RCC Pushes for State-Led Internet Governance Ahead of WSIS+20 Review
This review of the RCC’s submission in the lead-up to the WSIS+20 examines its call for a state-led approach to Internet governance and its implications for the multistakeholder model. It explores how the RCC frames its arguments around digital sovereignty, interoperability, and regulatory frameworks while assessing the potential impact on global Internet governance structures, innovation, and access. Additionally, the article considers the broader geopolitical context of the submission and its alignment—or divergence—with international efforts to maintain an open, inclusive, and secure digital environment. https://circleid.com/posts/rcc-pushes-for-state-led-internet-governance-ahea... Cheers, Pari -- Pari Esfandiari President *Global TechnoPolitics Forum <http://www.technopolitics.org> * *Pario <http://www.parioconsultants.com>- Architects of Ideas* info@TechnoPolitics.org <info@technopolitics.org> *Linkedin Profile <https://www.linkedin.com/in/pariesfandiari/>* Tel: +1-202*-735-1415* (Office) : +1-310-435-0888 <http://voice.google.com/calls?a=nc,%2B13104350888> (Cell) : +44-731-210-4049 <http://voice.google.com/calls?a=nc,%2B447312104049> (Cell)
Thanks Paris for pulling the RCC proposal into the broader public. It is a tricky proposal. It includes some reasonable points, but it has a hidden agenda. It is misleading and confuses an uninformed public. Under Section 3 it argues: "The system of governance of global critical infrastructure must be equitable, neutral and immune to geopolitical challenges. The current multistkakeholder Internet Governance system does not fulfil these requirement." The first sentence needs all the support. The second sentence is not true. After the IANA transition (2016) all stakeholders participate in ICANN as "equals" in their specific roles. The UN principle of "sovereign equality of states", a corner stone in international law and the UN charter, is fully resepcted and implemented in ICANN´s Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC). No single government has exceptional rights in ICANN. All governments are on "equal footing", as called for in the Tunis Agenda. And ICANN demonstrated, that it is "neutral and immune to geopolitical challenges". A good example is from 2022. When Russia started its war against Ukraine, the Ukrainian Minister for Digital Policy wrote a letter to ICANN and was calling for the removal of the .ru. .rf (cyrillic) and .su top level domain zone files from the A-Root Server to disconnect Russia from the global Internet as a retaliation measure. Göran Marby, who was ICANN´s CEO in 2022, made clear in his answer, that ICANN will support Ukraine to remain connected to the Internet in difficult war times and will support the Internet community in Ukraine, but according to its bylaws and articles of incorproation, ICANN is not in a position to remove any TLD Zone Files from the A root server for political reasons, because ICANN is neutral and has to be "immune against geopolitical challenges". To change this system would lead to a "system of governance of global critical infrastructure" which would loose its neutrality, become politisiezed and will be pulled into geopolitical conflicts. Wolfgang
Pari Esfandiari via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> hat am 05.02.2025 11:03 CET geschrieben:
This review of the RCC’s submission in the lead-up to the WSIS+20 examines its call for a state-led approach to Internet governance and its implications for the multistakeholder model. It explores how the RCC frames its arguments around digital sovereignty, interoperability, and regulatory frameworks while assessing the potential impact on global Internet governance structures, innovation, and access. Additionally, the article considers the broader geopolitical context of the submission and its alignment—or divergence—with international efforts to maintain an open, inclusive, and secure digital environment. https://circleid.com/posts/rcc-pushes-for-state-led-internet-governance-ahea... Cheers, Pari
-- Pari Esfandiari President Global TechnoPolitics Forum http://www.technopolitics.org Pario http://www.parioconsultants.com - Architects of Ideas info@TechnoPolitics.org mailto:info@technopolitics.org Linkedin Profile https://www.linkedin.com/in/pariesfandiari/
Tel: +1-202-735-1415 (Office) : +1-310-435-0888 (Cell) : +44-731-210-4049 (Cell) _______________________________________________ Learn more about the WSIS+20 Outreach Network and review relevant resources: https://go.icann.org/wsis20 Read the public archives for this mailing list: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/ _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
@Tatiana Tropina<mailto:tropina@isoc.org> on our team pointed out yesterday the misuse of the term “public core” in the RCC submission. That is, as folks here are likely aware of, the "public core" is a term originally defined by the Global Commission on the Stability of Cyberspace (GCSC) to refer to the essential technical infrastructure of the Internet, such as routing, naming systems, and physical transmission media. However, the RCC's submission uses the term more broadly and ambiguously, suggesting that it includes "critical resources" that must be managed and controlled, which rings a lot like discussions around “critical infrastructures” under the purview of governments. This interpretation could justify greater government intervention in Internet infrastructure and operations, undermining the multistakeholder model and Internet freedom. It's important to note that the GCSC's definition was developed through a multistakeholder process and is widely accepted by the technical community. The RCC's misuse of the "public core" concept is. We need to be vigilant in challenging this misuse and ensuring that the "public core" is understood and protected as the essential technical infrastructure of the Internet, not a wedge for multilateral dominance. Best, Joe -- JLH, Internet Society, hall@isoc.org<mailto:hall@isoc.org> ( https://josephhall.org/ ) From: Wolfgang Kleinwächter via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> Date: Wednesday, February 5, 2025 at 08:40 To: Pari Esfandiari <pariesfandiari@gmail.com>, Pari Esfandiari via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> Subject: [wsis20] Re: RCC Pushes for State-Led Internet Governance Ahead of WSIS+20 Review Thanks Paris for pulling the RCC proposal into the broader public. It is a tricky proposal. It includes some reasonable points, but it has a hidden agenda. It is misleading and confuses an uninformed public. Under Section 3 it argues: "The system of governance of global critical infrastructure must be equitable, neutral and immune to geopolitical challenges. The current multistkakeholder Internet Governance system does not fulfil these requirement." The first sentence needs all the support. The second sentence is not true. After the IANA transition (2016) all stakeholders participate in ICANN as "equals" in their specific roles. The UN principle of "sovereign equality of states", a corner stone in international law and the UN charter, is fully resepcted and implemented in ICANN´s Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC). No single government has exceptional rights in ICANN. All governments are on "equal footing", as called for in the Tunis Agenda. And ICANN demonstrated, that it is "neutral and immune to geopolitical challenges". A good example is from 2022. When Russia started its war against Ukraine, the Ukrainian Minister for Digital Policy wrote a letter to ICANN and was calling for the removal of the .ru. .rf (cyrillic) and .su top level domain zone files from the A-Root Server to disconnect Russia from the global Internet as a retaliation measure. Göran Marby, who was ICANN´s CEO in 2022, made clear in his answer, that ICANN will support Ukraine to remain connected to the Internet in difficult war times and will support the Internet community in Ukraine, but according to its bylaws and articles of incorproation, ICANN is not in a position to remove any TLD Zone Files from the A root server for political reasons, because ICANN is neutral and has to be "immune against geopolitical challenges". To change this system would lead to a "system of governance of global critical infrastructure" which would loose its neutrality, become politisiezed and will be pulled into geopolitical conflicts. Wolfgang Pari Esfandiari via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> hat am 05.02.2025 11:03 CET geschrieben: This review of the RCC’s submission in the lead-up to the WSIS+20 examines its call for a state-led approach to Internet governance and its implications for the multistakeholder model. It explores how the RCC frames its arguments around digital sovereignty, interoperability, and regulatory frameworks while assessing the potential impact on global Internet governance structures, innovation, and access. Additionally, the article considers the broader geopolitical context of the submission and its alignment—or divergence—with international efforts to maintain an open, inclusive, and secure digital environment. https://circleid.com/posts/rcc-pushes-for-state-led-internet-governance-ahea... Cheers, Pari -- Pari Esfandiari President Global TechnoPolitics Forum<http://www.technopolitics.org> Pario <http://www.parioconsultants.com> - Architects of Ideas info@TechnoPolitics.org<mailto:info@technopolitics.org> Linkedin Profile<https://www.linkedin.com/in/pariesfandiari/> Tel: +1-202-735-1415 (Office) : +1-310-435-0888 (Cell) : +44-731-210-4049 (Cell) _______________________________________________ Learn more about the WSIS+20 Outreach Network and review relevant resources: https://go.icann.org/wsis20 Read the public archives for this mailing list: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/ _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Hi all, Notwithstanding the misuse of the "public core" phrase, the RCC proposal is dead on arrival. It is against the spirit of the Geneva Declaration - WSIS Action Lines, the Tunis Agenda and the Pact for the Future - GDC, for multi-stakeholder engagement on Internet Governance and digital policy processes. Let's remain vigilant though. Thanks, Pari for the highlight. Cheers, JO On 2025-02-05 19:50, Dr. Joseph Lorenzo Hall via wsis20 wrote:
@Tatiana Tropina on our team pointed out yesterday the misuse of the term “public core” in the RCC submission.
That is, as folks here are likely aware of, the "public core" is a term originally defined by the Global Commission on the Stability of Cyberspace (GCSC) to refer to the essential technical infrastructure of the Internet, such as routing, naming systems, and physical transmission media. However, the RCC's submission uses the term more broadly and ambiguously, suggesting that it includes "critical resources" that must be managed and controlled, which rings a lot like discussions around “critical infrastructures” under the purview of governments.
This interpretation could justify greater government intervention in Internet infrastructure and operations, undermining the multistakeholder model and Internet freedom. It's important to note that the GCSC's definition was developed through a multistakeholder process and is widely accepted by the technical community.
The RCC's misuse of the "public core" concept is. We need to be vigilant in challenging this misuse and ensuring that the "public core" is understood and protected as the essential technical infrastructure of the Internet, not a wedge for multilateral dominance.
Best, Joe
--
JLH, Internet Society, hall@isoc.org ( https://josephhall.org/ [4] )
From: Wolfgang Kleinwächter via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> Date: Wednesday, February 5, 2025 at 08:40 To: Pari Esfandiari <pariesfandiari@gmail.com>, Pari Esfandiari via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> Subject: [wsis20] Re: RCC Pushes for State-Led Internet Governance Ahead of WSIS+20 Review
Thanks Paris for pulling the RCC proposal into the broader public.
It is a tricky proposal. It includes some reasonable points, but it has a hidden agenda. It is misleading and confuses an uninformed public. Under Section 3 it argues: "The system of governance of global critical infrastructure must be equitable, neutral and immune to geopolitical challenges. The current multistkakeholder Internet Governance system does not fulfil these requirement." The first sentence needs all the support. The second sentence is not true.
After the IANA transition (2016) all stakeholders participate in ICANN as "equals" in their specific roles. The UN principle of "sovereign equality of states", a corner stone in international law and the UN charter, is fully resepcted and implemented in ICANN´s Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC). No single government has exceptional rights in ICANN. All governments are on "equal footing", as called for in the Tunis Agenda. And ICANN demonstrated, that it is "neutral and immune to geopolitical challenges".
A good example is from 2022. When Russia started its war against Ukraine, the Ukrainian Minister for Digital Policy wrote a letter to ICANN and was calling for the removal of the .ru. .rf (cyrillic) and .su top level domain zone files from the A-Root Server to disconnect Russia from the global Internet as a retaliation measure. Göran Marby, who was ICANN´s CEO in 2022, made clear in his answer, that ICANN will support Ukraine to remain connected to the Internet in difficult war times and will support the Internet community in Ukraine, but according to its bylaws and articles of incorproation, ICANN is not in a position to remove any TLD Zone Files from the A root server for political reasons, because ICANN is neutral and has to be "immune against geopolitical challenges".
To change this system would lead to a "system of governance of global critical infrastructure" which would loose its neutrality, become politisiezed and will be pulled into geopolitical conflicts.
Wolfgang
Pari Esfandiari via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> hat am 05.02.2025 11:03 CET geschrieben:
This review of the RCC’s submission in the lead-up to the WSIS+20 examines its call for a state-led approach to Internet governance and its implications for the multistakeholder model. It explores how the RCC frames its arguments around digital sovereignty, interoperability, and regulatory frameworks while assessing the potential impact on global Internet governance structures, innovation, and access. Additionally, the article considers the broader geopolitical context of the submission and its alignment—or divergence—with international efforts to maintain an open, inclusive, and secure digital environment.
https://circleid.com/posts/rcc-pushes-for-state-led-internet-governance-ahea...
Cheers,
Pari
--
Pari Esfandiari
President
_Global TechnoPolitics Forum [1] _
_Pario [2]- Architects of Ideas_
info@TechnoPolitics.org
Linkedin Profile [3]
Tel: +1-202-735-1415 (Office)
: +1-310-435-0888 (Cell)
: +44-731-210-4049 (Cell)
_______________________________________________ Learn more about the WSIS+20 Outreach Network and review relevant resources: https://go.icann.org/wsis20 Read the public archives for this mailing list: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/ _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Links: ------ [1] http://www.technopolitics.org [2] http://www.parioconsultants.com [3] https://www.linkedin.com/in/pariesfandiari/ [4] https://josephhall.org/ _______________________________________________
Learn more about the WSIS+20 Outreach Network and review relevant resources: https://go.icann.org/wsis20
Read the public archives for this mailing list: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
FYI all, while I suspect all of us on this list fundamentally disagree with the Russian position, they aren’t without supporters in New York – including China, though they’re much more subtle than Russia. As someone based in New York who covers digital economy policy here, the policy leads handling the WSIS review are almost without exception entirely new to the subject. We have a very significant and heavy lift required to educate the diplomatic corps here on how critical it is that CIRs stay as they are, and respond to the criticisms that get levelled as well as explain why simple sounding solutions – like intergovernmental control of CIRs – aren’t really a solution to any problem on the Internet today. I look forward to continued dialogue, and I’m sure seeing many long-time connections along the way to the review conclusion in December! Best, Nick Nick Ashton-Hart Senior Director, Digital Economy Policy APCO Temporary Address: 275 Seventh Avenue, 21st Floor New York, NY 10001 USA (t) +1 202 778 1000 (m) +1 202 779 1072<tel:+12027791072> nashtonhart@apcoworldwide.com<mailto:nashtonhart@apcoworldwide.com> Learn more about APCO on our website<https://apcoworldwide.com/?utm_campaign=email-signature&utm_source=apco&utm_...> Book time to meet with me here<https://outlook.office.com/bookwithme/user/ce911a0f9fa543dd9459b3a1392da25e@...> On 2/5/25, 5:20 PM, "Dr Jimson Olufuye via wsis20" <wsis20@icann.org> wrote: Hi all, Notwithstanding the misuse of the "public core" phrase, the RCC proposal is dead on arrival. It is against the spirit of the Geneva Declaration - WSIS Action Lines, the Tunis Agenda and the Pact for the Future - GDC, for multi-stakeholder engagement on Internet Governance and digital policy processes. Let's remain vigilant though. Thanks, Pari for the highlight. Cheers, JO On 2025-02-05 19:50, Dr. Joseph Lorenzo Hall via wsis20 wrote:
@Tatiana Tropina on our team pointed out yesterday the misuse of the term “public core” in the RCC submission.
That is, as folks here are likely aware of, the "public core" is a term originally defined by the Global Commission on the Stability of Cyberspace (GCSC) to refer to the essential technical infrastructure of the Internet, such as routing, naming systems, and physical transmission media. However, the RCC's submission uses the term more broadly and ambiguously, suggesting that it includes "critical resources" that must be managed and controlled, which rings a lot like discussions around “critical infrastructures” under the purview of governments.
This interpretation could justify greater government intervention in Internet infrastructure and operations, undermining the multistakeholder model and Internet freedom. It's important to note that the GCSC's definition was developed through a multistakeholder process and is widely accepted by the technical community.
The RCC's misuse of the "public core" concept is. We need to be vigilant in challenging this misuse and ensuring that the "public core" is understood and protected as the essential technical infrastructure of the Internet, not a wedge for multilateral dominance.
Best, Joe
--
JLH, Internet Society, hall@isoc.org ( https://josephhall.org/<https://josephhall.org/> [4] )
From: Wolfgang Kleinwächter via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> Date: Wednesday, February 5, 2025 at 08:40 To: Pari Esfandiari <pariesfandiari@gmail.com>, Pari Esfandiari via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> Subject: [wsis20] Re: RCC Pushes for State-Led Internet Governance Ahead of WSIS+20 Review
Thanks Paris for pulling the RCC proposal into the broader public.
It is a tricky proposal. It includes some reasonable points, but it has a hidden agenda. It is misleading and confuses an uninformed public. Under Section 3 it argues: "The system of governance of global critical infrastructure must be equitable, neutral and immune to geopolitical challenges. The current multistkakeholder Internet Governance system does not fulfil these requirement." The first sentence needs all the support. The second sentence is not true.
After the IANA transition (2016) all stakeholders participate in ICANN as "equals" in their specific roles. The UN principle of "sovereign equality of states", a corner stone in international law and the UN charter, is fully resepcted and implemented in ICANN´s Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC). No single government has exceptional rights in ICANN. All governments are on "equal footing", as called for in the Tunis Agenda. And ICANN demonstrated, that it is "neutral and immune to geopolitical challenges".
A good example is from 2022. When Russia started its war against Ukraine, the Ukrainian Minister for Digital Policy wrote a letter to ICANN and was calling for the removal of the .ru. .rf (cyrillic) and .su top level domain zone files from the A-Root Server to disconnect Russia from the global Internet as a retaliation measure. Göran Marby, who was ICANN´s CEO in 2022, made clear in his answer, that ICANN will support Ukraine to remain connected to the Internet in difficult war times and will support the Internet community in Ukraine, but according to its bylaws and articles of incorproation, ICANN is not in a position to remove any TLD Zone Files from the A root server for political reasons, because ICANN is neutral and has to be "immune against geopolitical challenges".
To change this system would lead to a "system of governance of global critical infrastructure" which would loose its neutrality, become politisiezed and will be pulled into geopolitical conflicts.
Wolfgang
Pari Esfandiari via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> hat am 05.02.2025 11:03 CET geschrieben:
This review of the RCC’s submission in the lead-up to the WSIS+20 examines its call for a state-led approach to Internet governance and its implications for the multistakeholder model. It explores how the RCC frames its arguments around digital sovereignty, interoperability, and regulatory frameworks while assessing the potential impact on global Internet governance structures, innovation, and access. Additionally, the article considers the broader geopolitical context of the submission and its alignment—or divergence—with international efforts to maintain an open, inclusive, and secure digital environment.
Cheers,
Pari
--
Pari Esfandiari
President
_Global TechnoPolitics Forum [1] _
_Pario [2]- Architects of Ideas_
info@TechnoPolitics.org
Linkedin Profile [3]
Tel: +1-202-735-1415 (Office)
: +1-310-435-0888 (Cell)
: +44-731-210-4049 (Cell)
_______________________________________________ Learn more about the WSIS+20 Outreach Network and review relevant resources: https://go.icann.org/wsis20<https://go.icann.org/wsis20> Read the public archives for this mailing list: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/<https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy<https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos<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.
Links: ------ [1] http://www.technopolitics.org/<http://www.technopolitics.org/> [2] http://www.parioconsultants.com/<http://www.parioconsultants.com/> [3] https://www.linkedin.com/in/pariesfandiari/<https://www.linkedin.com/in/pariesfandiari/> [4] https://josephhall.org/<https://josephhall.org/> _______________________________________________
Learn more about the WSIS+20 Outreach Network and review relevant resources: https://go.icann.org/wsis20<https://go.icann.org/wsis20>
Read the public archives for this mailing list: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/<https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/>
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy<https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos<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.
