcY3wPrbTGSRzlw3W-lUuxGP4GpRYmOWdj/https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fwsis20> _______________________________________________ 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<https://secure-web.cisco.com/1ZEATF9cFE06pWykVFW3BI1xw3uya-maIxLRPeRfcCEeJi4vHxNGRxft0q8n6GBQElgO4JQYOK610POwz1KOpj0EfVwiGPl6BhF-TCGdLSSxiBMQ0A3D1EYm-8b_OJPNUaemH3wTbkkqVZgpGK0PI8d7d0-UGZP1bpQ24c7RMfKpitDDe3cKv8-wWBPZCKK5pr1GbfUA5FS9iiuljrBZWoF449kLB30R35FmAglyluUK5qEunJmaPpp3r8j6_6mf_/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.org%2Fprivacy%2Fpolicy>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos<https://secure-web.cisco.com/1pQA-d_bm2AgyvPSNpdGkC_ZgAKO4sa1Q8K7vRCiU1cnQkIhjqJN7QwPjIiV12c_lQv0DAmd25RoBF2lvbsxjGuK5l_PevXbQz3iZkA8bi1_Wu2URfarPH7ZjEVLIb0TVMqA31U4RzjDiIW-70GdwyVJw7YLb45uboqwvTBfeCAG4lCYN-oRsdp4f3g0mE5aTJcdcgePpAKAq2hgVDr8O-xyYOoGw1hK7IxtgZlKMppZ19ZlkTXBXWfOv9J_1-FVq/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.org%2Fprivacy%2Ftos>). 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. _______________________________________________ wsis20 mailing list wsis20@icann.org<mailto:wsis20@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wsis20<https://secure-web.cisco.com/1_pyYcT8b43pwhRwMRhkp5vPu_ZmZzILtqImv3zTtvaxiob6ohrsg-B3wiSQJTm9gc4S3XpTe80-rGw2mlmCOTf3EVq50veoyoqClOvS0xdYWPM6a-1KbVTkxvihqmu_jXlYD6Fzifs6P1xw8ZYbCbtzVUALamJae8QptcBtuB9wUpNtb5SAoh5FvyZD-qjiRNRg8W8iTAWG2G4XxC5azlOWErqqcLRtcY3wPrbTGSRzlw3W-lUuxGP4GpRYmOWdj/https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fwsis20> _______________________________________________ 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<https://secure-web.cisco.com/1ZEATF9cFE06pWykVFW3BI1xw3uya-maIxLRPeRfcCEeJi4vHxNGRxft0q8n6GBQElgO4JQYOK610POwz1KOpj0EfVwiGPl6BhF-TCGdLSSxiBMQ0A3D1EYm-8b_OJPNUaemH3wTbkkqVZgpGK0PI8d7d0-UGZP1bpQ24c7RMfKpitDDe3cKv8-wWBPZCKK5pr1GbfUA5FS9iiuljrBZWoF449kLB30R35FmAglyluUK5qEunJmaPpp3r8j6_6mf_/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.org%2Fprivacy%2Fpolicy>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos<https://secure-web.cisco.com/1pQA-d_bm2AgyvPSNpdGkC_ZgAKO4sa1Q8K7vRCiU1cnQkIhjqJN7QwPjIiV12c_lQv0DAmd25RoBF2lvbsxjGuK5l_PevXbQz3iZkA8bi1_Wu2URfarPH7ZjEVLIb0TVMqA31U4RzjDiIW-70GdwyVJw7YLb45uboqwvTBfeCAG4lCYN-oRsdp4f3g0mE5aTJcdcgePpAKAq2hgVDr8O-xyYOoGw1hK7IxtgZlKMppZ19ZlkTXBXWfOv9J_1-FVq/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.org%2Fprivacy%2Ftos>). 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.
