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

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.

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.

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

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.

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/>

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.

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.