Learn more about the WSIS+20 Outreach Network and review relevant resources: https://go.icann.org/wsis20<https://go.icann.org/wsis20> Read the public archives for this mailing list: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/<https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy<https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos<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. ________________________________ DATA HANDLING For data handling questions, please view our Privacy Policy<https://apcoworldwide.com/privacy-policy/> or contact us at privacy@apcoworldwide.com<https://%20privacy@apcoworldwide.com/> with any inquiries. CONFIDENTIALITY This email may contain material that is confidential, privileged and/or work product for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, reliance or distribution by others or forwarding without express permission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
Hi all, I echo Nick’s warnings about the need to engage with diplomats and share our vision. Although many on this list are long-term supporters of the multistakeholder model and the WSIS consensus, people new to the topic may not perceive the ideas we see in the RCC’s submission as unfeasible as we do, especially if giving some concessions in this field will let them advance other objectives. Let’s also bear in mind that, besides their level of expertise, diplomats usually deal with several topics in parallel, so WSIS+20—and the Internet—may not be at the core of their priorities. Best, Isra Isra Rosas, Director, Partnerships and Internet Development Internet Society From: Ashton-Hart, Nick via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> Date: Wednesday, February 5, 2025 at 5:37 PM To: Dr Jimson Olufuye <jolufuye@kontemporary.net.ng>, Dr. Joseph Lorenzo Hall <hall@isoc.org> Cc: Pari Esfandiari via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org>, Tatiana Tropina <tropina@isoc.org> Subject: [wsis20] Re: RCC Pushes for State-Led Internet Governance Ahead of WSIS+20 Review FYI all, while I suspect all of us on this list fundamentally disagree with the Russian position, they aren’t without supporters in New York – including China, though they’re much more subtle than Russia. As someone based in New York who covers digital economy policy here, the policy leads handling the WSIS review are almost without exception entirely new to the subject. We have a very significant and heavy lift required to educate the diplomatic corps here on how critical it is that CIRs stay as they are, and respond to the criticisms that get levelled as well as explain why simple sounding solutions – like intergovernmental control of CIRs – aren’t really a solution to any problem on the Internet today. I look forward to continued dialogue, and I’m sure seeing many long-time connections along the way to the review conclusion in December! Best, Nick Nick Ashton-Hart Senior Director, Digital Economy Policy APCO Temporary Address: 275 Seventh Avenue, 21st Floor New York, NY 10001 USA (t) +1 202 778 1000 (m) +1 202 779 1072<tel:+12027791072> nashtonhart@apcoworldwide.com<mailto:nashtonhart@apcoworldwide.com> Learn more about APCO on our website<https://apcoworldwide.com/?utm_campaign=email-signature&utm_source=apco&utm_...> Book time to meet with me here<https://outlook.office.com/bookwithme/user/ce911a0f9fa543dd9459b3a1392da25e@...> On 2/5/25, 5:20 PM, "Dr Jimson Olufuye via wsis20" <wsis20@icann.org> wrote: Hi all, Notwithstanding the misuse of the "public core" phrase, the RCC proposal is dead on arrival. It is against the spirit of the Geneva Declaration - WSIS Action Lines, the Tunis Agenda and the Pact for the Future - GDC, for multi-stakeholder engagement on Internet Governance and digital policy processes. Let's remain vigilant though. Thanks, Pari for the highlight. Cheers, JO On 2025-02-05 19:50, Dr. Joseph Lorenzo Hall via wsis20 wrote:
@Tatiana Tropina on our team pointed out yesterday the misuse of the term “public core” in the RCC submission.
That is, as folks here are likely aware of, the "public core" is a term originally defined by the Global Commission on the Stability of Cyberspace (GCSC) to refer to the essential technical infrastructure of the Internet, such as routing, naming systems, and physical transmission media. However, the RCC's submission uses the term more broadly and ambiguously, suggesting that it includes "critical resources" that must be managed and controlled, which rings a lot like discussions around “critical infrastructures” under the purview of governments.
This interpretation could justify greater government intervention in Internet infrastructure and operations, undermining the multistakeholder model and Internet freedom. It's important to note that the GCSC's definition was developed through a multistakeholder process and is widely accepted by the technical community.
The RCC's misuse of the "public core" concept is. We need to be vigilant in challenging this misuse and ensuring that the "public core" is understood and protected as the essential technical infrastructure of the Internet, not a wedge for multilateral dominance.
Best, Joe
--
From: Wolfgang Kleinwächter via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> Date: Wednesday, February 5, 2025 at 08:40 To: Pari Esfandiari <pariesfandiari@gmail.com>, Pari Esfandiari via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> Subject: [wsis20] Re: RCC Pushes for State-Led Internet Governance Ahead of WSIS+20 Review
Thanks Paris for pulling the RCC proposal into the broader public.
It is a tricky proposal. It includes some reasonable points, but it has a hidden agenda. It is misleading and confuses an uninformed public. Under Section 3 it argues: "The system of governance of global critical infrastructure must be equitable, neutral and immune to geopolitical challenges. The current multistkakeholder Internet Governance system does not fulfil these requirement." The first sentence needs all the support. The second sentence is not true.
After the IANA transition (2016) all stakeholders participate in ICANN as "equals" in their specific roles. The UN principle of "sovereign equality of states", a corner stone in international law and the UN charter, is fully resepcted and implemented in ICANN´s Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC). No single government has exceptional rights in ICANN. All governments are on "equal footing", as called for in the Tunis Agenda. And ICANN demonstrated, that it is "neutral and immune to geopolitical challenges".
A good example is from 2022. When Russia started its war against Ukraine, the Ukrainian Minister for Digital Policy wrote a letter to ICANN and was calling for the removal of the .ru. .rf (cyrillic) and .su top level domain zone files from the A-Root Server to disconnect Russia from the global Internet as a retaliation measure. Göran Marby, who was ICANN´s CEO in 2022, made clear in his answer, that ICANN will support Ukraine to remain connected to the Internet in difficult war times and will support the Internet community in Ukraine, but according to its bylaws and articles of incorproation, ICANN is not in a position to remove any TLD Zone Files from the A root server for political reasons, because ICANN is neutral and has to be "immune against geopolitical challenges".
To change this system would lead to a "system of governance of global critical infrastructure" which would loose its neutrality, become politisiezed and will be pulled into geopolitical conflicts.
Wolfgang
Pari Esfandiari via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> hat am 05.02.2025 11:03 CET geschrieben:
This review of the RCC’s submission in the lead-up to the WSIS+20 examines its call for a state-led approach to Internet governance and its implications for the multistakeholder model. It explores how the RCC frames its arguments around digital sovereignty, interoperability, and regulatory frameworks while assessing the potential impact on global Internet governance structures, innovation, and access. Additionally, the article considers the broader geopolitical context of the submission and its alignment—or divergence—with international efforts to maintain an open, inclusive, and secure digital environment.
Cheers,
Pari
--
Pari Esfandiari
President
_Global TechnoPolitics Forum [1] _
_Pario [2]- Architects of Ideas_
info@TechnoPolitics.org
Linkedin Profile [3]
Tel: +1-202-735-1415 (Office)
: +1-310-435-0888 (Cell)
: +44-731-210-4049 (Cell)
_______________________________________________ Learn more about the WSIS+20 Outreach Network and review relevant resources: https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgo.icann.org%2Fwsis20&data=05%7C02%7Cnashtonhart%40apcoworldwide.com%7C674dbf7e4db44eddf1f908dd46334091%7C77a5f6209d7747dba0cd64c70948d532%7C1%7C0%7C638743908170798426%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=M05ogXtr0gLA1OgGa8N%2F41yjXsRlq6VBDvqE9FJhQ7M%3D&reserved=0<https://go.icann.org/wsis20> Read the public archives for this mailing list: https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fpipermail%2Fwsis20%2F&data=05%7C02%7Cnashtonhart%40apcoworldwide.com%7C674dbf7e4db44eddf1f908dd46334091%7C77a5f6209d7747dba0cd64c70948d532%7C1%7C0%7C638743908170815298%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=ZIg%2FcOSlVy2DByFzZDX7XtVhXT07QVTJKrVz2EjR1Bk%3D&reserved=0<https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.org%2Fprivacy%2Fpolicy&data=05%7C02%7Cnashtonhart%40apcoworldwide.com%7C674dbf7e4db44eddf1f908dd46334091%7C77a5f6209d7747dba0cd64c70948d532%7C1%7C0%7C638743908170832010%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=9vmWeP%2Bbr1ehSe5HPHYtGWtEyqr%2BBwE2DTuywpS7m8w%3D&reserved=0<https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>) and the website Terms of Service (https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.org%2Fprivacy%2Ftos&data=05%7C02%7Cnashtonhart%40apcoworldwide.com%7C674dbf7e4db44eddf1f908dd46334091%7C77a5f6209d7747dba0cd64c70948d532%7C1%7C0%7C638743908170851173%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=kS3x99MnI9amfRH%2F5onCTlG%2Bh0SepaSc%2BqWzEslv17o%3D&reserved=0<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.
Links: ------ [1] https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.technopolitics.org%2F&data=05%7C02%7Cnashtonhart%40apcoworldwide.com%7C674dbf7e4db44eddf1f908dd46334091%7C77a5f6209d7747dba0cd64c70948d532%7C1%7C0%7C638743908170869689%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=KeLjIdd3ZfZvbjGspnHAg3VCR7HdtjND2G5q6uzfJIs%3D&reserved=0<http://www.technopolitics.org/> [2] https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.parioconsultants.com%2F&data=05%7C02%7Cnashtonhart%40apcoworldwide.com%7C674dbf7e4db44eddf1f908dd46334091%7C77a5f6209d7747dba0cd64c70948d532%7C1%7C0%7C638743908170886614%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=3baJBTXQV8zLODZFbwweH0vVBCsQacuNfvgM%2BkxKuy0%3D&reserved=0<http://www.parioconsultants.com/> [3] https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fin%2Fpariesfandiari%2F&data=05%7C02%7Cnashtonhart%40apcoworldwide.com%7C674dbf7e4db44eddf1f908dd46334091%7C77a5f6209d7747dba0cd64c70948d532%7C1%7C0%7C638743908170903446%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=K7qeDnwzUVbXV5gATnBkpcmLHVIBJthbMHbmFPvLl%2Fc%3D&reserved=0<https://www.linkedin.com/in/pariesfandiari/> [4] https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fjosephhall.org%2F&data=05%7C02%7Cnashtonhart%40apcoworldwide.com%7C674dbf7e4db44eddf1f908dd46334091%7C77a5f6209d7747dba0cd64c70948d532%7C1%7C0%7C638743908170917021%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=%2F6Bul4IecrOMavfKXBp8qn%2FPj0aJ8bra2KxwZdlJYRg%3D&reserved=0<https://josephhall.org/> _______________________________________________
Learn more about the WSIS+20 Outreach Network and review relevant resources: https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgo.icann.org%2Fwsis20&data=05%7C02%7Cnashtonhart%40apcoworldwide.com%7C674dbf7e4db44eddf1f908dd46334091%7C77a5f6209d7747dba0cd64c70948d532%7C1%7C0%7C638743908170928932%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=wfEY%2B%2Bbmi%2FLkD32nmaaI1b2oOd8tboflq4teGP3gsLk%3D&reserved=0<https://go.icann.org/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://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.org%2Fprivacy%2Fpolicy&data=05%7C02%7Cnashtonhart%40apcoworldwide.com%7C674dbf7e4db44eddf1f908dd46334091%7C77a5f6209d7747dba0cd64c70948d532%7C1%7C0%7C638743908170952325%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=eRLu3VMn5WfdcDpKAGfByWntFfOPMm9dC8mPOFi51aU%3D&reserved=0<https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>) and the website Terms of Service (https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.org%2Fprivacy%2Ftos&data=05%7C02%7Cnashtonhart%40apcoworldwide.com%7C674dbf7e4db44eddf1f908dd46334091%7C77a5f6209d7747dba0cd64c70948d532%7C1%7C0%7C638743908170963590%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=O2wLo8SP6zlAvztKDaO4HOfKl1k4zdcmG7OKEXoGm%2F8%3D&reserved=0<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.
Learn more about the WSIS+20 Outreach Network and review relevant resources: https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgo.icann.org%2Fwsis20&data=05%7C02%7Cnashtonhart%40apcoworldwide.com%7C674dbf7e4db44eddf1f908dd46334091%7C77a5f6209d7747dba0cd64c70948d532%7C1%7C0%7C638743908170975218%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Ha3SgK2xk%2BC9pk%2BiCL6GfnkKznHx76ywVaZ%2BEGqOTlk%3D&reserved=0<https://go.icann.org/wsis20> Read the public archives for this mailing list: https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fpipermail%2Fwsis20%2F&data=05%7C02%7Cnashtonhart%40apcoworldwide.com%7C674dbf7e4db44eddf1f908dd46334091%7C77a5f6209d7747dba0cd64c70948d532%7C1%7C0%7C638743908170987844%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=L%2FWPPoH999EJR%2BTaPhJrOKIxaxT0UrfStELHLQBZeKk%3D&reserved=0<https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.org%2Fprivacy%2Fpolicy&data=05%7C02%7Cnashtonhart%40apcoworldwide.com%7C674dbf7e4db44eddf1f908dd46334091%7C77a5f6209d7747dba0cd64c70948d532%7C1%7C0%7C638743908171000525%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=8T%2FK9QndmRZqgmpEfUAoBzUIZtIM8q2xH80aj4PIokE%3D&reserved=0<https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>) and the website Terms of Service (https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.org%2Fprivacy%2Ftos&data=05%7C02%7Cnashtonhart%40apcoworldwide.com%7C674dbf7e4db44eddf1f908dd46334091%7C77a5f6209d7747dba0cd64c70948d532%7C1%7C0%7C638743908171019143%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=TcB9YZA7d62ACYT7l8ckTFWyQ9JSwmQxt2gYESXnxuI%3D&reserved=0<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. ________________________________ DATA HANDLING For data handling questions, please view our Privacy Policy<https://apcoworldwide.com/privacy-policy/> or contact us at privacy@apcoworldwide.com<https://%20privacy@apcoworldwide.com/> with any inquiries. CONFIDENTIALITY This email may contain material that is confidential, privileged and/or work product for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, reliance or distribution by others or forwarding without express permission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
Hi all Since this is obviously a lacuna in the engagement processes, could ISOC global lead this part for the updating if not efforts at building the capacity of these new diplomats on the dangers as foreseen and probably make it a near regular engagement to abridge the likely noticeable gap on behalf of this multistakeholder community to save us all the headache of lacking proactive engagement and undue fightbacks. Thanks to the eagle eyes within this community for spotting the unanticipated wrong route by RCC. I think the earlier the better as it could take some processes to come to fruition. ___________________ REMMY NWEKE, *mNUJ, mNGE, mGOCOP, mnipr* Lead Consulting Strategist - *DigitalSENSE Africa* <https://www.itrealms.com.ng/> Group Executive Editor, *ITREALMS Media* group [*Multiple-award winning medium*] (ITREALMS <http://www.itrealms.com.ng/>, DigitalSENSE Business Magazine <http://www.digitalsenseafrica.com.ng/businessnews>; NaijaAgroNet <http://www.naijaagronet.com.ng/>) No. 36 Afariogun Street, Oshodi-Lagos, Nigeria M: 234-8033592762, 8023122558, T: @ITRealms <http://www.twitter.com/ITRealms> @DigitalSENSEng 2024 *Nigeria DigitalSENSE Forum on IG4D*, Thursday June 27 <https://www.itrealms.com.ng/> 2024 *ITREALMS* e-Waste Dialogue, Thursday December 14 <https://www.itrealms.com.ng/> @Welcome Center Hotels, Int'l Airport Road, Lagos-Nigeria <http://welcomecentrehotels.com/> Former Vice President, African Civil Society on Information Society (ACSIS) ______________________________________________________________ *Confidentiality Notice:* The information in this document and attachments are confidential and may also be privileged information. It is intended only for the use of the named recipient. Remmy Nweke does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this e-mail. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify me immediately, then delete this document and do not disclose the contents of this document to any other person, nor make any copies. Violators may face court persecution. On Thu, Feb 6, 2025 at 12:19 AM Israel Rosas via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> wrote:
Hi all,
I echo Nick’s warnings about the need to engage with diplomats and share our vision. Although many on this list are long-term supporters of the multistakeholder model and the WSIS consensus, people new to the topic may not perceive the ideas we see in the RCC’s submission as unfeasible as we do, especially if giving some concessions in this field will let them advance other objectives. Let’s also bear in mind that, besides their level of expertise, diplomats usually deal with several topics in parallel, so WSIS+20—and the Internet—may not be at the core of their priorities.
Best,
Isra
Isra Rosas, Director, Partnerships and Internet Development Internet Society
*From: *Ashton-Hart, Nick via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> *Date: *Wednesday, February 5, 2025 at 5:37 PM *To: *Dr Jimson Olufuye <jolufuye@kontemporary.net.ng>, Dr. Joseph Lorenzo Hall <hall@isoc.org> *Cc: *Pari Esfandiari via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org>, Tatiana Tropina < tropina@isoc.org> *Subject: *[wsis20] Re: RCC Pushes for State-Led Internet Governance Ahead of WSIS+20 Review
FYI all, while I suspect all of us on this list fundamentally disagree with the Russian position, they aren’t without supporters in New York – including China, though they’re much more subtle than Russia.
As someone based in New York who covers digital economy policy here, the policy leads handling the WSIS review are almost without exception entirely new to the subject. We have a very significant and heavy lift required to educate the diplomatic corps here on how critical it is that CIRs stay as they are, and respond to the criticisms that get levelled as well as explain why simple sounding solutions – like intergovernmental control of CIRs – aren’t really a solution to any problem on the Internet today.
I look forward to continued dialogue, and I’m sure seeing many long-time connections along the way to the review conclusion in December!
Best, Nick
* Nick Ashton-Hart* Senior Director, Digital Economy Policy
*APCO* *Temporary Address:*
275 Seventh Avenue, 21st Floor
New York, NY 10001 USA
(t) +1 202 778 1000 (m) +1 202 779 1072 <+12027791072> nashtonhart@apcoworldwide.com
Learn more about APCO on our website <https://apcoworldwide.com/?utm_campaign=email-signature&utm_source=apco&utm_...>
Book time to meet with me here <https://outlook.office.com/bookwithme/user/ce911a0f9fa543dd9459b3a1392da25e@...>
On 2/5/25, 5:20 PM, "Dr Jimson Olufuye via wsis20" <wsis20@icann.org> wrote:
Hi all,
Notwithstanding the misuse of the "public core" phrase, the RCC proposal is dead on arrival. It is against the spirit of the Geneva Declaration - WSIS Action Lines, the Tunis Agenda and the Pact for the Future - GDC, for multi-stakeholder engagement on Internet Governance and digital policy processes.
Let's remain vigilant though. Thanks, Pari for the highlight.
Cheers,
JO
On 2025-02-05 19:50, Dr. Joseph Lorenzo Hall via wsis20 wrote:
@Tatiana Tropina on our team pointed out yesterday the misuse of the term “public core” in the RCC submission.
That is, as folks here are likely aware of, the "public core" is a term originally defined by the Global Commission on the Stability of Cyberspace (GCSC) to refer to the essential technical infrastructure of the Internet, such as routing, naming systems, and physical transmission media. However, the RCC's submission uses the term more broadly and ambiguously, suggesting that it includes "critical resources" that must be managed and controlled, which rings a lot like discussions around “critical infrastructures” under the purview of governments.
This interpretation could justify greater government intervention in Internet infrastructure and operations, undermining the multistakeholder model and Internet freedom. It's important to note that the GCSC's definition was developed through a multistakeholder process and is widely accepted by the technical community.
The RCC's misuse of the "public core" concept is. We need to be vigilant in challenging this misuse and ensuring that the "public core" is understood and protected as the essential technical infrastructure of the Internet, not a wedge for multilateral dominance.
Best, Joe
--
JLH, Internet Society, hall@isoc.org ( https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fjosephhall... <https://josephhall.org/> [4] )
From: Wolfgang Kleinwächter via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> Date: Wednesday, February 5, 2025 at 08:40 To: Pari Esfandiari <pariesfandiari@gmail.com>, Pari Esfandiari via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> Subject: [wsis20] Re: RCC Pushes for State-Led Internet Governance Ahead of WSIS+20 Review
Thanks Paris for pulling the RCC proposal into the broader public.