Thanks for the great discussion! I had a quick look. My first thoughts: * Keeping in mind this is a zero draft, and we still have some work ahead of us ; * Some good text and positive aspects including commitments and actions and the participation of stakeholders in IG (including mention of the Technical community as a separate SH). Paragraph 54 actually calls for endorsement of the compact (and active participation) by the private sector, the technical community, civil society and international and regional organizations. * The WSIS (and updating WSIS action line), the GDC, as well as the SDGs, are intertwined which should be further addressed. * Still a number of duplication and overlaps: in particular, paragraphs 61 to 65 (new follow-up process, High-Level Review of the Global Digital Compact…), annual AI dialogue. The zero draft could have consolidated existing mechanisms / build upon success achieved since 2003 (as proposed by a number of stakeholders during the consultation phase). * I echo Jorge’s comment on paragraph 25 regarding the role of the IGF, which need to be clarified. @Fiona: informal consultations are planned on April 12 and then May 2 and 3. Looking forward to the consultation and to engaging further with the co-facilitators. Lucien From: "Jordan Carter via wsis20" <wsis20@icann.org> To: "ICANN wsis20" <wsis20@icann.org> Sent: Tuesday, 2 April, 2024 01:26:50 Subject: [wsis20] GDC zero draft Hi all This now appears to have been released: https: //www. un. org/techenvoy/sites/www. un. org. techenvoy/files/Global_Digital_Compact_Zero_Draft. pdf On a quick first read, the role of the technical community has been recognised, and the follow Hi all This now appears to have been released: [ https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.un.org/techenvoy/sites/www.un.org.te... | https://www.un.org/techenvoy/sites/www.un.org.techenvoy/files/Global_Digital... ] On a quick first read, the role of the technical community has been recognised, and the follow up process proposed is through existing mechanisms, not a new Digital Cooperation Forum. Those seem to be wins. Cheers Jordan Jordan Carter Internet Governance and Policy Director .au Domain Administration _______________________________________________ wsis20 mailing list wsis20@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/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.
Greetings The document effectively communicates the vision of harnessing digital technologies to foster inclusive, transparent, and secure development. It underscores the significance of international collaboration and governance in achieving these objectives. it delineates precise commitments and strategies to realize the stated goals, including bridging digital disparities, enhancing digital literacy, and advocating for digital public goods. These tangible steps offer a clear pathway for execution. Additionally, it acknowledges the dynamic nature of the digital landscape and, advocates for nimble and adaptable cooperation and, emphasizes the imperative of addressing emerging technologies such as Artificial Intelligence (AI), demonstrating a forward-thinking perspective. While the Compact serves as a global framework, it must be tailored to suit local contexts and priorities. This entails the customization of strategies and initiatives at national and regional levels to align with specific needs and circumstances particularly financing digital initiatives Establishing mechanisms to monitor progress and assess the impact of implemented measures is essential. Regular evaluations and reviews play a crucial role in identifying areas for improvement and refining strategies accordingly. Regards, From: wsis20 <wsis20-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Jordan Carter via wsis20 Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2024 1:27 AM To: ICANN wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> Subject: [wsis20] GDC zero draft Hi all This now appears to have been released: https://www.un.org/techenvoy/sites/www.un.org.techenvoy/files/Global_Digital... On a quick first read, the role of the technical community has been recognised, and the follow up process proposed is through existing mechanisms, not a new Digital Cooperation Forum. Those seem to be wins. Cheers Jordan Jordan Carter Internet Governance and Policy Director .au Domain Administration SmartDigital Solutions (SDS) is a Level 1 B-BBEE Contributor, our vision is to be a leading digital company that enable its customers to lead in digital. to realise our vision, we need to remain humble yet resolute in how we drive our growth. our guiding principles and values will enable us to win. Visit our website at www.smartdigital-solution.co.za<http://www.smartdigital-solution.co.za> SmartDigital Solutions (SDS) is a Level 1 B-BBEE Contributor, our vision is to be a leading digital company that enable its customers to lead in digital. to realise our vision, we need to remain humble yet resolute in how we drive our growth. our guiding principles and values will enable us to win. Visit our website at www.smartdigital-solution.co.za
participants (17)
-
Amrita Choudhury -
Anriette Esterhuysen -
Barrack Otieno -
Bruna Martins dos Santos -
Chafic Chaya -
Fiona Alexander -
Flávio Rech Wagner -
Hakikur Rahman -
Hickson, Nigel (DSIT) -
Jordan Carter -
Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch -
Konstantinos Komaitis -
Lucien Castex -
Maldonado Cid, Ana Isabel -
Shin Yamasaki -
Veni Markovski -
Veronica Motloutsi