It is a tricky proposal. It includes some reasonable points, but it has a hidden agenda. It is misleading and confuses an uninformed public. Under Section 3 it argues: "The system of governance of global critical infrastructure must be equitable, neutral and immune to geopolitical challenges. The current multistkakeholder Internet Governance system does not fulfil these requirement." The first sentence needs all the support. The second sentence is not true.
After the IANA transition (2016) all stakeholders participate in ICANN as "equals" in their specific roles. The UN principle of "sovereign equality of states", a corner stone in international law and the UN charter, is fully resepcted and implemented in ICANN´s Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC). No single government has exceptional rights in ICANN. All governments are on "equal footing", as called for in the Tunis Agenda. And ICANN demonstrated, that it is "neutral and immune to geopolitical challenges".
A good example is from 2022. When Russia started its war against Ukraine, the Ukrainian Minister for Digital Policy wrote a letter to ICANN and was calling for the removal of the .ru. .rf (cyrillic) and .su top level domain zone files from the A-Root Server to disconnect Russia from the global Internet as a retaliation measure. Göran Marby, who was ICANN´s CEO in 2022, made clear in his answer, that ICANN will support Ukraine to remain connected to the Internet in difficult war times and will support the Internet community in Ukraine, but according to its bylaws and articles of incorproation, ICANN is not in a position to remove any TLD Zone Files from the A root server for political reasons, because ICANN is neutral and has to be "immune against geopolitical challenges".
To change this system would lead to a "system of governance of global critical infrastructure" which would loose its neutrality, become politisiezed and will be pulled into geopolitical conflicts.
Wolfgang
Pari Esfandiari via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> hat am 05.02.2025 11:03 CET geschrieben:
This review of the RCC’s submission in the lead-up to the WSIS+20 examines its call for a state-led approach to Internet governance and its implications for the multistakeholder model. It explores how the RCC frames its arguments around digital sovereignty, interoperability, and regulatory frameworks while assessing the potential impact on global Internet governance structures, innovation, and access. Additionally, the article considers the broader geopolitical context of the submission and its alignment—or divergence—with international efforts to maintain an open, inclusive, and secure digital environment.
https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcircleid.c... <https://circleid.com/posts/rcc-pushes-for-state-led-internet-governance-ahea...>
Cheers,
Pari
--
Pari Esfandiari
President
_Global TechnoPolitics Forum [1] _
_Pario [2]- Architects of Ideas_
info@TechnoPolitics.org
Linkedin Profile [3]
Tel: +1-202-735-1415 (Office)
: +1-310-435-0888 (Cell)
: +44-731-210-4049 (Cell)
_______________________________________________ Learn more about the WSIS+20 Outreach Network and review relevant resources:
https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgo.icann.o... <https://go.icann.org/wsis20> Read the public archives for this
mailing list: https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.o... <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.... <https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>) and the website Terms of Service ( https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.... <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.
Links: ------ [1] https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.technop... <http://www.technopolitics.org/> [2] https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.parioco... <http://www.parioconsultants.com/> [3] https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.linked... <https://www.linkedin.com/in/pariesfandiari/> [4] https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fjosephhall... <https://josephhall.org/> _______________________________________________
Learn more about the WSIS+20 Outreach Network and review relevant resources: https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgo.icann.o... <https://go.icann.org/wsis20>
Read the public archives for this mailing list:
https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.o... <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/>
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (
https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.... <https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>) and the website Terms of Service
( https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.... <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.
Learn more about the WSIS+20 Outreach Network and review relevant resources: https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgo.icann.o... <https://go.icann.org/wsis20>
Read the public archives for this mailing list: https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.o... <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/>
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.... <https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>) and the website Terms of Service ( https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.... <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.
------------------------------
DATA HANDLING
For data handling questions, please view our Privacy Policy <https://apcoworldwide.com/privacy-policy/> or contact us at privacy@apcoworldwide.com <https://%20privacy@apcoworldwide.com/> with any inquiries.
CONFIDENTIALITY
This email may contain material that is confidential, privileged and/or work product for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, reliance or distribution by others or forwarding without express permission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies. _______________________________________________
Learn more about the WSIS+20 Outreach Network and review relevant resources: https://go.icann.org/wsis20
Read the public archives for this mailing list: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Hi Remmy, all, Yes, the Internet Society—and other organizations, as we’ve seen on this mailing list—engage at different levels, not only with diplomats but with different parts of the Internet community. As my colleague Olaf Kolkman would say, we’re not seeking to sing in unison but in harmony. Best, Isra Isra Rosas, Director, Partnerships and Internet Development Internet Society From: Remmy Nweke <remmyn@gmail.com> Date: Wednesday, February 5, 2025 at 6:45 PM To: Israel Rosas <rosas@isoc.org> Cc: Ashton-Hart, Nick <nashtonhart@apcoworldwide.com>, Pari Esfandiari via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> Subject: Re: [wsis20] Re: RCC Pushes for State-Led Internet Governance Ahead of WSIS+20 Review Hi all Since this is obviously a lacuna in the engagement processes, could ISOC global lead this part for the updating if not efforts at building the capacity of these new diplomats on the dangers as foreseen and probably make it a near regular engagement to abridge the likely noticeable gap on behalf of this multistakeholder community to save us all the headache of lacking proactive engagement and undue fightbacks. Thanks to the eagle eyes within this community for spotting the unanticipated wrong route by RCC. I think the earlier the better as it could take some processes to come to fruition. ___________________ REMMY NWEKE, mNUJ, mNGE, mGOCOP, mnipr Lead Consulting Strategist - DigitalSENSE Africa<https://www.itrealms.com.ng/> Group Executive Editor, ITREALMS Media group [Multiple-award winning medium] (ITREALMS<http://www.itrealms.com.ng/>, DigitalSENSE Business Magazine<http://www.digitalsenseafrica.com.ng/businessnews>; NaijaAgroNet<http://www.naijaagronet.com.ng/>) No. 36 Afariogun Street, Oshodi-Lagos, Nigeria M: 234-8033592762, 8023122558, T: @ITRealms<http://www.twitter.com/ITRealms> @DigitalSENSEng 2024 Nigeria DigitalSENSE Forum on IG4D, Thursday June 27<https://www.itrealms.com.ng/> 2024 ITREALMS e-Waste Dialogue, Thursday December 14<https://www.itrealms.com.ng/> @Welcome Center Hotels, Int'l Airport Road, Lagos-Nigeria<http://welcomecentrehotels.com/> Former Vice President, African Civil Society on Information Society (ACSIS) ______________________________________________________________ *Confidentiality Notice:* The information in this document and attachments are confidential and may also be privileged information. It is intended only for the use of the named recipient. Remmy Nweke does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this e-mail. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify me immediately, then delete this document and do not disclose the contents of this document to any other person, nor make any copies. Violators may face court persecution. On Thu, Feb 6, 2025 at 12:19 AM Israel Rosas via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org<mailto:wsis20@icann.org>> wrote: Hi all, I echo Nick’s warnings about the need to engage with diplomats and share our vision. Although many on this list are long-term supporters of the multistakeholder model and the WSIS consensus, people new to the topic may not perceive the ideas we see in the RCC’s submission as unfeasible as we do, especially if giving some concessions in this field will let them advance other objectives. Let’s also bear in mind that, besides their level of expertise, diplomats usually deal with several topics in parallel, so WSIS+20—and the Internet—may not be at the core of their priorities. Best, Isra Isra Rosas, Director, Partnerships and Internet Development Internet Society From: Ashton-Hart, Nick via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org<mailto:wsis20@icann.org>> Date: Wednesday, February 5, 2025 at 5:37 PM To: Dr Jimson Olufuye <jolufuye@kontemporary.net.ng<mailto:jolufuye@kontemporary.net.ng>>, Dr. Joseph Lorenzo Hall <hall@isoc.org<mailto:hall@isoc.org>> Cc: Pari Esfandiari via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org<mailto:wsis20@icann.org>>, Tatiana Tropina <tropina@isoc.org<mailto:tropina@isoc.org>> Subject: [wsis20] Re: RCC Pushes for State-Led Internet Governance Ahead of WSIS+20 Review FYI all, while I suspect all of us on this list fundamentally disagree with the Russian position, they aren’t without supporters in New York – including China, though they’re much more subtle than Russia. As someone based in New York who covers digital economy policy here, the policy leads handling the WSIS review are almost without exception entirely new to the subject. We have a very significant and heavy lift required to educate the diplomatic corps here on how critical it is that CIRs stay as they are, and respond to the criticisms that get levelled as well as explain why simple sounding solutions – like intergovernmental control of CIRs – aren’t really a solution to any problem on the Internet today. I look forward to continued dialogue, and I’m sure seeing many long-time connections along the way to the review conclusion in December! Best, Nick Nick Ashton-Hart Senior Director, Digital Economy Policy APCO Temporary Address: 275 Seventh Avenue, 21st Floor New York, NY 10001 USA (t) +1 202 778 1000 (m) +1 202 779 1072<tel:+12027791072> nashtonhart@apcoworldwide.com<mailto:nashtonhart@apcoworldwide.com> Learn more about APCO on our website<https://apcoworldwide.com/?utm_campaign=email-signature&utm_source=apco&utm_...> Book time to meet with me here<https://outlook.office.com/bookwithme/user/ce911a0f9fa543dd9459b3a1392da25e@...> On 2/5/25, 5:20 PM, "Dr Jimson Olufuye via wsis20" <wsis20@icann.org<mailto:wsis20@icann.org>> wrote: Hi all, Notwithstanding the misuse of the "public core" phrase, the RCC proposal is dead on arrival. It is against the spirit of the Geneva Declaration - WSIS Action Lines, the Tunis Agenda and the Pact for the Future - GDC, for multi-stakeholder engagement on Internet Governance and digital policy processes. Let's remain vigilant though. Thanks, Pari for the highlight. Cheers, JO On 2025-02-05 19:50, Dr. Joseph Lorenzo Hall via wsis20 wrote:
@Tatiana Tropina on our team pointed out yesterday the misuse of the term “public core” in the RCC submission.
That is, as folks here are likely aware of, the "public core" is a term originally defined by the Global Commission on the Stability of Cyberspace (GCSC) to refer to the essential technical infrastructure of the Internet, such as routing, naming systems, and physical transmission media. However, the RCC's submission uses the term more broadly and ambiguously, suggesting that it includes "critical resources" that must be managed and controlled, which rings a lot like discussions around “critical infrastructures” under the purview of governments.
This interpretation could justify greater government intervention in Internet infrastructure and operations, undermining the multistakeholder model and Internet freedom. It's important to note that the GCSC's definition was developed through a multistakeholder process and is widely accepted by the technical community.
The RCC's misuse of the "public core" concept is. We need to be vigilant in challenging this misuse and ensuring that the "public core" is understood and protected as the essential technical infrastructure of the Internet, not a wedge for multilateral dominance.
Best, Joe
--
JLH, Internet Society, hall@isoc.org<mailto:hall@isoc.org> ( https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fjosephhall.org%2F&data=05%7C02%7Cnashtonhart%40apcoworldwide.com%7C674dbf7e4db44eddf1f908dd46334091%7C77a5f6209d7747dba0cd64c70948d532%7C1%7C0%7C638743908170749901%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=XG41xyhhl%2BNOE3NtREulH4cdE7TevBqBTbI%2FCBbS12Q%3D&reserved=0<https://josephhall.org/> [4] )
From: Wolfgang Kleinwächter via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org<mailto:wsis20@icann.org>> Date: Wednesday, February 5, 2025 at 08:40 To: Pari Esfandiari <pariesfandiari@gmail.com<mailto:pariesfandiari@gmail.com>>, Pari Esfandiari via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org<mailto:wsis20@icann.org>> Subject: [wsis20] Re: RCC Pushes for State-Led Internet Governance Ahead of WSIS+20 Review
Thanks Paris for pulling the RCC proposal into the broader public.
It is a tricky proposal. It includes some reasonable points, but it has a hidden agenda. It is misleading and confuses an uninformed public. Under Section 3 it argues: "The system of governance of global critical infrastructure must be equitable, neutral and immune to geopolitical challenges. The current multistkakeholder Internet Governance system does not fulfil these requirement." The first sentence needs all the support. The second sentence is not true.
After the IANA transition (2016) all stakeholders participate in ICANN as "equals" in their specific roles. The UN principle of "sovereign equality of states", a corner stone in international law and the UN charter, is fully resepcted and implemented in ICANN´s Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC). No single government has exceptional rights in ICANN. All governments are on "equal footing", as called for in the Tunis Agenda. And ICANN demonstrated, that it is "neutral and immune to geopolitical challenges".
A good example is from 2022. When Russia started its war against Ukraine, the Ukrainian Minister for Digital Policy wrote a letter to ICANN and was calling for the removal of the .ru. .rf (cyrillic) and .su top level domain zone files from the A-Root Server to disconnect Russia from the global Internet as a retaliation measure. Göran Marby, who was ICANN´s CEO in 2022, made clear in his answer, that ICANN will support Ukraine to remain connected to the Internet in difficult war times and will support the Internet community in Ukraine, but according to its bylaws and articles of incorproation, ICANN is not in a position to remove any TLD Zone Files from the A root server for political reasons, because ICANN is neutral and has to be "immune against geopolitical challenges".
To change this system would lead to a "system of governance of global critical infrastructure" which would loose its neutrality, become politisiezed and will be pulled into geopolitical conflicts.
Wolfgang
Pari Esfandiari via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org<mailto:wsis20@icann.org>> hat am 05.02.2025 11:03 CET geschrieben:
This review of the RCC’s submission in the lead-up to the WSIS+20 examines its call for a state-led approach to Internet governance and its implications for the multistakeholder model. It explores how the RCC frames its arguments around digital sovereignty, interoperability, and regulatory frameworks while assessing the potential impact on global Internet governance structures, innovation, and access. Additionally, the article considers the broader geopolitical context of the submission and its alignment—or divergence—with international efforts to maintain an open, inclusive, and secure digital environment.
Cheers,
Pari
--
Pari Esfandiari
President
_Global TechnoPolitics Forum [1] _
_Pario [2]- Architects of Ideas_
info@TechnoPolitics.org
Linkedin Profile [3]
Tel: +1-202-735-1415 (Office)
: +1-310-435-0888 (Cell)
: +44-731-210-4049 (Cell)
_______________________________________________ Learn more about the WSIS+20 Outreach Network and review relevant resources: https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgo.icann.org%2Fwsis20&data=05%7C02%7Cnashtonhart%40apcoworldwide.com%7C674dbf7e4db44eddf1f908dd46334091%7C77a5f6209d7747dba0cd64c70948d532%7C1%7C0%7C638743908170798426%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=M05ogXtr0gLA1OgGa8N%2F41yjXsRlq6VBDvqE9FJhQ7M%3D&reserved=0<https://go.icann.org/wsis20> Read the public archives for this mailing list: https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fpipermail%2Fwsis20%2F&data=05%7C02%7Cnashtonhart%40apcoworldwide.com%7C674dbf7e4db44eddf1f908dd46334091%7C77a5f6209d7747dba0cd64c70948d532%7C1%7C0%7C638743908170815298%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=ZIg%2FcOSlVy2DByFzZDX7XtVhXT07QVTJKrVz2EjR1Bk%3D&reserved=0<https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.org%2Fprivacy%2Fpolicy&data=05%7C02%7Cnashtonhart%40apcoworldwide.com%7C674dbf7e4db44eddf1f908dd46334091%7C77a5f6209d7747dba0cd64c70948d532%7C1%7C0%7C638743908170832010%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=9vmWeP%2Bbr1ehSe5HPHYtGWtEyqr%2BBwE2DTuywpS7m8w%3D&reserved=0<https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>) and the website Terms of Service (https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.org%2Fprivacy%2Ftos&data=05%7C02%7Cnashtonhart%40apcoworldwide.com%7C674dbf7e4db44eddf1f908dd46334091%7C77a5f6209d7747dba0cd64c70948d532%7C1%7C0%7C638743908170851173%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=kS3x99MnI9amfRH%2F5onCTlG%2Bh0SepaSc%2BqWzEslv17o%3D&reserved=0<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.
Links: ------ [1] https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.technopolitics.org%2F&data=05%7C02%7Cnashtonhart%40apcoworldwide.com%7C674dbf7e4db44eddf1f908dd46334091%7C77a5f6209d7747dba0cd64c70948d532%7C1%7C0%7C638743908170869689%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=KeLjIdd3ZfZvbjGspnHAg3VCR7HdtjND2G5q6uzfJIs%3D&reserved=0<http://www.technopolitics.org/> [2] https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.parioconsultants.com%2F&data=05%7C02%7Cnashtonhart%40apcoworldwide.com%7C674dbf7e4db44eddf1f908dd46334091%7C77a5f6209d7747dba0cd64c70948d532%7C1%7C0%7C638743908170886614%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=3baJBTXQV8zLODZFbwweH0vVBCsQacuNfvgM%2BkxKuy0%3D&reserved=0<http://www.parioconsultants.com/> [3] https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fin%2Fpariesfandiari%2F&data=05%7C02%7Cnashtonhart%40apcoworldwide.com%7C674dbf7e4db44eddf1f908dd46334091%7C77a5f6209d7747dba0cd64c70948d532%7C1%7C0%7C638743908170903446%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=K7qeDnwzUVbXV5gATnBkpcmLHVIBJthbMHbmFPvLl%2Fc%3D&reserved=0<https://www.linkedin.com/in/pariesfandiari/> [4] https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fjosephhall.org%2F&data=05%7C02%7Cnashtonhart%40apcoworldwide.com%7C674dbf7e4db44eddf1f908dd46334091%7C77a5f6209d7747dba0cd64c70948d532%7C1%7C0%7C638743908170917021%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=%2F6Bul4IecrOMavfKXBp8qn%2FPj0aJ8bra2KxwZdlJYRg%3D&reserved=0<https://josephhall.org/> _______________________________________________
Learn more about the WSIS+20 Outreach Network and review relevant resources: https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgo.icann.org%2Fwsis20&data=05%7C02%7Cnashtonhart%40apcoworldwide.com%7C674dbf7e4db44eddf1f908dd46334091%7C77a5f6209d7747dba0cd64c70948d532%7C1%7C0%7C638743908170928932%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=wfEY%2B%2Bbmi%2FLkD32nmaaI1b2oOd8tboflq4teGP3gsLk%3D&reserved=0<https://go.icann.org/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://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.org%2Fprivacy%2Fpolicy&data=05%7C02%7Cnashtonhart%40apcoworldwide.com%7C674dbf7e4db44eddf1f908dd46334091%7C77a5f6209d7747dba0cd64c70948d532%7C1%7C0%7C638743908170952325%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=eRLu3VMn5WfdcDpKAGfByWntFfOPMm9dC8mPOFi51aU%3D&reserved=0<https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>) and the website Terms of Service (https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.org%2Fprivacy%2Ftos&data=05%7C02%7Cnashtonhart%40apcoworldwide.com%7C674dbf7e4db44eddf1f908dd46334091%7C77a5f6209d7747dba0cd64c70948d532%7C1%7C0%7C638743908170963590%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=O2wLo8SP6zlAvztKDaO4HOfKl1k4zdcmG7OKEXoGm%2F8%3D&reserved=0<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.
Learn more about the WSIS+20 Outreach Network and review relevant resources: https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgo.icann.org%2Fwsis20&data=05%7C02%7Cnashtonhart%40apcoworldwide.com%7C674dbf7e4db44eddf1f908dd46334091%7C77a5f6209d7747dba0cd64c70948d532%7C1%7C0%7C638743908170975218%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Ha3SgK2xk%2BC9pk%2BiCL6GfnkKznHx76ywVaZ%2BEGqOTlk%3D&reserved=0<https://go.icann.org/wsis20> Read the public archives for this mailing list: https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fpipermail%2Fwsis20%2F&data=05%7C02%7Cnashtonhart%40apcoworldwide.com%7C674dbf7e4db44eddf1f908dd46334091%7C77a5f6209d7747dba0cd64c70948d532%7C1%7C0%7C638743908170987844%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=L%2FWPPoH999EJR%2BTaPhJrOKIxaxT0UrfStELHLQBZeKk%3D&reserved=0<https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.org%2Fprivacy%2Fpolicy&data=05%7C02%7Cnashtonhart%40apcoworldwide.com%7C674dbf7e4db44eddf1f908dd46334091%7C77a5f6209d7747dba0cd64c70948d532%7C1%7C0%7C638743908171000525%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=8T%2FK9QndmRZqgmpEfUAoBzUIZtIM8q2xH80aj4PIokE%3D&reserved=0<https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>) and the website Terms of Service (https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.org%2Fprivacy%2Ftos&data=05%7C02%7Cnashtonhart%40apcoworldwide.com%7C674dbf7e4db44eddf1f908dd46334091%7C77a5f6209d7747dba0cd64c70948d532%7C1%7C0%7C638743908171019143%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=TcB9YZA7d62ACYT7l8ckTFWyQ9JSwmQxt2gYESXnxuI%3D&reserved=0<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. ________________________________ DATA HANDLING For data handling questions, please view our Privacy Policy<https://apcoworldwide.com/privacy-policy/> or contact us at privacy@apcoworldwide.com<https://%20privacy@apcoworldwide.com/> with any inquiries. CONFIDENTIALITY This email may contain material that is confidential, privileged and/or work product for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, reliance or distribution by others or forwarding without express permission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies. _______________________________________________ Learn more about the WSIS+20 Outreach Network and review relevant resources: https://go.icann.org/wsis20 Read the public archives for this mailing list: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/ _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Hi, everyone. There are several different parts in the RCC submission. Some of them are repetition of old proposals, which have been analyzed by the ICANN GE team in the country focus reports, the ITU updates and the UN updates you can download here: https://www.icann.org/en/government-engagement/publications. Hope that they will be helpful to members of the network to better understand the new proposals. Best, v/ From: WSIS20 Outreach Network <wsis20@icann.org> Reply-To: Israel Rosas <rosas@isoc.org> Date: Wednesday, February 5, 2025 at 18:59 To: Remmy Nweke <remmyn@gmail.com> Cc: WSIS20 Outreach Network <wsis20@icann.org> Subject: [wsis20] Re: RCC Pushes for State-Led Internet Governance Ahead of WSIS+20 Review Hi Remmy, all, Yes, the Internet Society—and other organizations, as we’ve seen on this mailing list—engage at different levels, not only with diplomats but with different parts of the Internet community. As my colleague Olaf Kolkman would say, we’re not seeking to sing in unison but in harmony. Best, Isra
It’s a great idea, ISOC could help a great deal, especially as the IETF is one of the two pillars, along with the NRO/RIRs and ICANN. We also have to make sure we keep the lid on efforts to move the IP stack to the ITU, which is likely to also be raised in this context. For my part we’re also looking for think tanks to do events – expect to hear more of NY-based events along these lines soon Nick Ashton-Hart APCO (m) +1 202 779 1072<tel:+12027791072> Book time to meet with me here<https://outlook.office.com/bookwithme/user/ce911a0f9fa543dd9459b3a1392da25e@...> On 2/5/25, 6:45 PM, "Remmy Nweke" <remmyn@gmail.com> wrote: Hi all Since this is obviously a lacuna in the engagement processes, could ISOC global lead this part for the updating if not efforts at building the capacity of these new diplomats on the dangers as foreseen and probably make it a near regular engagement to abridge the likely noticeable gap on behalf of this multistakeholder community to save us all the headache of lacking proactive engagement and undue fightbacks. Thanks to the eagle eyes within this community for spotting the unanticipated wrong route by RCC. I think the earlier the better as it could take some processes to come to fruition. ___________________ REMMY NWEKE, mNUJ, mNGE, mGOCOP, mnipr Lead Consulting Strategist - DigitalSENSE Africa<https://www.itrealms.com.ng/> Group Executive Editor, ITREALMS Media group [Multiple-award winning medium] (ITREALMS<http://www.itrealms.com.ng/>, DigitalSENSE Business Magazine<http://www.digitalsenseafrica.com.ng/businessnews>; NaijaAgroNet<http://www.naijaagronet.com.ng/>) No. 36 Afariogun Street, Oshodi-Lagos, Nigeria M: 234-8033592762, 8023122558, T: @ITRealms<http://www.twitter.com/ITRealms> @DigitalSENSEng 2024 Nigeria DigitalSENSE Forum on IG4D, Thursday June 27<https://www.itrealms.com.ng/> 2024 ITREALMS e-Waste Dialogue, Thursday December 14<https://www.itrealms.com.ng/> @Welcome Center Hotels, Int'l Airport Road, Lagos-Nigeria<http://welcomecentrehotels.com/> Former Vice President, African Civil Society on Information Society (ACSIS) ______________________________________________________________ *Confidentiality Notice:* The information in this document and attachments are confidential and may also be privileged information. It is intended only for the use of the named recipient. Remmy Nweke does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this e-mail. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify me immediately, then delete this document and do not disclose the contents of this document to any other person, nor make any copies. Violators may face court persecution. On Thu, Feb 6, 2025 at 12:19 AM Israel Rosas via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org<mailto:wsis20@icann.org>> wrote: Hi all, I echo Nick’s warnings about the need to engage with diplomats and share our vision. Although many on this list are long-term supporters of the multistakeholder model and the WSIS consensus, people new to the topic may not perceive the ideas we see in the RCC’s submission as unfeasible as we do, especially if giving some concessions in this field will let them advance other objectives. Let’s also bear in mind that, besides their level of expertise, diplomats usually deal with several topics in parallel, so WSIS+20—and the Internet—may not be at the core of their priorities. Best, Isra Isra Rosas, Director, Partnerships and Internet Development Internet Society From: Ashton-Hart, Nick via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org<mailto:wsis20@icann.org>> Date: Wednesday, February 5, 2025 at 5:37 PM To: Dr Jimson Olufuye <jolufuye@kontemporary.net.ng<mailto:jolufuye@kontemporary.net.ng>>, Dr. Joseph Lorenzo Hall <hall@isoc.org<mailto:hall@isoc.org>> Cc: Pari Esfandiari via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org<mailto:wsis20@icann.org>>, Tatiana Tropina <tropina@isoc.org<mailto:tropina@isoc.org>> Subject: [wsis20] Re: RCC Pushes for State-Led Internet Governance Ahead of WSIS+20 Review FYI all, while I suspect all of us on this list fundamentally disagree with the Russian position, they aren’t without supporters in New York – including China, though they’re much more subtle than Russia. As someone based in New York who covers digital economy policy here, the policy leads handling the WSIS review are almost without exception entirely new to the subject. We have a very significant and heavy lift required to educate the diplomatic corps here on how critical it is that CIRs stay as they are, and respond to the criticisms that get levelled as well as explain why simple sounding solutions – like intergovernmental control of CIRs – aren’t really a solution to any problem on the Internet today. I look forward to continued dialogue, and I’m sure seeing many long-time connections along the way to the review conclusion in December! Best, Nick Nick Ashton-Hart Senior Director, Digital Economy Policy APCO Temporary Address: 275 Seventh Avenue, 21st Floor New York, NY 10001 USA (t) +1 202 778 1000 (m) +1 202 779 1072<tel:+12027791072> nashtonhart@apcoworldwide.com<mailto:nashtonhart@apcoworldwide.com> Learn more about APCO on our website<https://apcoworldwide.com/?utm_campaign=email-signature&utm_source=apco&utm_...> Book time to meet with me here<https://outlook.office.com/bookwithme/user/ce911a0f9fa543dd9459b3a1392da25e@...> On 2/5/25, 5:20 PM, "Dr Jimson Olufuye via wsis20" <wsis20@icann.org<mailto:wsis20@icann.org>> wrote: Hi all, Notwithstanding the misuse of the "public core" phrase, the RCC proposal is dead on arrival. It is against the spirit of the Geneva Declaration - WSIS Action Lines, the Tunis Agenda and the Pact for the Future - GDC, for multi-stakeholder engagement on Internet Governance and digital policy processes. Let's remain vigilant though. Thanks, Pari for the highlight. Cheers, JO On 2025-02-05 19:50, Dr. Joseph Lorenzo Hall via wsis20 wrote:
@Tatiana Tropina on our team pointed out yesterday the misuse of the term “public core” in the RCC submission.
That is, as folks here are likely aware of, the "public core" is a term originally defined by the Global Commission on the Stability of Cyberspace (GCSC) to refer to the essential technical infrastructure of the Internet, such as routing, naming systems, and physical transmission media. However, the RCC's submission uses the term more broadly and ambiguously, suggesting that it includes "critical resources" that must be managed and controlled, which rings a lot like discussions around “critical infrastructures” under the purview of governments.
This interpretation could justify greater government intervention in Internet infrastructure and operations, undermining the multistakeholder model and Internet freedom. It's important to note that the GCSC's definition was developed through a multistakeholder process and is widely accepted by the technical community.
The RCC's misuse of the "public core" concept is. We need to be vigilant in challenging this misuse and ensuring that the "public core" is understood and protected as the essential technical infrastructure of the Internet, not a wedge for multilateral dominance.
Best, Joe
--
JLH, Internet Society, hall@isoc.org<mailto:hall@isoc.org> ( https://josephhall.org/<https://josephhall.org/> [4] )
From: Wolfgang Kleinwächter via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org<mailto:wsis20@icann.org>> Date: Wednesday, February 5, 2025 at 08:40 To: Pari Esfandiari <pariesfandiari@gmail.com<mailto:pariesfandiari@gmail.com>>, Pari Esfandiari via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org<mailto:wsis20@icann.org>> Subject: [wsis20] Re: RCC Pushes for State-Led Internet Governance Ahead of WSIS+20 Review
Thanks Paris for pulling the RCC proposal into the broader public.
It is a tricky proposal. It includes some reasonable points, but it has a hidden agenda. It is misleading and confuses an uninformed public. Under Section 3 it argues: "The system of governance of global critical infrastructure must be equitable, neutral and immune to geopolitical challenges. The current multistkakeholder Internet Governance system does not fulfil these requirement." The first sentence needs all the support. The second sentence is not true.
After the IANA transition (2016) all stakeholders participate in ICANN as "equals" in their specific roles. The UN principle of "sovereign equality of states", a corner stone in international law and the UN charter, is fully resepcted and implemented in ICANN´s Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC). No single government has exceptional rights in ICANN. All governments are on "equal footing", as called for in the Tunis Agenda. And ICANN demonstrated, that it is "neutral and immune to geopolitical challenges".
A good example is from 2022. When Russia started its war against Ukraine, the Ukrainian Minister for Digital Policy wrote a letter to ICANN and was calling for the removal of the .ru. .rf (cyrillic) and .su top level domain zone files from the A-Root Server to disconnect Russia from the global Internet as a retaliation measure. Göran Marby, who was ICANN´s CEO in 2022, made clear in his answer, that ICANN will support Ukraine to remain connected to the Internet in difficult war times and will support the Internet community in Ukraine, but according to its bylaws and articles of incorproation, ICANN is not in a position to remove any TLD Zone Files from the A root server for political reasons, because ICANN is neutral and has to be "immune against geopolitical challenges".
To change this system would lead to a "system of governance of global critical infrastructure" which would loose its neutrality, become politisiezed and will be pulled into geopolitical conflicts.
Wolfgang
Pari Esfandiari via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org<mailto:wsis20@icann.org>> hat am 05.02.2025 11:03 CET geschrieben:
This review of the RCC’s submission in the lead-up to the WSIS+20 examines its call for a state-led approach to Internet governance and its implications for the multistakeholder model. It explores how the RCC frames its arguments around digital sovereignty, interoperability, and regulatory frameworks while assessing the potential impact on global Internet governance structures, innovation, and access. Additionally, the article considers the broader geopolitical context of the submission and its alignment—or divergence—with international efforts to maintain an open, inclusive, and secure digital environment.
Cheers,
Pari
--
Pari Esfandiari
President
_Global TechnoPolitics Forum [1] _
_Pario [2]- Architects of Ideas_
info@TechnoPolitics.org
Linkedin Profile [3]
Tel: +1-202-735-1415 (Office)
: +1-310-435-0888 (Cell)
: +44-731-210-4049 (Cell)
_______________________________________________ Learn more about the WSIS+20 Outreach Network and review relevant resources: https://go.icann.org/wsis20<https://go.icann.org/wsis20> Read the public archives for this mailing list: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/<https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy<https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos<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.
Links: ------ [1] http://www.technopolitics.org/<http://www.technopolitics.org/> [2] http://www.parioconsultants.com/<http://www.parioconsultants.com/> [3] https://www.linkedin.com/in/pariesfandiari/<https://www.linkedin.com/in/pariesfandiari/> [4] https://josephhall.org/<https://josephhall.org/> _______________________________________________
Learn more about the WSIS+20 Outreach Network and review relevant resources: https://go.icann.org/wsis20<https://go.icann.org/wsis20>
Read the public archives for this mailing list: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/<https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/>
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy<https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos<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.
Learn more about the WSIS+20 Outreach Network and review relevant resources: https://go.icann.org/wsis20<https://go.icann.org/wsis20> Read the public archives for this mailing list: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/<https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy<https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos<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. ________________________________ DATA HANDLING For data handling questions, please view our Privacy Policy<https://apcoworldwide.com/privacy-policy/> or contact us at privacy@apcoworldwide.com<https://%20privacy@apcoworldwide.com/> with any inquiries. CONFIDENTIALITY This email may contain material that is confidential, privileged and/or work product for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, reliance or distribution by others or forwarding without express permission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies. _______________________________________________ Learn more about the WSIS+20 Outreach Network and review relevant resources: https://go.icann.org/wsis20 Read the public archives for this mailing list: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/ _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Hi, first, kudos Pari for this excellent piece. It should rise above these days' other noisy events and cause action from as many of us as possible. As Israel and Veni say, there is already good work being done by ISOC, ICANN, and also other organizations. It may be that we can contribute to scale it further and bring it to other stakeholders. We should also watch for moves from governments that to date have been friendly to the Internet and which may feel encouraged by the RCC, China, etc. governments as well as by the actions of large private Internet players. Key pieces at the core of the system like Network Neutrality and Section 230 may be under fire soon. That would play awfully into the hands of the parties striving for more governmental control and siloing behind national borders. Those of us who were involved and emerged from WSIS, early IGF, some WCITs and Plenipots, and national processes are obliged to transmit the institutional memory of these processes and their consequences - we could use more support but we certainly must come out and connect again. The mere thought of going through all that again - as is happening now - should send us out in high gear. ISOC, ICANN etc. must work in many layers and circles where we can help even in the face of governments inclined to follow the RCC's stance. Yours, Alejandro Pisanty On Wed, Feb 5, 2025 at 7:14 PM Ashton-Hart, Nick via wsis20 < wsis20@icann.org> wrote:
It’s a great idea, ISOC could help a great deal, especially as the IETF is one of the two pillars, along with the NRO/RIRs and ICANN.
We also have to make sure we keep the lid on efforts to move the IP stack to the ITU, which is likely to also be raised in this context.
For my part we’re also looking for think tanks to do events – expect to hear more of NY-based events along these lines soon
*Nick Ashton-Hart* *APCO* (m) +1 202 779 1072 <+12027791072>
Book time to meet with me here <https://outlook.office.com/bookwithme/user/ce911a0f9fa543dd9459b3a1392da25e@...>
On 2/5/25, 6:45 PM, "Remmy Nweke" <remmyn@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi all
Since this is obviously a lacuna in the engagement processes, could ISOC global lead this part for the updating if not efforts at building the capacity of these new diplomats on the dangers as foreseen and probably make it a near regular engagement to abridge the likely noticeable gap on behalf of this multistakeholder community to save us all the headache of lacking proactive engagement and undue fightbacks.
Thanks to the eagle eyes within this community for spotting the unanticipated wrong route by RCC.
I think the earlier the better as it could take some processes to come to fruition.
___________________
REMMY NWEKE, *mNUJ, mNGE, mGOCOP, mnipr*
Lead Consulting Strategist - *DigitalSENSE Africa* <https://www.itrealms.com.ng/>
Group Executive Editor, *ITREALMS Media* group
[*Multiple-award winning medium*]
(ITREALMS <http://www.itrealms.com.ng/>, DigitalSENSE Business Magazine <http://www.digitalsenseafrica.com.ng/businessnews>; NaijaAgroNet <http://www.naijaagronet.com.ng/>)
No. 36 Afariogun Street, Oshodi-Lagos, Nigeria M: 234-8033592762, 8023122558,
T: @ITRealms <http://www.twitter.com/ITRealms> @DigitalSENSEng
2024 *Nigeria DigitalSENSE Forum on IG4D*, Thursday June 27 <https://www.itrealms.com.ng/>
2024 *IT**REALMS* e-Waste Dialogue, Thursday December 14 <https://www.itrealms.com.ng/>
@Welcome Center Hotels, Int'l Airport Road, Lagos-Nigeria <http://welcomecentrehotels.com/>
Former Vice President, African Civil Society on Information Society (ACSIS)
______________________________________________________________
*Confidentiality Notice:* The information in this document and attachments are confidential and may also be privileged information. It is intended only for the use of the named recipient. Remmy Nweke does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this e-mail. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify me immediately, then delete this document and do not disclose the contents of this document to any other person, nor make any copies. Violators may face court persecution.
On Thu, Feb 6, 2025 at 12:19 AM Israel Rosas via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> wrote:
Hi all,
I echo Nick’s warnings about the need to engage with diplomats and share our vision. Although many on this list are long-term supporters of the multistakeholder model and the WSIS consensus, people new to the topic may not perceive the ideas we see in the RCC’s submission as unfeasible as we do, especially if giving some concessions in this field will let them advance other objectives. Let’s also bear in mind that, besides their level of expertise, diplomats usually deal with several topics in parallel, so WSIS+20—and the Internet—may not be at the core of their priorities.
Best,
Isra
Isra Rosas, Director, Partnerships and Internet Development Internet Society
*From: *Ashton-Hart, Nick via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> *Date: *Wednesday, February 5, 2025 at 5:37 PM *To: *Dr Jimson Olufuye <jolufuye@kontemporary.net.ng>, Dr. Joseph Lorenzo Hall <hall@isoc.org> *Cc: *Pari Esfandiari via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org>, Tatiana Tropina < tropina@isoc.org> *Subject: *[wsis20] Re: RCC Pushes for State-Led Internet Governance Ahead of WSIS+20 Review
FYI all, while I suspect all of us on this list fundamentally disagree with the Russian position, they aren’t without supporters in New York – including China, though they’re much more subtle than Russia.
As someone based in New York who covers digital economy policy here, the policy leads handling the WSIS review are almost without exception entirely new to the subject. We have a very significant and heavy lift required to educate the diplomatic corps here on how critical it is that CIRs stay as they are, and respond to the criticisms that get levelled as well as explain why simple sounding solutions – like intergovernmental control of CIRs – aren’t really a solution to any problem on the Internet today.
I look forward to continued dialogue, and I’m sure seeing many long-time connections along the way to the review conclusion in December!
Best, Nick
* Nick Ashton-Hart* Senior Director, Digital Economy Policy
*APCO* *Temporary Address:*
275 Seventh Avenue, 21st Floor
New York, NY 10001 USA
(t) +1 202 778 1000 (m) +1 202 779 1072 <+12027791072> nashtonhart@apcoworldwide.com
Learn more about APCO on our website <https://apcoworldwide.com/?utm_campaign=email-signature&utm_source=apco&utm_...>
Book time to meet with me here <https://outlook.office.com/bookwithme/user/ce911a0f9fa543dd9459b3a1392da25e@...>
On 2/5/25, 5:20 PM, "Dr Jimson Olufuye via wsis20" <wsis20@icann.org> wrote:
Hi all,
Notwithstanding the misuse of the "public core" phrase, the RCC proposal is dead on arrival. It is against the spirit of the Geneva Declaration - WSIS Action Lines, the Tunis Agenda and the Pact for the Future - GDC, for multi-stakeholder engagement on Internet Governance and digital policy processes.
Let's remain vigilant though. Thanks, Pari for the highlight.
Cheers,
JO
On 2025-02-05 19:50, Dr. Joseph Lorenzo Hall via wsis20 wrote:
@Tatiana Tropina on our team pointed out yesterday the misuse of the term “public core” in the RCC submission.
That is, as folks here are likely aware of, the "public core" is a term originally defined by the Global Commission on the Stability of Cyberspace (GCSC) to refer to the essential technical infrastructure of the Internet, such as routing, naming systems, and physical transmission media. However, the RCC's submission uses the term more broadly and ambiguously, suggesting that it includes "critical resources" that must be managed and controlled, which rings a lot like discussions around “critical infrastructures” under the purview of governments.
This interpretation could justify greater government intervention in Internet infrastructure and operations, undermining the multistakeholder model and Internet freedom. It's important to note that the GCSC's definition was developed through a multistakeholder process and is widely accepted by the technical community.
The RCC's misuse of the "public core" concept is. We need to be vigilant in challenging this misuse and ensuring that the "public core" is understood and protected as the essential technical infrastructure of the Internet, not a wedge for multilateral dominance.
Best, Joe
--
JLH, Internet Society, hall@isoc.org ( https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fjosephhall... <https://josephhall.org/> [4] )
From: Wolfgang Kleinwächter via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> Date: Wednesday, February 5, 2025 at 08:40 To: Pari Esfandiari <pariesfandiari@gmail.com>, Pari Esfandiari via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> Subject: [wsis20] Re: RCC Pushes for State-Led Internet Governance Ahead of WSIS+20 Review
Thanks Paris for pulling the RCC proposal into the broader public.
It is a tricky proposal. It includes some reasonable points, but it has a hidden agenda. It is misleading and confuses an uninformed public. Under Section 3 it argues: "The system of governance of global critical infrastructure must be equitable, neutral and immune to geopolitical challenges. The current multistkakeholder Internet Governance system does not fulfil these requirement." The first sentence needs all the support. The second sentence is not true.
After the IANA transition (2016) all stakeholders participate in ICANN as "equals" in their specific roles. The UN principle of "sovereign equality of states", a corner stone in international law and the UN charter, is fully resepcted and implemented in ICANN´s Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC). No single government has exceptional rights in ICANN. All governments are on "equal footing", as called for in the Tunis Agenda. And ICANN demonstrated, that it is "neutral and immune to geopolitical challenges".
A good example is from 2022. When Russia started its war against Ukraine, the Ukrainian Minister for Digital Policy wrote a letter to ICANN and was calling for the removal of the .ru. .rf (cyrillic) and .su top level domain zone files from the A-Root Server to disconnect Russia from the global Internet as a retaliation measure. Göran Marby, who was ICANN´s CEO in 2022, made clear in his answer, that ICANN will support Ukraine to remain connected to the Internet in difficult war times and will support the Internet community in Ukraine, but according to its bylaws and articles of incorproation, ICANN is not in a position to remove any TLD Zone Files from the A root server for political reasons, because ICANN is neutral and has to be "immune against geopolitical challenges".
To change this system would lead to a "system of governance of global critical infrastructure" which would loose its neutrality, become politisiezed and will be pulled into geopolitical conflicts.
Wolfgang
Pari Esfandiari via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> hat am 05.02.2025 11:03 CET geschrieben:
This review of the RCC’s submission in the lead-up to the WSIS+20 examines its call for a state-led approach to Internet governance and its implications for the multistakeholder model. It explores how the RCC frames its arguments around digital sovereignty, interoperability, and regulatory frameworks while assessing the potential impact on global Internet governance structures, innovation, and access. Additionally, the article considers the broader geopolitical context of the submission and its alignment—or divergence—with international efforts to maintain an open, inclusive, and secure digital environment.
https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcircleid.c... <https://circleid.com/posts/rcc-pushes-for-state-led-internet-governance-ahea...>
Cheers,
Pari
--
Pari Esfandiari
President
_Global TechnoPolitics Forum [1] _
_Pario [2]- Architects of Ideas_
info@TechnoPolitics.org
Linkedin Profile [3]
Tel: +1-202-735-1415 (Office)
: +1-310-435-0888 (Cell)
: +44-731-210-4049 (Cell)
_______________________________________________ Learn more about the WSIS+20 Outreach Network and review relevant resources:
https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgo.icann.o... <https://go.icann.org/wsis20> Read the public archives for this
mailing list: https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.o... <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.... <https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>) and the website Terms of Service ( https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.... <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.
Links: ------ [1] https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.technop... <http://www.technopolitics.org/> [2] https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.parioco... <http://www.parioconsultants.com/> [3] https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.linked... <https://www.linkedin.com/in/pariesfandiari/> [4] https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fjosephhall... <https://josephhall.org/> _______________________________________________
Learn more about the WSIS+20 Outreach Network and review relevant resources: https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgo.icann.o... <https://go.icann.org/wsis20>
Read the public archives for this mailing list:
https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.o... <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/>
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (
https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.... <https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>) and the website Terms of Service
( https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.... <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.
Learn more about the WSIS+20 Outreach Network and review relevant resources: https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgo.icann.o... <https://go.icann.org/wsis20>
Read the public archives for this mailing list: https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.o... <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/>
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.... <https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>) and the website Terms of Service ( https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.... <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.
------------------------------
DATA HANDLING
For data handling questions, please view our Privacy Policy <https://apcoworldwide.com/privacy-policy/> or contact us at privacy@apcoworldwide.com <https://%20privacy@apcoworldwide.com/> with any inquiries.
CONFIDENTIALITY
This email may contain material that is confidential, privileged and/or work product for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, reliance or distribution by others or forwarding without express permission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
_______________________________________________
Learn more about the WSIS+20 Outreach Network and review relevant resources: https://go.icann.org/wsis20
Read the public archives for this mailing list: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________
Learn more about the WSIS+20 Outreach Network and review relevant resources: https://go.icann.org/wsis20
Read the public archives for this mailing list: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Facultad de Química UNAM Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico +525541444475 Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
One idea presented by the document that cannot just be waved away is that "stakeholder roles remain undefined". They do. I understand Pari's relevant answer to that point, but it does not address the fact that stakeholder identity is incredibly liquid. Take any set of IGF applications and you are likely to quickly find the same speaker submitted as 3 different stakeholders in different applications. This is a subject that cannot be put aside in the upcoming discussion and the High-Level Event itself, because it is a weakness of our multistakeholder models that can and will be used against us by governments in their bid for increased control. Regards, On 5 Feb 2025 07:03, Pari Esfandiari via wsis20 wrote:
This review of the RCC’s submission in the lead-up to the WSIS+20 examines its call for a state-led approach to Internet governance and its implications for the multistakeholder model. It explores how the RCC frames its arguments around digital sovereignty, interoperability, and regulatory frameworks while assessing the potential impact on global Internet governance structures, innovation, and access. Additionally, the article considers the broader geopolitical context of the submission and its alignment—or divergence—with international efforts to maintain an open, inclusive, and secure digital environment. https://circleid.com/posts/rcc-pushes-for-state-led-internet-governance-ahea... Cheers, Pari
-- Pari Esfandiari President /*Global TechnoPolitics Forum <http://www.technopolitics.org> */ */Pario <http://www.parioconsultants.com>- Architects of Ideas/* info@TechnoPolitics.org <mailto:info@technopolitics.org> *Linkedin Profile <https://www.linkedin.com/in/pariesfandiari/>* Tel: +1-202_-735-1415_ (Office) : +1-310-435-0888 (Cell) : +44-731-210-4049 (Cell)
_______________________________________________
Learn more about the WSIS+20 Outreach Network and review relevant resources:https://go.icann.org/wsis20
Read the public archives for this mailing list:https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. -- Mark W. Datysgeld Director at Governance Primer [governanceprimer.com <https://governanceprimer.com>] Project Lead Developer at ICANNWiki [icannwiki.org <https://icannwiki.org/>]
Mark, good point re the definition of stakeholders. You may know that I was in the WGIG (as a few others in this list.) WGIG was the Working Group on Internet Governance created by the first phase of WSIS in 2003, charged with producing a report with a definition of Internet Governance and some proposals to move forward, for the second phase in 2005. The definition of stakeholder groupings was a major issue then and we settled into government, business ("private sector" has different meanings in the US and elsewhere), civil society and the technical community. Unfortunately we couldn't get the final documents to list the technical community as a separate stakeholder, not the least because at the same time it was recognized that the people in the technical community may have their jobs indistinctly in government (say, research laboratories, computing, IT and telecommunications departments in government, standards organizations, even universities if they are public), industry both large and small, and organizations classified as civil society (their techies among others.) Later on the IGF in practice has always listed the technical community separately. The differentiated presence of the technical community is indispensable and it cuts two ways - sometimes it has to say "no,, that thing you are imagining is not technically possible, or it is unreasonable, or it breaks the Internet" and sometimes it says to other parties "we can actually do better than you are thinking and maybe already are" - and sometimes, very often rather, we have to tell people, especiallly in governments, "no, it doesn' work that way" and enter long explanations. Now picking on the second part of your statement: with fuzzy borders, we can say that one thing is the definition of the stakeholder groupings, as above, and another, complementary one, is the assignment of specific individuals to stakeholder groups at a given point in time. Also especially in developing countries we do continue to find that a small number of people fulfill many roles at the same time and thus can be simultaneously ascribed to more than one stakeholder group. Someone working in business (or even owining one) may come to Internet governance with that knowledge but acting through an organization like an NGO oriented to education or development or community networks, and or sit on an advisory committee to a telecoms or competition regulator. We have made progress in the last 20 years towards clearer roles and against conflicts of interest but this fluidity remains and also is very valuable. We should convey this clearly to the skeptics and also know that it is a facetious argument invoked with ill intent while fully knowing the above. Yours, Alejandro Pisanty On Wed, Feb 5, 2025 at 7:53 PM Mark W. Datysgeld via wsis20 < wsis20@icann.org> wrote:
One idea presented by the document that cannot just be waved away is that "stakeholder roles remain undefined". They do. I understand Pari's relevant answer to that point, but it does not address the fact that stakeholder identity is incredibly liquid. Take any set of IGF applications and you are likely to quickly find the same speaker submitted as 3 different stakeholders in different applications.
This is a subject that cannot be put aside in the upcoming discussion and the High-Level Event itself, because it is a weakness of our multistakeholder models that can and will be used against us by governments in their bid for increased control.
Regards, On 5 Feb 2025 07:03, Pari Esfandiari via wsis20 wrote:
This review of the RCC’s submission in the lead-up to the WSIS+20 examines its call for a state-led approach to Internet governance and its implications for the multistakeholder model. It explores how the RCC frames its arguments around digital sovereignty, interoperability, and regulatory frameworks while assessing the potential impact on global Internet governance structures, innovation, and access. Additionally, the article considers the broader geopolitical context of the submission and its alignment—or divergence—with international efforts to maintain an open, inclusive, and secure digital environment.
https://circleid.com/posts/rcc-pushes-for-state-led-internet-governance-ahea... Cheers, Pari
-- Pari Esfandiari President *Global TechnoPolitics Forum <http://www.technopolitics.org> * *Pario <http://www.parioconsultants.com>- Architects of Ideas* info@TechnoPolitics.org <info@technopolitics.org> *Linkedin Profile <https://www.linkedin.com/in/pariesfandiari/>* Tel: +1-202*-735-1415* (Office) : +1-310-435-0888 (Cell) : +44-731-210-4049 (Cell)
_______________________________________________
Learn more about the WSIS+20 Outreach Network and review relevant resources: https://go.icann.org/wsis20
Read the public archives for this mailing list: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
-- Mark W. Datysgeld Director at Governance Primer [governanceprimer.com] Project Lead Developer at ICANNWiki [icannwiki.org] _______________________________________________
Learn more about the WSIS+20 Outreach Network and review relevant resources: https://go.icann.org/wsis20
Read the public archives for this mailing list: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Facultad de Química UNAM Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico +525541444475 Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Dear all, Thank you for the thoughtful and engaging discussion around my recent article on CircleID regarding the RCC’s push for a state-led Internet governance mode <https://circleid.com/posts/rcc-pushes-for-state-led-internet-governance-ahead-of-wsis20-review>l. The diverse perspectives shared here highlight the significance of this issue and the need for continued vigilance in safeguarding the multistakeholder model. *Addressing Key Points Raised:* 1. *Armenia’s Alignment with RCC – Shifting Alliances?* - @Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, your observation on Armenia’s stance is indeed intriguing, considering its usual alignment with Western digital policies. However, recent geopolitical tensions and regional dependencies may have influenced this decision. Whether Armenia stands to lose or gain from this move will depend on how other global actors respond. 2. *Hidden Agendas and Misleading Framing of Internet Governance* - @Wolfgang Kleinwächter, your detailed analysis of Section 3 of the RCC proposal is crucial. While the call for an equitable, neutral, and geopolitically immune governance system is commendable, the assertion that the multistakeholder model fails to meet these requirements is misleading. ICANN’s structure, particularly through the GAC, already embodies sovereign equality and neutrality. The example of ICANN’s refusal to remove Russian domain names during the Ukraine conflict underscores its resilience against political pressures. Moving towards state-controlled governance would, paradoxically, introduce more geopolitical interference rather than eliminate it. 3. *Misuse of the “Public Core” Concept* - @Joseph Lorenzo Hall and @Tatiana Tropina, your point on the RCC’s misrepresentation of the “public core” concept is well taken. The original GCSC definition was carefully crafted through a multistakeholder process to protect essential Internet infrastructure, whereas the RCC’s broader framing risks enabling greater state intervention. As you rightly pointed out, conflating the “public core” with “critical resources” could open the door to increased governmental control over fundamental Internet operations, which would be detrimental to the open and decentralized nature of the Internet. 4. *The RCC Proposal’s Conflict with WSIS Principles* - @Dr. Jimson Olufuye, you highlight a fundamental flaw in the RCC proposal—it contradicts the very foundations of WSIS, the Tunis Agenda, and the Global Digital Compact (GDC), all of which emphasize multistakeholder engagement. While the proposal may be “dead on arrival” in some forums, it still serves as a strategic tool for certain governments to justify expanding their control over the Internet. This is why continued advocacy and engagement remain necessary. 5. *Diplomatic Engagement and Advocacy Strategy* - @Nick Ashton-Hart, @Israel Rosas, and @Remmy Nweke, I fully agree that diplomatic engagement is critical at this juncture. Many diplomats dealing with WSIS+20 and broader digital governance discussions may not have a deep understanding of the multistakeholder model’s nuances. The RCC narrative, if left unchallenged, could appeal to those who prioritize state sovereignty over openness. Strengthening outreach efforts, capacity-building initiatives, and direct engagement with policymakers will be essential to countering this influence. 6. *Potential ITU Involvement in IP Addressing and Protocol Governance* - @Nick Ashton-Hart, your point about the potential push to shift IP protocol governance to the ITU is an alarming but not surprising development. Given past efforts to exert greater governmental control over core Internet functions, vigilance is needed to ensure that governance remains within the multistakeholder ecosystem, where technical bodies like the IETF and RIRs maintain their crucial roles. 7. *The Issue of Undefined Stakeholder Roles* - @Mark W. Datysgeld and @Alejandro Pisanty, the issue of fluid stakeholder identities is a valid concern. While the multistakeholder model is designed to be inclusive and adaptable, the lack of clear stakeholder categorization has been exploited by certain actors to challenge its legitimacy. As Alejandro notes, the original WSIS definitions were already a compromise, and while we have made progress in differentiating stakeholder roles, ambiguity remains. Addressing this issue transparently in WSIS+20 discussions could help prevent its use as a pretext for government overreach. 8. *Potential Impact on Network Neutrality and Platform Regulation* - @Alejandro Pisanty, your warning about threats to network neutrality and regulations like Section 230 is well-founded. If these principles are eroded in democratic contexts, it will provide authoritarian governments with further justification to impose stricter controls on online content and access. Ensuring that digital governance remains rights-based and independent of political agendas must be a key focus moving forward. *The Road Ahead* The RCC’s proposal is not just a theoretical debate—it is part of a broader geopolitical effort to shift Internet governance towards a more state-controlled model. While it may not succeed in its current form, the underlying ideas will likely persist, making it crucial for the Internet governance community to remain proactive. As many of you pointed out, we must: - Continue engaging with diplomats and policymakers who may not be fully aware of the implications of state-led governance. - Strengthen capacity-building efforts to educate stakeholders on the benefits of multistakeholder governance. - Push back against misrepresentations of concepts like the “public core” to prevent them from being used as pretexts for increased governmental control. - Reinforce the neutrality and resilience of existing governance structures, particularly within ICANN and technical organizations. - Monitor and counteract attempts to shift key Internet governance functions to intergovernmental bodies like the ITU. I appreciate all your insights and contributions to this discussion. Let’s continue this dialogue and work collectively to uphold the principles of an open, secure, and inclusive Internet. Cheers, *Pari Esfandiari* On Thu, Feb 6, 2025 at 2:28 AM Alejandro Pisanty <apisanty@gmail.com> wrote:
Mark,
good point re the definition of stakeholders. You may know that I was in the WGIG (as a few others in this list.) WGIG was the Working Group on Internet Governance created by the first phase of WSIS in 2003, charged with producing a report with a definition of Internet Governance and some proposals to move forward, for the second phase in 2005. The definition of stakeholder groupings was a major issue then and we settled into government, business ("private sector" has different meanings in the US and elsewhere), civil society and the technical community. Unfortunately we couldn't get the final documents to list the technical community as a separate stakeholder, not the least because at the same time it was recognized that the people in the technical community may have their jobs indistinctly in government (say, research laboratories, computing, IT and telecommunications departments in government, standards organizations, even universities if they are public), industry both large and small, and organizations classified as civil society (their techies among others.) Later on the IGF in practice has always listed the technical community separately. The differentiated presence of the technical community is indispensable and it cuts two ways - sometimes it has to say "no,, that thing you are imagining is not technically possible, or it is unreasonable, or it breaks the Internet" and sometimes it says to other parties "we can actually do better than you are thinking and maybe already are" - and sometimes, very often rather, we have to tell people, especiallly in governments, "no, it doesn' work that way" and enter long explanations.
Now picking on the second part of your statement: with fuzzy borders, we can say that one thing is the definition of the stakeholder groupings, as above, and another, complementary one, is the assignment of specific individuals to stakeholder groups at a given point in time. Also especially in developing countries we do continue to find that a small number of people fulfill many roles at the same time and thus can be simultaneously ascribed to more than one stakeholder group. Someone working in business (or even owining one) may come to Internet governance with that knowledge but acting through an organization like an NGO oriented to education or development or community networks, and or sit on an advisory committee to a telecoms or competition regulator. We have made progress in the last 20 years towards clearer roles and against conflicts of interest but this fluidity remains and also is very valuable.
We should convey this clearly to the skeptics and also know that it is a facetious argument invoked with ill intent while fully knowing the above.
Yours,
Alejandro Pisanty
On Wed, Feb 5, 2025 at 7:53 PM Mark W. Datysgeld via wsis20 < wsis20@icann.org> wrote:
One idea presented by the document that cannot just be waved away is that "stakeholder roles remain undefined". They do. I understand Pari's relevant answer to that point, but it does not address the fact that stakeholder identity is incredibly liquid. Take any set of IGF applications and you are likely to quickly find the same speaker submitted as 3 different stakeholders in different applications.
This is a subject that cannot be put aside in the upcoming discussion and the High-Level Event itself, because it is a weakness of our multistakeholder models that can and will be used against us by governments in their bid for increased control.
Regards, On 5 Feb 2025 07:03, Pari Esfandiari via wsis20 wrote:
This review of the RCC’s submission in the lead-up to the WSIS+20 examines its call for a state-led approach to Internet governance and its implications for the multistakeholder model. It explores how the RCC frames its arguments around digital sovereignty, interoperability, and regulatory frameworks while assessing the potential impact on global Internet governance structures, innovation, and access. Additionally, the article considers the broader geopolitical context of the submission and its alignment—or divergence—with international efforts to maintain an open, inclusive, and secure digital environment.
https://circleid.com/posts/rcc-pushes-for-state-led-internet-governance-ahea... Cheers, Pari
-- Pari Esfandiari President *Global TechnoPolitics Forum <http://www.technopolitics.org> * *Pario <http://www.parioconsultants.com>- Architects of Ideas* info@TechnoPolitics.org <info@technopolitics.org> *Linkedin Profile <https://www.linkedin.com/in/pariesfandiari/>* Tel: +1-202*-735-1415* (Office) : +1-310-435-0888 <http://voice.google.com/calls?a=nc,%2B13104350888>(Cell) : +44-731-210-4049 <http://voice.google.com/calls?a=nc,%2B447312104049> (Cell)
_______________________________________________
Learn more about the WSIS+20 Outreach Network and review relevant resources: https://go.icann.org/wsis20
Read the public archives for this mailing list: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
-- Mark W. Datysgeld Director at Governance Primer [governanceprimer.com] Project Lead Developer at ICANNWiki [icannwiki.org] _______________________________________________
Learn more about the WSIS+20 Outreach Network and review relevant resources: https://go.icann.org/wsis20
Read the public archives for this mailing list: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Facultad de Química UNAM Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico +525541444475 <http://voice.google.com/calls?a=nc,%2B525541444475> Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
-- Pari Esfandiari President *Global TechnoPolitics Forum <http://www.technopolitics.org> * *Pario <http://www.parioconsultants.com>- Architects of Ideas* info@TechnoPolitics.org <info@technopolitics.org> *Linkedin Profile <https://www.linkedin.com/in/pariesfandiari/>* Tel: +1-202*-735-1415* (Office) : +1-310-435-0888 <http://voice.google.com/calls?a=nc,%2B13104350888> (Cell) : +44-731-210-4049 <http://voice.google.com/calls?a=nc,%2B447312104049> (Cell)
Thanks for the excellent summary. Please let the debate continue to keep us all on our toes. ___________________ REMMY NWEKE, *mNUJ, mNGE, mGOCOP, mnipr* Lead Consulting Strategist - *DigitalSENSE Africa* <https://www.itrealms.com.ng/> Group Executive Editor, *ITREALMS Media* group [*Multiple-award winning medium*] (ITREALMS <http://www.itrealms.com.ng/>, DigitalSENSE Business Magazine <http://www.digitalsenseafrica.com.ng/businessnews>; NaijaAgroNet <http://www.naijaagronet.com.ng/>) No. 36 Afariogun Street, Oshodi-Lagos, Nigeria M: 234-8033592762, 8023122558, T: @ITRealms <http://www.twitter.com/ITRealms> @DigitalSENSEng 2024 *Nigeria DigitalSENSE Forum on IG4D*, Thursday June 27 <https://www.itrealms.com.ng/> 2024 *ITREALMS* e-Waste Dialogue, Thursday December 14 <https://www.itrealms.com.ng/> @Welcome Center Hotels, Int'l Airport Road, Lagos-Nigeria <http://welcomecentrehotels.com/> Former Vice President, African Civil Society on Information Society (ACSIS) ______________________________________________________________ *Confidentiality Notice:* The information in this document and attachments are confidential and may also be privileged information. It is intended only for the use of the named recipient. Remmy Nweke does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this e-mail. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify me immediately, then delete this document and do not disclose the contents of this document to any other person, nor make any copies. Violators may face court persecution. On Thu, Feb 6, 2025 at 11:09 AM Pari Esfandiari via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> wrote:
Dear all,
Thank you for the thoughtful and engaging discussion around my recent article on CircleID regarding the RCC’s push for a state-led Internet governance mode <https://circleid.com/posts/rcc-pushes-for-state-led-internet-governance-ahead-of-wsis20-review>l. The diverse perspectives shared here highlight the significance of this issue and the need for continued vigilance in safeguarding the multistakeholder model. *Addressing Key Points Raised:*
1.
*Armenia’s Alignment with RCC – Shifting Alliances?* - @Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, your observation on Armenia’s stance is indeed intriguing, considering its usual alignment with Western digital policies. However, recent geopolitical tensions and regional dependencies may have influenced this decision. Whether Armenia stands to lose or gain from this move will depend on how other global actors respond. 2.
*Hidden Agendas and Misleading Framing of Internet Governance* - @Wolfgang Kleinwächter, your detailed analysis of Section 3 of the RCC proposal is crucial. While the call for an equitable, neutral, and geopolitically immune governance system is commendable, the assertion that the multistakeholder model fails to meet these requirements is misleading. ICANN’s structure, particularly through the GAC, already embodies sovereign equality and neutrality. The example of ICANN’s refusal to remove Russian domain names during the Ukraine conflict underscores its resilience against political pressures. Moving towards state-controlled governance would, paradoxically, introduce more geopolitical interference rather than eliminate it. 3.
*Misuse of the “Public Core” Concept* - @Joseph Lorenzo Hall and @Tatiana Tropina, your point on the RCC’s misrepresentation of the “public core” concept is well taken. The original GCSC definition was carefully crafted through a multistakeholder process to protect essential Internet infrastructure, whereas the RCC’s broader framing risks enabling greater state intervention. As you rightly pointed out, conflating the “public core” with “critical resources” could open the door to increased governmental control over fundamental Internet operations, which would be detrimental to the open and decentralized nature of the Internet. 4.
*The RCC Proposal’s Conflict with WSIS Principles* - @Dr. Jimson Olufuye, you highlight a fundamental flaw in the RCC proposal—it contradicts the very foundations of WSIS, the Tunis Agenda, and the Global Digital Compact (GDC), all of which emphasize multistakeholder engagement. While the proposal may be “dead on arrival” in some forums, it still serves as a strategic tool for certain governments to justify expanding their control over the Internet. This is why continued advocacy and engagement remain necessary. 5.
*Diplomatic Engagement and Advocacy Strategy* - @Nick Ashton-Hart, @Israel Rosas, and @Remmy Nweke, I fully agree that diplomatic engagement is critical at this juncture. Many diplomats dealing with WSIS+20 and broader digital governance discussions may not have a deep understanding of the multistakeholder model’s nuances. The RCC narrative, if left unchallenged, could appeal to those who prioritize state sovereignty over openness. Strengthening outreach efforts, capacity-building initiatives, and direct engagement with policymakers will be essential to countering this influence. 6.
*Potential ITU Involvement in IP Addressing and Protocol Governance* - @Nick Ashton-Hart, your point about the potential push to shift IP protocol governance to the ITU is an alarming but not surprising development. Given past efforts to exert greater governmental control over core Internet functions, vigilance is needed to ensure that governance remains within the multistakeholder ecosystem, where technical bodies like the IETF and RIRs maintain their crucial roles. 7.
*The Issue of Undefined Stakeholder Roles* - @Mark W. Datysgeld and @Alejandro Pisanty, the issue of fluid stakeholder identities is a valid concern. While the multistakeholder model is designed to be inclusive and adaptable, the lack of clear stakeholder categorization has been exploited by certain actors to challenge its legitimacy. As Alejandro notes, the original WSIS definitions were already a compromise, and while we have made progress in differentiating stakeholder roles, ambiguity remains. Addressing this issue transparently in WSIS+20 discussions could help prevent its use as a pretext for government overreach. 8.
*Potential Impact on Network Neutrality and Platform Regulation* - @Alejandro Pisanty, your warning about threats to network neutrality and regulations like Section 230 is well-founded. If these principles are eroded in democratic contexts, it will provide authoritarian governments with further justification to impose stricter controls on online content and access. Ensuring that digital governance remains rights-based and independent of political agendas must be a key focus moving forward.
*The Road Ahead*
The RCC’s proposal is not just a theoretical debate—it is part of a broader geopolitical effort to shift Internet governance towards a more state-controlled model. While it may not succeed in its current form, the underlying ideas will likely persist, making it crucial for the Internet governance community to remain proactive.
As many of you pointed out, we must:
- Continue engaging with diplomats and policymakers who may not be fully aware of the implications of state-led governance. - Strengthen capacity-building efforts to educate stakeholders on the benefits of multistakeholder governance. - Push back against misrepresentations of concepts like the “public core” to prevent them from being used as pretexts for increased governmental control. - Reinforce the neutrality and resilience of existing governance structures, particularly within ICANN and technical organizations. - Monitor and counteract attempts to shift key Internet governance functions to intergovernmental bodies like the ITU.
I appreciate all your insights and contributions to this discussion. Let’s continue this dialogue and work collectively to uphold the principles of an open, secure, and inclusive Internet.
Cheers, *Pari Esfandiari*
On Thu, Feb 6, 2025 at 2:28 AM Alejandro Pisanty <apisanty@gmail.com> wrote:
Mark,
good point re the definition of stakeholders. You may know that I was in the WGIG (as a few others in this list.) WGIG was the Working Group on Internet Governance created by the first phase of WSIS in 2003, charged with producing a report with a definition of Internet Governance and some proposals to move forward, for the second phase in 2005. The definition of stakeholder groupings was a major issue then and we settled into government, business ("private sector" has different meanings in the US and elsewhere), civil society and the technical community. Unfortunately we couldn't get the final documents to list the technical community as a separate stakeholder, not the least because at the same time it was recognized that the people in the technical community may have their jobs indistinctly in government (say, research laboratories, computing, IT and telecommunications departments in government, standards organizations, even universities if they are public), industry both large and small, and organizations classified as civil society (their techies among others.) Later on the IGF in practice has always listed the technical community separately. The differentiated presence of the technical community is indispensable and it cuts two ways - sometimes it has to say "no,, that thing you are imagining is not technically possible, or it is unreasonable, or it breaks the Internet" and sometimes it says to other parties "we can actually do better than you are thinking and maybe already are" - and sometimes, very often rather, we have to tell people, especiallly in governments, "no, it doesn' work that way" and enter long explanations.
Now picking on the second part of your statement: with fuzzy borders, we can say that one thing is the definition of the stakeholder groupings, as above, and another, complementary one, is the assignment of specific individuals to stakeholder groups at a given point in time. Also especially in developing countries we do continue to find that a small number of people fulfill many roles at the same time and thus can be simultaneously ascribed to more than one stakeholder group. Someone working in business (or even owining one) may come to Internet governance with that knowledge but acting through an organization like an NGO oriented to education or development or community networks, and or sit on an advisory committee to a telecoms or competition regulator. We have made progress in the last 20 years towards clearer roles and against conflicts of interest but this fluidity remains and also is very valuable.
We should convey this clearly to the skeptics and also know that it is a facetious argument invoked with ill intent while fully knowing the above.
Yours,
Alejandro Pisanty
On Wed, Feb 5, 2025 at 7:53 PM Mark W. Datysgeld via wsis20 < wsis20@icann.org> wrote:
One idea presented by the document that cannot just be waved away is that "stakeholder roles remain undefined". They do. I understand Pari's relevant answer to that point, but it does not address the fact that stakeholder identity is incredibly liquid. Take any set of IGF applications and you are likely to quickly find the same speaker submitted as 3 different stakeholders in different applications.
This is a subject that cannot be put aside in the upcoming discussion and the High-Level Event itself, because it is a weakness of our multistakeholder models that can and will be used against us by governments in their bid for increased control.
Regards, On 5 Feb 2025 07:03, Pari Esfandiari via wsis20 wrote:
This review of the RCC’s submission in the lead-up to the WSIS+20 examines its call for a state-led approach to Internet governance and its implications for the multistakeholder model. It explores how the RCC frames its arguments around digital sovereignty, interoperability, and regulatory frameworks while assessing the potential impact on global Internet governance structures, innovation, and access. Additionally, the article considers the broader geopolitical context of the submission and its alignment—or divergence—with international efforts to maintain an open, inclusive, and secure digital environment.
https://circleid.com/posts/rcc-pushes-for-state-led-internet-governance-ahea... Cheers, Pari
-- Pari Esfandiari President *Global TechnoPolitics Forum <http://www.technopolitics.org> * *Pario <http://www.parioconsultants.com>- Architects of Ideas* info@TechnoPolitics.org <info@technopolitics.org> *Linkedin Profile <https://www.linkedin.com/in/pariesfandiari/>* Tel: +1-202*-735-1415* (Office) : +1-310-435-0888 <http://voice.google.com/calls?a=nc,%2B13104350888>(Cell) : +44-731-210-4049 <http://voice.google.com/calls?a=nc,%2B447312104049> (Cell)
_______________________________________________
Learn more about the WSIS+20 Outreach Network and review relevant resources: https://go.icann.org/wsis20
Read the public archives for this mailing list: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
-- Mark W. Datysgeld Director at Governance Primer [governanceprimer.com] Project Lead Developer at ICANNWiki [icannwiki.org] _______________________________________________
Learn more about the WSIS+20 Outreach Network and review relevant resources: https://go.icann.org/wsis20
Read the public archives for this mailing list: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Facultad de Química UNAM Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico +525541444475 <http://voice.google.com/calls?a=nc,%2B525541444475> Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
-- Pari Esfandiari President *Global TechnoPolitics Forum <http://www.technopolitics.org> * *Pario <http://www.parioconsultants.com>- Architects of Ideas* info@TechnoPolitics.org <info@technopolitics.org> *Linkedin Profile <https://www.linkedin.com/in/pariesfandiari/>* Tel: +1-202*-735-1415* (Office) : +1-310-435-0888 <http://voice.google.com/calls?a=nc,%2B13104350888> (Cell) : +44-731-210-4049 <http://voice.google.com/calls?a=nc,%2B447312104049> (Cell) _______________________________________________
Learn more about the WSIS+20 Outreach Network and review relevant resources: https://go.icann.org/wsis20
Read the public archives for this mailing list: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Parsi, Thanks for the post on CirceID and the follow up on this list. I reposted your article in LinkedIn to try to reach American business leaders. They should know what is being proposed. Thanks for all you do for our community. Kind regards, Paul McGrady From: Pari Esfandiari via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> Sent: Thursday, February 6, 2025 4:09 AM To: wsis20@icann.org Subject: [wsis20] Re: RCC Pushes for State-Led Internet Governance Ahead of WSIS+20 Review Dear all, Thank you for the thoughtful and engaging discussion around my recent article on CircleID regarding the RCC’s push for a state-led Internet governance mode<https://circleid.com/posts/rcc-pushes-for-state-led-internet-governance-ahead-of-wsis20-review>l. The diverse perspectives shared here highlight the significance of this issue and the need for continued vigilance in safeguarding the multistakeholder model. Addressing Key Points Raised: 1. Armenia’s Alignment with RCC – Shifting Alliances? * @Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, your observation on Armenia’s stance is indeed intriguing, considering its usual alignment with Western digital policies. However, recent geopolitical tensions and regional dependencies may have influenced this decision. Whether Armenia stands to lose or gain from this move will depend on how other global actors respond. 1. Hidden Agendas and Misleading Framing of Internet Governance * @Wolfgang Kleinwächter, your detailed analysis of Section 3 of the RCC proposal is crucial. While the call for an equitable, neutral, and geopolitically immune governance system is commendable, the assertion that the multistakeholder model fails to meet these requirements is misleading. ICANN’s structure, particularly through the GAC, already embodies sovereign equality and neutrality. The example of ICANN’s refusal to remove Russian domain names during the Ukraine conflict underscores its resilience against political pressures. Moving towards state-controlled governance would, paradoxically, introduce more geopolitical interference rather than eliminate it. 1. Misuse of the “Public Core” Concept * @Joseph Lorenzo Hall and @Tatiana Tropina, your point on the RCC’s misrepresentation of the “public core” concept is well taken. The original GCSC definition was carefully crafted through a multistakeholder process to protect essential Internet infrastructure, whereas the RCC’s broader framing risks enabling greater state intervention. As you rightly pointed out, conflating the “public core” with “critical resources” could open the door to increased governmental control over fundamental Internet operations, which would be detrimental to the open and decentralized nature of the Internet. 1. The RCC Proposal’s Conflict with WSIS Principles * @Dr. Jimson Olufuye, you highlight a fundamental flaw in the RCC proposal—it contradicts the very foundations of WSIS, the Tunis Agenda, and the Global Digital Compact (GDC), all of which emphasize multistakeholder engagement. While the proposal may be “dead on arrival” in some forums, it still serves as a strategic tool for certain governments to justify expanding their control over the Internet. This is why continued advocacy and engagement remain necessary. 1. Diplomatic Engagement and Advocacy Strategy * @Nick Ashton-Hart, @Israel Rosas, and @Remmy Nweke, I fully agree that diplomatic engagement is critical at this juncture. Many diplomats dealing with WSIS+20 and broader digital governance discussions may not have a deep understanding of the multistakeholder model’s nuances. The RCC narrative, if left unchallenged, could appeal to those who prioritize state sovereignty over openness. Strengthening outreach efforts, capacity-building initiatives, and direct engagement with policymakers will be essential to countering this influence. 1. Potential ITU Involvement in IP Addressing and Protocol Governance * @Nick Ashton-Hart, your point about the potential push to shift IP protocol governance to the ITU is an alarming but not surprising development. Given past efforts to exert greater governmental control over core Internet functions, vigilance is needed to ensure that governance remains within the multistakeholder ecosystem, where technical bodies like the IETF and RIRs maintain their crucial roles. 1. The Issue of Undefined Stakeholder Roles * @Mark W. Datysgeld and @Alejandro Pisanty, the issue of fluid stakeholder identities is a valid concern. While the multistakeholder model is designed to be inclusive and adaptable, the lack of clear stakeholder categorization has been exploited by certain actors to challenge its legitimacy. As Alejandro notes, the original WSIS definitions were already a compromise, and while we have made progress in differentiating stakeholder roles, ambiguity remains. Addressing this issue transparently in WSIS+20 discussions could help prevent its use as a pretext for government overreach. 1. Potential Impact on Network Neutrality and Platform Regulation * @Alejandro Pisanty, your warning about threats to network neutrality and regulations like Section 230 is well-founded. If these principles are eroded in democratic contexts, it will provide authoritarian governments with further justification to impose stricter controls on online content and access. Ensuring that digital governance remains rights-based and independent of political agendas must be a key focus moving forward. The Road Ahead The RCC’s proposal is not just a theoretical debate—it is part of a broader geopolitical effort to shift Internet governance towards a more state-controlled model. While it may not succeed in its current form, the underlying ideas will likely persist, making it crucial for the Internet governance community to remain proactive. As many of you pointed out, we must: * Continue engaging with diplomats and policymakers who may not be fully aware of the implications of state-led governance. * Strengthen capacity-building efforts to educate stakeholders on the benefits of multistakeholder governance. * Push back against misrepresentations of concepts like the “public core” to prevent them from being used as pretexts for increased governmental control. * Reinforce the neutrality and resilience of existing governance structures, particularly within ICANN and technical organizations. * Monitor and counteract attempts to shift key Internet governance functions to intergovernmental bodies like the ITU. I appreciate all your insights and contributions to this discussion. Let’s continue this dialogue and work collectively to uphold the principles of an open, secure, and inclusive Internet. Cheers, Pari Esfandiari On Thu, Feb 6, 2025 at 2:28 AM Alejandro Pisanty <apisanty@gmail.com<mailto:apisanty@gmail.com>> wrote: Mark, good point re the definition of stakeholders. You may know that I was in the WGIG (as a few others in this list.) WGIG was the Working Group on Internet Governance created by the first phase of WSIS in 2003, charged with producing a report with a definition of Internet Governance and some proposals to move forward, for the second phase in 2005. The definition of stakeholder groupings was a major issue then and we settled into government, business ("private sector" has different meanings in the US and elsewhere), civil society and the technical community. Unfortunately we couldn't get the final documents to list the technical community as a separate stakeholder, not the least because at the same time it was recognized that the people in the technical community may have their jobs indistinctly in government (say, research laboratories, computing, IT and telecommunications departments in government, standards organizations, even universities if they are public), industry both large and small, and organizations classified as civil society (their techies among others.) Later on the IGF in practice has always listed the technical community separately. The differentiated presence of the technical community is indispensable and it cuts two ways - sometimes it has to say "no,, that thing you are imagining is not technically possible, or it is unreasonable, or it breaks the Internet" and sometimes it says to other parties "we can actually do better than you are thinking and maybe already are" - and sometimes, very often rather, we have to tell people, especiallly in governments, "no, it doesn' work that way" and enter long explanations. Now picking on the second part of your statement: with fuzzy borders, we can say that one thing is the definition of the stakeholder groupings, as above, and another, complementary one, is the assignment of specific individuals to stakeholder groups at a given point in time. Also especially in developing countries we do continue to find that a small number of people fulfill many roles at the same time and thus can be simultaneously ascribed to more than one stakeholder group. Someone working in business (or even owining one) may come to Internet governance with that knowledge but acting through an organization like an NGO oriented to education or development or community networks, and or sit on an advisory committee to a telecoms or competition regulator. We have made progress in the last 20 years towards clearer roles and against conflicts of interest but this fluidity remains and also is very valuable. We should convey this clearly to the skeptics and also know that it is a facetious argument invoked with ill intent while fully knowing the above. Yours, Alejandro Pisanty On Wed, Feb 5, 2025 at 7:53 PM Mark W. Datysgeld via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org<mailto:wsis20@icann.org>> wrote: One idea presented by the document that cannot just be waved away is that "stakeholder roles remain undefined". They do. I understand Pari's relevant answer to that point, but it does not address the fact that stakeholder identity is incredibly liquid. Take any set of IGF applications and you are likely to quickly find the same speaker submitted as 3 different stakeholders in different applications. This is a subject that cannot be put aside in the upcoming discussion and the High-Level Event itself, because it is a weakness of our multistakeholder models that can and will be used against us by governments in their bid for increased control. Regards, On 5 Feb 2025 07:03, Pari Esfandiari via wsis20 wrote: This review of the RCC’s submission in the lead-up to the WSIS+20 examines its call for a state-led approach to Internet governance and its implications for the multistakeholder model. It explores how the RCC frames its arguments around digital sovereignty, interoperability, and regulatory frameworks while assessing the potential impact on global Internet governance structures, innovation, and access. Additionally, the article considers the broader geopolitical context of the submission and its alignment—or divergence—with international efforts to maintain an open, inclusive, and secure digital environment. https://circleid.com/posts/rcc-pushes-for-state-led-internet-governance-ahea... Cheers, Pari -- Pari Esfandiari President Global TechnoPolitics Forum<http://www.technopolitics.org/> Pario <http://www.parioconsultants.com/> - Architects of Ideas info@TechnoPolitics.org<mailto:info@technopolitics.org> Linkedin Profile<https://www.linkedin.com/in/pariesfandiari/> Tel: +1-202-735-1415 (Office) : +1-310-435-0888 (Cell) : +44-731-210-4049 (Cell) _______________________________________________ Learn more about the WSIS+20 Outreach Network and review relevant resources: https://go.icann.org/wsis20 Read the public archives for this mailing list: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/ _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. -- Mark W. Datysgeld Director at Governance Primer [governanceprimer.com<https://governanceprimer.com/>] Project Lead Developer at ICANNWiki [icannwiki.org<https://icannwiki.org/>] _______________________________________________ Learn more about the WSIS+20 Outreach Network and review relevant resources: https://go.icann.org/wsis20 Read the public archives for this mailing list: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/ _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Facultad de Química UNAM Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico +525541444475 Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com<http://pisanty.blogspot.com/> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org<http://www.isoc.org/> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -- Pari Esfandiari President Global TechnoPolitics Forum<http://www.technopolitics.org/> Pario <http://www.parioconsultants.com/> - Architects of Ideas info@TechnoPolitics.org<mailto:info@technopolitics.org> Linkedin Profile<https://www.linkedin.com/in/pariesfandiari/> Tel: +1-202-735-1415 (Office) : +1-310-435-0888 (Cell) : +44-731-210-4049 (Cell) This email originated from outside the firm. Please use caution.
Hi to all Interesting discussion and thread. And while the actions recommended to make sure that the facts get out there and various negotiators are armed with them seem wise, I personally was more struck by a different contribution to the same meeting. That of Saudi Arabia. I've attached for ease of finding. The RCC, presumably lead by Russia, contribution seems in my experience to be largely consistent with where Russia and that region has been on this set of issues for the larger part of the past 20 years. So really no surprise. The Saudi contribution is a different story to my eye. A clear written statement of their support for multistakeholder approaches. I don't recall ever seeing this position from them at the ITU before. In fact, they were firmly against it, at least in all the negotiations I participated in during my time in government. Would be curious to hear from others their thoughts on how we got to this. I believe there has been quite a sustained effort by the Internet technical community in this region and perhaps there are some lessons for all us on how we can actually demonstrate the utility of multistakeholder approaches to those that still are skeptical. Also could explain their effort and work to host last year's IGF. Fiona ________________________________ From: Pari Esfandiari via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> Sent: Thursday, February 6, 2025 5:08 AM To: wsis20@icann.org <wsis20@icann.org> Subject: [wsis20] Re: RCC Pushes for State-Led Internet Governance Ahead of WSIS+20 Review External Email: Use caution with links and attachments. Dear all, Thank you for the thoughtful and engaging discussion around my recent article on CircleID regarding the RCC’s push for a state-led Internet governance mode<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://circleid.com/posts/rcc-pushes-for-state-led-internet-governance-ahead-of-wsis20-review__;!!IaT_gp1N!2b7n92Tb_yRE7JjkNFqCKq_G5ZqVLVbNmLJ6VlRnw4kkZip0aAaP-ZS48c88lDYHYcnXUmi-4Ftvk28$>l. The diverse perspectives shared here highlight the significance of this issue and the need for continued vigilance in safeguarding the multistakeholder model. Addressing Key Points Raised: 1. Armenia’s Alignment with RCC – Shifting Alliances? * @Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, your observation on Armenia’s stance is indeed intriguing, considering its usual alignment with Western digital policies. However, recent geopolitical tensions and regional dependencies may have influenced this decision. Whether Armenia stands to lose or gain from this move will depend on how other global actors respond. 2. Hidden Agendas and Misleading Framing of Internet Governance * @Wolfgang Kleinwächter, your detailed analysis of Section 3 of the RCC proposal is crucial. While the call for an equitable, neutral, and geopolitically immune governance system is commendable, the assertion that the multistakeholder model fails to meet these requirements is misleading. ICANN’s structure, particularly through the GAC, already embodies sovereign equality and neutrality. The example of ICANN’s refusal to remove Russian domain names during the Ukraine conflict underscores its resilience against political pressures. Moving towards state-controlled governance would, paradoxically, introduce more geopolitical interference rather than eliminate it. 3. Misuse of the “Public Core” Concept * @Joseph Lorenzo Hall and @Tatiana Tropina, your point on the RCC’s misrepresentation of the “public core” concept is well taken. The original GCSC definition was carefully crafted through a multistakeholder process to protect essential Internet infrastructure, whereas the RCC’s broader framing risks enabling greater state intervention. As you rightly pointed out, conflating the “public core” with “critical resources” could open the door to increased governmental control over fundamental Internet operations, which would be detrimental to the open and decentralized nature of the Internet. 4. The RCC Proposal’s Conflict with WSIS Principles * @Dr. Jimson Olufuye, you highlight a fundamental flaw in the RCC proposal—it contradicts the very foundations of WSIS, the Tunis Agenda, and the Global Digital Compact (GDC), all of which emphasize multistakeholder engagement. While the proposal may be “dead on arrival” in some forums, it still serves as a strategic tool for certain governments to justify expanding their control over the Internet. This is why continued advocacy and engagement remain necessary. 5. Diplomatic Engagement and Advocacy Strategy * @Nick Ashton-Hart, @Israel Rosas, and @Remmy Nweke, I fully agree that diplomatic engagement is critical at this juncture. Many diplomats dealing with WSIS+20 and broader digital governance discussions may not have a deep understanding of the multistakeholder model’s nuances. The RCC narrative, if left unchallenged, could appeal to those who prioritize state sovereignty over openness. Strengthening outreach efforts, capacity-building initiatives, and direct engagement with policymakers will be essential to countering this influence. 6. Potential ITU Involvement in IP Addressing and Protocol Governance * @Nick Ashton-Hart, your point about the potential push to shift IP protocol governance to the ITU is an alarming but not surprising development. Given past efforts to exert greater governmental control over core Internet functions, vigilance is needed to ensure that governance remains within the multistakeholder ecosystem, where technical bodies like the IETF and RIRs maintain their crucial roles. 7. The Issue of Undefined Stakeholder Roles * @Mark W. Datysgeld and @Alejandro Pisanty, the issue of fluid stakeholder identities is a valid concern. While the multistakeholder model is designed to be inclusive and adaptable, the lack of clear stakeholder categorization has been exploited by certain actors to challenge its legitimacy. As Alejandro notes, the original WSIS definitions were already a compromise, and while we have made progress in differentiating stakeholder roles, ambiguity remains. Addressing this issue transparently in WSIS+20 discussions could help prevent its use as a pretext for government overreach. 8. Potential Impact on Network Neutrality and Platform Regulation * @Alejandro Pisanty, your warning about threats to network neutrality and regulations like Section 230 is well-founded. If these principles are eroded in democratic contexts, it will provide authoritarian governments with further justification to impose stricter controls on online content and access. Ensuring that digital governance remains rights-based and independent of political agendas must be a key focus moving forward. The Road Ahead The RCC’s proposal is not just a theoretical debate—it is part of a broader geopolitical effort to shift Internet governance towards a more state-controlled model. While it may not succeed in its current form, the underlying ideas will likely persist, making it crucial for the Internet governance community to remain proactive. As many of you pointed out, we must: * Continue engaging with diplomats and policymakers who may not be fully aware of the implications of state-led governance. * Strengthen capacity-building efforts to educate stakeholders on the benefits of multistakeholder governance. * Push back against misrepresentations of concepts like the “public core” to prevent them from being used as pretexts for increased governmental control. * Reinforce the neutrality and resilience of existing governance structures, particularly within ICANN and technical organizations. * Monitor and counteract attempts to shift key Internet governance functions to intergovernmental bodies like the ITU. I appreciate all your insights and contributions to this discussion. Let’s continue this dialogue and work collectively to uphold the principles of an open, secure, and inclusive Internet. Cheers, Pari Esfandiari On Thu, Feb 6, 2025 at 2:28 AM Alejandro Pisanty <apisanty@gmail.com<mailto:apisanty@gmail.com>> wrote: Mark, good point re the definition of stakeholders. You may know that I was in the WGIG (as a few others in this list.) WGIG was the Working Group on Internet Governance created by the first phase of WSIS in 2003, charged with producing a report with a definition of Internet Governance and some proposals to move forward, for the second phase in 2005. The definition of stakeholder groupings was a major issue then and we settled into government, business ("private sector" has different meanings in the US and elsewhere), civil society and the technical community. Unfortunately we couldn't get the final documents to list the technical community as a separate stakeholder, not the least because at the same time it was recognized that the people in the technical community may have their jobs indistinctly in government (say, research laboratories, computing, IT and telecommunications departments in government, standards organizations, even universities if they are public), industry both large and small, and organizations classified as civil society (their techies among others.) Later on the IGF in practice has always listed the technical community separately. The differentiated presence of the technical community is indispensable and it cuts two ways - sometimes it has to say "no,, that thing you are imagining is not technically possible, or it is unreasonable, or it breaks the Internet" and sometimes it says to other parties "we can actually do better than you are thinking and maybe already are" - and sometimes, very often rather, we have to tell people, especiallly in governments, "no, it doesn' work that way" and enter long explanations. Now picking on the second part of your statement: with fuzzy borders, we can say that one thing is the definition of the stakeholder groupings, as above, and another, complementary one, is the assignment of specific individuals to stakeholder groups at a given point in time. Also especially in developing countries we do continue to find that a small number of people fulfill many roles at the same time and thus can be simultaneously ascribed to more than one stakeholder group. Someone working in business (or even owining one) may come to Internet governance with that knowledge but acting through an organization like an NGO oriented to education or development or community networks, and or sit on an advisory committee to a telecoms or competition regulator. We have made progress in the last 20 years towards clearer roles and against conflicts of interest but this fluidity remains and also is very valuable. We should convey this clearly to the skeptics and also know that it is a facetious argument invoked with ill intent while fully knowing the above. Yours, Alejandro Pisanty On Wed, Feb 5, 2025 at 7:53 PM Mark W. Datysgeld via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org<mailto:wsis20@icann.org>> wrote: One idea presented by the document that cannot just be waved away is that "stakeholder roles remain undefined". They do. I understand Pari's relevant answer to that point, but it does not address the fact that stakeholder identity is incredibly liquid. Take any set of IGF applications and you are likely to quickly find the same speaker submitted as 3 different stakeholders in different applications. This is a subject that cannot be put aside in the upcoming discussion and the High-Level Event itself, because it is a weakness of our multistakeholder models that can and will be used against us by governments in their bid for increased control. Regards, On 5 Feb 2025 07:03, Pari Esfandiari via wsis20 wrote: This review of the RCC’s submission in the lead-up to the WSIS+20 examines its call for a state-led approach to Internet governance and its implications for the multistakeholder model. It explores how the RCC frames its arguments around digital sovereignty, interoperability, and regulatory frameworks while assessing the potential impact on global Internet governance structures, innovation, and access. Additionally, the article considers the broader geopolitical context of the submission and its alignment—or divergence—with international efforts to maintain an open, inclusive, and secure digital environment. https://circleid.com/posts/rcc-pushes-for-state-led-internet-governance-ahead-of-wsis20-review<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://circleid.com/posts/rcc-pushes-for-state-led-internet-governance-ahead-of-wsis20-review__;!!IaT_gp1N!2b7n92Tb_yRE7JjkNFqCKq_G5ZqVLVbNmLJ6VlRnw4kkZip0aAaP-ZS48c88lDYHYcnXUmi-4Ftvk28$> Cheers, Pari -- Pari Esfandiari President Global TechnoPolitics Forum<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.technopolitics.org__;!!IaT_gp1N!2b7n9...> Pario <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.parioconsultants.com__;!!IaT_gp1N!2b7...> - Architects of Ideas info@TechnoPolitics.org<mailto:info@technopolitics.org> Linkedin Profile<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.linkedin.com/in/pariesfandiari/__;!!...> Tel: +1-202-735-1415 (Office) : +1-310-435-0888 (Cell) : +44-731-210-4049 (Cell) _______________________________________________ Learn more about the WSIS+20 Outreach Network and review relevant resources: https://go.icann.org/wsis20<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://go.icann.org/wsis20__;!!IaT_gp1N!2b7n92Tb_yRE7JjkNFqCKq_G5ZqVLVbNmLJ6VlRnw4kkZip0aAaP-ZS48c88lDYHYcnXUmi-tFT7mAc$> Read the public archives for this mailing list: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/__;!!IaT_gp1N!2b7n92Tb_yRE7JjkNFqCKq_G5ZqVLVbNmLJ6VlRnw4kkZip0aAaP-ZS48c88lDYHYcnXUmi-l8hd-Ms$> _______________________________________________ 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!2b7n92Tb_yRE7JjkNFqCKq_G5ZqVLVbNmLJ6VlRnw4kkZip0aAaP-ZS48c88lDYHYcnXUmi-EbZ1zAw$>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos__;!!IaT_gp1N!2b7n92Tb_yRE7JjkNFqCKq_G5ZqVLVbNmLJ6VlRnw4kkZip0aAaP-ZS48c88lDYHYcnXUmi-uOLSs2I$>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. -- Mark W. Datysgeld Director at Governance Primer [governanceprimer.com<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://governanceprimer.com__;!!IaT_gp1N!2b7n92...>] Project Lead Developer at ICANNWiki [icannwiki.org<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://icannwiki.org/__;!!IaT_gp1N!2b7n92Tb_yRE...>] _______________________________________________ Learn more about the WSIS+20 Outreach Network and review relevant resources: https://go.icann.org/wsis20<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://go.icann.org/wsis20__;!!IaT_gp1N!2b7n92Tb_yRE7JjkNFqCKq_G5ZqVLVbNmLJ6VlRnw4kkZip0aAaP-ZS48c88lDYHYcnXUmi-tFT7mAc$> Read the public archives for this mailing list: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/__;!!IaT_gp1N!2b7n92Tb_yRE7JjkNFqCKq_G5ZqVLVbNmLJ6VlRnw4kkZip0aAaP-ZS48c88lDYHYcnXUmi-l8hd-Ms$> _______________________________________________ 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!2b7n92Tb_yRE7JjkNFqCKq_G5ZqVLVbNmLJ6VlRnw4kkZip0aAaP-ZS48c88lDYHYcnXUmi-EbZ1zAw$>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos__;!!IaT_gp1N!2b7n92Tb_yRE7JjkNFqCKq_G5ZqVLVbNmLJ6VlRnw4kkZip0aAaP-ZS48c88lDYHYcnXUmi-uOLSs2I$>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Facultad de Química UNAM Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico +525541444475 Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://pisanty.blogspot.com__;!!IaT_gp1N!2b7n92Tb_yRE7JjkNFqCKq_G5ZqVLVbNmLJ6VlRnw4kkZip0aAaP-ZS48c88lDYHYcnXUmi-7emGT4Q$> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty__;!!IaT_gp1N!2b7n92Tb_yRE7JjkNFqCKq_G5ZqVLVbNmLJ6VlRnw4kkZip0aAaP-ZS48c88lDYHYcnXUmi-jFf6zyY$> Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614__;!!IaT_gp1N!2b7n92Tb_yRE7JjkNFqCKq_G5ZqVLVbNmLJ6VlRnw4kkZip0aAaP-ZS48c88lDYHYcnXUmi-BIyjtRw$> Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://twitter.com/apisanty__;!!IaT_gp1N!2b7n92Tb_yRE7JjkNFqCKq_G5ZqVLVbNmLJ6VlRnw4kkZip0aAaP-ZS48c88lDYHYcnXUmi-uTkh9bc$> ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.isoc.org__;!!IaT_gp1N!2b7n92Tb_yRE7JjkNFqCKq_G5ZqVLVbNmLJ6VlRnw4kkZip0aAaP-ZS48c88lDYHYcnXUmi-d4fST6k$> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -- Pari Esfandiari President Global TechnoPolitics Forum<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.technopolitics.org__;!!IaT_gp1N!2b7n9...> Pario <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.parioconsultants.com__;!!IaT_gp1N!2b7...> - Architects of Ideas info@TechnoPolitics.org<mailto:info@technopolitics.org> Linkedin Profile<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.linkedin.com/in/pariesfandiari/__;!!...> Tel: +1-202-735-1415 (Office) : +1-310-435-0888 (Cell) : +44-731-210-4049 (Cell)
Dear Fiona, it's the difference between having old school decision makers who have no idea what they are speaking about and new stakeholders selected for their intelligence and knowledge of the topics. The world is changing. Abdullah Alswaha is one of these new leaders. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdullah_Alswaha His speech at IGF was inspirational. https://youtu.be/wGxF6BVp-AM?si=GHQRxtOQn-LYJ7VQ A friend of mine worked with him at CISCO and he was already an inspiring boss. So the message we are sending out is one thing, but there also needs to be an intelligent ear at the other end of the fibre. Kindest regards, Olivier On 06/02/2025 18:27, Fiona Alexander via wsis20 wrote:
Hi to all
Interesting discussion and thread. And while the actions recommended to make sure that the facts get out there and various negotiators are armed with them seem wise, I personally was more struck by a different contribution to the same meeting. That of Saudi Arabia. I've attached for ease of finding.
The RCC, presumably lead by Russia, contribution seems in my experience to be largely consistent with where Russia and that region has been on this set of issues for the larger part of the past 20 years. So really no surprise.
The Saudi contribution is a different story to my eye. A clear written statement of their support for multistakeholder approaches. I don't recall ever seeing this position from them at the ITU before. In fact, they were firmly against it, at least in all the negotiations I participated in during my time in government.
Would be curious to hear from others their thoughts on how we got to this. I believe there has been quite a sustained effort by the Internet technical community in this region and perhaps there are some lessons for all us on how we can actually demonstrate the utility of multistakeholder approaches to those that still are skeptical. Also could explain their effort and work to host last year's IGF.
Fiona
------------------------------------------------------------------------ *From:* Pari Esfandiari via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> *Sent:* Thursday, February 6, 2025 5:08 AM *To:* wsis20@icann.org <wsis20@icann.org> *Subject:* [wsis20] Re: RCC Pushes for State-Led Internet Governance Ahead of WSIS+20 Review
*External Email:* Use caution with links and attachments.
Dear all,
Thank you for the thoughtful and engaging discussion around my recent article on CircleID regarding the RCC’s push for a state-led Internet governance mode <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://circleid.com/posts/rcc-pushes-for-state-led-internet-governance-ahead-of-wsis20-review__;!!IaT_gp1N!2b7n92Tb_yRE7JjkNFqCKq_G5ZqVLVbNmLJ6VlRnw4kkZip0aAaP-ZS48c88lDYHYcnXUmi-4Ftvk28$>l. The diverse perspectives shared here highlight the significance of this issue and the need for continued vigilance in safeguarding the multistakeholder model.
Addressing Key Points Raised:
1.
*Armenia’s Alignment with RCC – Shifting Alliances?*
* @Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, your observation on Armenia’s stance is indeed intriguing, considering its usual alignment with Western digital policies. However, recent geopolitical tensions and regional dependencies may have influenced this decision. Whether Armenia stands to lose or gain from this move will depend on how other global actors respond. 2.
*Hidden Agendas and Misleading Framing of Internet Governance*
* @Wolfgang Kleinwächter, your detailed analysis of Section 3 of the RCC proposal is crucial. While the call for an equitable, neutral, and geopolitically immune governance system is commendable, the assertion that the multistakeholder model fails to meet these requirements is misleading. ICANN’s structure, particularly through the GAC, already embodies sovereign equality and neutrality. The example of ICANN’s refusal to remove Russian domain names during the Ukraine conflict underscores its resilience against political pressures. Moving towards state-controlled governance would, paradoxically, introduce more geopolitical interference rather than eliminate it. 3.
*Misuse of the “Public Core” Concept*
* @Joseph Lorenzo Hall and @Tatiana Tropina, your point on the RCC’s misrepresentation of the “public core” concept is well taken. The original GCSC definition was carefully crafted through a multistakeholder process to protect essential Internet infrastructure, whereas the RCC’s broader framing risks enabling greater state intervention. As you rightly pointed out, conflating the “public core” with “critical resources” could open the door to increased governmental control over fundamental Internet operations, which would be detrimental to the open and decentralized nature of the Internet. 4.
*The RCC Proposal’s Conflict with WSIS Principles*
* @Dr. Jimson Olufuye, you highlight a fundamental flaw in the RCC proposal—it contradicts the very foundations of WSIS, the Tunis Agenda, and the Global Digital Compact (GDC), all of which emphasize multistakeholder engagement. While the proposal may be “dead on arrival” in some forums, it still serves as a strategic tool for certain governments to justify expanding their control over the Internet. This is why continued advocacy and engagement remain necessary. 5.
*Diplomatic Engagement and Advocacy Strategy*
* @Nick Ashton-Hart, @Israel Rosas, and @Remmy Nweke, I fully agree that diplomatic engagement is critical at this juncture. Many diplomats dealing with WSIS+20 and broader digital governance discussions may not have a deep understanding of the multistakeholder model’s nuances. The RCC narrative, if left unchallenged, could appeal to those who prioritize state sovereignty over openness. Strengthening outreach efforts, capacity-building initiatives, and direct engagement with policymakers will be essential to countering this influence. 6.
*Potential ITU Involvement in IP Addressing and Protocol Governance*
* @Nick Ashton-Hart, your point about the potential push to shift IP protocol governance to the ITU is an alarming but not surprising development. Given past efforts to exert greater governmental control over core Internet functions, vigilance is needed to ensure that governance remains within the multistakeholder ecosystem, where technical bodies like the IETF and RIRs maintain their crucial roles. 7.
*The Issue of Undefined Stakeholder Roles*
* @Mark W. Datysgeld and @Alejandro Pisanty, the issue of fluid stakeholder identities is a valid concern. While the multistakeholder model is designed to be inclusive and adaptable, the lack of clear stakeholder categorization has been exploited by certain actors to challenge its legitimacy. As Alejandro notes, the original WSIS definitions were already a compromise, and while we have made progress in differentiating stakeholder roles, ambiguity remains. Addressing this issue transparently in WSIS+20 discussions could help prevent its use as a pretext for government overreach. 8.
*Potential Impact on Network Neutrality and Platform Regulation*
* @Alejandro Pisanty, your warning about threats to network neutrality and regulations like Section 230 is well-founded. If these principles are eroded in democratic contexts, it will provide authoritarian governments with further justification to impose stricter controls on online content and access. Ensuring that digital governance remains rights-based and independent of political agendas must be a key focus moving forward.
The Road Ahead
The RCC’s proposal is not just a theoretical debate—it is part of a broader geopolitical effort to shift Internet governance towards a more state-controlled model. While it may not succeed in its current form, the underlying ideas will likely persist, making it crucial for the Internet governance community to remain proactive.
As many of you pointed out, we must:
* Continue engaging with diplomats and policymakers who may not be fully aware of the implications of state-led governance. * Strengthen capacity-building efforts to educate stakeholders on the benefits of multistakeholder governance. * Push back against misrepresentations of concepts like the “public core” to prevent them from being used as pretexts for increased governmental control. * Reinforce the neutrality and resilience of existing governance structures, particularly within ICANN and technical organizations. * Monitor and counteract attempts to shift key Internet governance functions to intergovernmental bodies like the ITU.
I appreciate all your insights and contributions to this discussion. Let’s continue this dialogue and work collectively to uphold the principles of an open, secure, and inclusive Internet.
Cheers, *Pari Esfandiari*
On Thu, Feb 6, 2025 at 2:28 AM Alejandro Pisanty <apisanty@gmail.com <mailto:apisanty@gmail.com>> wrote:
Mark,
good point re the definition of stakeholders. You may know that I was in the WGIG (as a few others in this list.) WGIG was the Working Group on Internet Governance created by the first phase of WSIS in 2003, charged with producing a report with a definition of Internet Governance and some proposals to move forward, for the second phase in 2005. The definition of stakeholder groupings was a major issue then and we settled into government, business ("private sector" has different meanings in the US and elsewhere), civil society and the technical community. Unfortunately we couldn't get the final documents to list the technical community as a separate stakeholder, not the least because at the same time it was recognized that the people in the technical community may have their jobs indistinctly in government (say, research laboratories, computing, IT and telecommunications departments in government, standards organizations, even universities if they are public), industry both large and small, and organizations classified as civil society (their techies among others.) Later on the IGF in practice has always listed the technical community separately. The differentiated presence of the technical community is indispensable and it cuts two ways - sometimes it has to say "no,, that thing you are imagining is not technically possible, or it is unreasonable, or it breaks the Internet" and sometimes it says to other parties "we can actually do better than you are thinking and maybe already are" - and sometimes, very often rather, we have to tell people, especiallly in governments, "no, it doesn' work that way" and enter long explanations.
Now picking on the second part of your statement: with fuzzy borders, we can say that one thing is the definition of the stakeholder groupings, as above, and another, complementary one, is the assignment of specific individuals to stakeholder groups at a given point in time. Also especially in developing countries we do continue to find that a small number of people fulfill many roles at the same time and thus can be simultaneously ascribed to more than one stakeholder group. Someone working in business (or even owining one) may come to Internet governance with that knowledge but acting through an organization like an NGO oriented to education or development or community networks, and or sit on an advisory committee to a telecoms or competition regulator. We have made progress in the last 20 years towards clearer roles and against conflicts of interest but this fluidity remains and also is very valuable.
We should convey this clearly to the skeptics and also know that it is a facetious argument invoked with ill intent while fully knowing the above.
Yours,
Alejandro Pisanty
On Wed, Feb 5, 2025 at 7:53 PM Mark W. Datysgeld via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org <mailto:wsis20@icann.org>> wrote:
One idea presented by the document that cannot just be waved away is that "stakeholder roles remain undefined". They do. I understand Pari's relevant answer to that point, but it does not address the fact that stakeholder identity is incredibly liquid. Take any set of IGF applications and you are likely to quickly find the same speaker submitted as 3 different stakeholders in different applications.
This is a subject that cannot be put aside in the upcoming discussion and the High-Level Event itself, because it is a weakness of our multistakeholder models that can and will be used against us by governments in their bid for increased control.
Regards,
On 5 Feb 2025 07:03, Pari Esfandiari via wsis20 wrote:
This review of the RCC’s submission in the lead-up to the WSIS+20 examines its call for a state-led approach to Internet governance and its implications for the multistakeholder model. It explores how the RCC frames its arguments around digital sovereignty, interoperability, and regulatory frameworks while assessing the potential impact on global Internet governance structures, innovation, and access. Additionally, the article considers the broader geopolitical context of the submission and its alignment—or divergence—with international efforts to maintain an open, inclusive, and secure digital environment. https://circleid.com/posts/rcc-pushes-for-state-led-internet-governance-ahea... <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://circleid.com/posts/rcc-pushes-for-state-...> Cheers, Pari
-- Pari Esfandiari President */Global TechnoPolitics Forum <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.technopolitics.org__;!!IaT_gp1N!2b7n9...> /* */Pario <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.parioconsultants.com__;!!IaT_gp1N!2b7n92Tb_yRE7JjkNFqCKq_G5ZqVLVbNmLJ6VlRnw4kkZip0aAaP-ZS48c88lDYHYcnXUmi-xP8p8ow$>- Architects of Ideas/* info@TechnoPolitics.org <mailto:info@technopolitics.org> *Linkedin Profile <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.linkedin.com/in/pariesfandiari/__;!!IaT_gp1N!2b7n92Tb_yRE7JjkNFqCKq_G5ZqVLVbNmLJ6VlRnw4kkZip0aAaP-ZS48c88lDYHYcnXUmi-Bt4JaUE$>* Tel: +1-202_-__735-1415_ (Office) : +1-310-435-0888 (Cell) : +44-731-210-4049 (Cell)
_______________________________________________ Learn more about the WSIS+20 Outreach Network and review relevant resources: https://go.icann.org/wsis20 <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://go.icann.org/wsis20__;!!IaT_gp1N!2b7n92T...> Read the public archives for this mailing list: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/__;!!IaT_g...> _______________________________________________ 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_gp1...>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos__;!!IaT_gp1N!2...>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
-- Mark W. Datysgeld Director at Governance Primer [governanceprimer.com <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://governanceprimer.com__;!!IaT_gp1N!2b7n92...>] Project Lead Developer at ICANNWiki [icannwiki.org <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://icannwiki.org/__;!!IaT_gp1N!2b7n92Tb_yRE...>] _______________________________________________
Learn more about the WSIS+20 Outreach Network and review relevant resources: https://go.icann.org/wsis20 <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://go.icann.org/wsis20__;!!IaT_gp1N!2b7n92T...>
Read the public archives for this mailing list: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/__;!!IaT_g...>
_______________________________________________ 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_gp1...>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos__;!!IaT_gp1N!2...>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Facultad de Química UNAM Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico +525541444475 Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://pisanty.blogspot.com__;!!IaT_gp1N!2b7n92T...> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty__;!!IaT_gp1N!...> Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614...> Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://twitter.com/apisanty__;!!IaT_gp1N!2b7n92T...> ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.isoc.org__;!!IaT_gp1N!2b7n92Tb_yRE7Jj...> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
-- Pari Esfandiari President */Global TechnoPolitics Forum <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.technopolitics.org__;!!IaT_gp1N!2b7n9...> /* */Pario <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.parioconsultants.com__;!!IaT_gp1N!2b7n92Tb_yRE7JjkNFqCKq_G5ZqVLVbNmLJ6VlRnw4kkZip0aAaP-ZS48c88lDYHYcnXUmi-xP8p8ow$>- Architects of Ideas/* info@TechnoPolitics.org <mailto:info@technopolitics.org> *Linkedin Profile <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.linkedin.com/in/pariesfandiari/__;!!IaT_gp1N!2b7n92Tb_yRE7JjkNFqCKq_G5ZqVLVbNmLJ6VlRnw4kkZip0aAaP-ZS48c88lDYHYcnXUmi-Bt4JaUE$>* Tel: +1-202_-__735-1415_ (Office) : +1-310-435-0888 (Cell) : +44-731-210-4049 (Cell)
_______________________________________________
Learn more about the WSIS+20 Outreach Network and review relevant resources:https://go.icann.org/wsis20
Read the public archives for this mailing list:https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Speaking personally, when it comes to Saudi Arabia (and other states in that region as well as others), I will believe there is real change happening when I see a change of positions on policy at key conferences like the ITU’s agenda-setting meetings. Speeches are important, many policy directions are signalled in speeches, but in the end what matters is what positions states take on key issues in negotiations themselves. Any of you who were at Plenipot in Romania on the final days in particular knows exactly what I’m talking about. Nick Ashton-Hart APCO (m) +1 202 779 1072<tel:+12027791072> Book time to meet with me here<https://outlook.office.com/bookwithme/user/ce911a0f9fa543dd9459b3a1392da25e@...> On 2/6/25, 1:43 PM, "Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond via wsis20" <wsis20@icann.org> wrote: Dear Fiona, it's the difference between having old school decision makers who have no idea what they are speaking about and new stakeholders selected for their intelligence and knowledge of the topics. The world is changing. Abdullah Alswaha is one of these new leaders. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdullah_Alswaha His speech at IGF was inspirational. https://youtu.be/wGxF6BVp-AM?si=GHQRxtOQn-LYJ7VQ A friend of mine worked with him at CISCO and he was already an inspiring boss. So the message we are sending out is one thing, but there also needs to be an intelligent ear at the other end of the fibre. Kindest regards, Olivier On 06/02/2025 18:27, Fiona Alexander via wsis20 wrote: Hi to all Interesting discussion and thread. And while the actions recommended to make sure that the facts get out there and various negotiators are armed with them seem wise, I personally was more struck by a different contribution to the same meeting. That of Saudi Arabia. I've attached for ease of finding. The RCC, presumably lead by Russia, contribution seems in my experience to be largely consistent with where Russia and that region has been on this set of issues for the larger part of the past 20 years. So really no surprise. The Saudi contribution is a different story to my eye. A clear written statement of their support for multistakeholder approaches. I don't recall ever seeing this position from them at the ITU before. In fact, they were firmly against it, at least in all the negotiations I participated in during my time in government. Would be curious to hear from others their thoughts on how we got to this. I believe there has been quite a sustained effort by the Internet technical community in this region and perhaps there are some lessons for all us on how we can actually demonstrate the utility of multistakeholder approaches to those that still are skeptical. Also could explain their effort and work to host last year's IGF. Fiona ________________________________ From: Pari Esfandiari via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org><mailto:wsis20@icann.org> Sent: Thursday, February 6, 2025 5:08 AM To: wsis20@icann.org<mailto:wsis20@icann.org> <wsis20@icann.org><mailto:wsis20@icann.org> Subject: [wsis20] Re: RCC Pushes for State-Led Internet Governance Ahead of WSIS+20 Review External Email: Use caution with links and attachments. Dear all, Thank you for the thoughtful and engaging discussion around my recent article on CircleID regarding the RCC’s push for a state-led Internet governance mode<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://circleid.com/posts/rcc-pushes-for-state-led-internet-governance-ahead-of-wsis20-review__;!!IaT_gp1N!2b7n92Tb_yRE7JjkNFqCKq_G5ZqVLVbNmLJ6VlRnw4kkZip0aAaP-ZS48c88lDYHYcnXUmi-4Ftvk28$>l. The diverse perspectives shared here highlight the significance of this issue and the need for continued vigilance in safeguarding the multistakeholder model. Addressing Key Points Raised: 1. Armenia’s Alignment with RCC – Shifting Alliances? * @Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, your observation on Armenia’s stance is indeed intriguing, considering its usual alignment with Western digital policies. However, recent geopolitical tensions and regional dependencies may have influenced this decision. Whether Armenia stands to lose or gain from this move will depend on how other global actors respond. 1. Hidden Agendas and Misleading Framing of Internet Governance * @Wolfgang Kleinwächter, your detailed analysis of Section 3 of the RCC proposal is crucial. While the call for an equitable, neutral, and geopolitically immune governance system is commendable, the assertion that the multistakeholder model fails to meet these requirements is misleading. ICANN’s structure, particularly through the GAC, already embodies sovereign equality and neutrality. The example of ICANN’s refusal to remove Russian domain names during the Ukraine conflict underscores its resilience against political pressures. Moving towards state-controlled governance would, paradoxically, introduce more geopolitical interference rather than eliminate it. 1. Misuse of the “Public Core” Concept * @Joseph Lorenzo Hall and @Tatiana Tropina, your point on the RCC’s misrepresentation of the “public core” concept is well taken. The original GCSC definition was carefully crafted through a multistakeholder process to protect essential Internet infrastructure, whereas the RCC’s broader framing risks enabling greater state intervention. As you rightly pointed out, conflating the “public core” with “critical resources” could open the door to increased governmental control over fundamental Internet operations, which would be detrimental to the open and decentralized nature of the Internet. 1. The RCC Proposal’s Conflict with WSIS Principles * @Dr. Jimson Olufuye, you highlight a fundamental flaw in the RCC proposal—it contradicts the very foundations of WSIS, the Tunis Agenda, and the Global Digital Compact (GDC), all of which emphasize multistakeholder engagement. While the proposal may be “dead on arrival” in some forums, it still serves as a strategic tool for certain governments to justify expanding their control over the Internet. This is why continued advocacy and engagement remain necessary. 1. Diplomatic Engagement and Advocacy Strategy * @Nick Ashton-Hart, @Israel Rosas, and @Remmy Nweke, I fully agree that diplomatic engagement is critical at this juncture. Many diplomats dealing with WSIS+20 and broader digital governance discussions may not have a deep understanding of the multistakeholder model’s nuances. The RCC narrative, if left unchallenged, could appeal to those who prioritize state sovereignty over openness. Strengthening outreach efforts, capacity-building initiatives, and direct engagement with policymakers will be essential to countering this influence. 1. Potential ITU Involvement in IP Addressing and Protocol Governance * @Nick Ashton-Hart, your point about the potential push to shift IP protocol governance to the ITU is an alarming but not surprising development. Given past efforts to exert greater governmental control over core Internet functions, vigilance is needed to ensure that governance remains within the multistakeholder ecosystem, where technical bodies like the IETF and RIRs maintain their crucial roles. 1. The Issue of Undefined Stakeholder Roles * @Mark W. Datysgeld and @Alejandro Pisanty, the issue of fluid stakeholder identities is a valid concern. While the multistakeholder model is designed to be inclusive and adaptable, the lack of clear stakeholder categorization has been exploited by certain actors to challenge its legitimacy. As Alejandro notes, the original WSIS definitions were already a compromise, and while we have made progress in differentiating stakeholder roles, ambiguity remains. Addressing this issue transparently in WSIS+20 discussions could help prevent its use as a pretext for government overreach. 1. Potential Impact on Network Neutrality and Platform Regulation * @Alejandro Pisanty, your warning about threats to network neutrality and regulations like Section 230 is well-founded. If these principles are eroded in democratic contexts, it will provide authoritarian governments with further justification to impose stricter controls on online content and access. Ensuring that digital governance remains rights-based and independent of political agendas must be a key focus moving forward. The Road Ahead The RCC’s proposal is not just a theoretical debate—it is part of a broader geopolitical effort to shift Internet governance towards a more state-controlled model. While it may not succeed in its current form, the underlying ideas will likely persist, making it crucial for the Internet governance community to remain proactive. As many of you pointed out, we must: * Continue engaging with diplomats and policymakers who may not be fully aware of the implications of state-led governance. * Strengthen capacity-building efforts to educate stakeholders on the benefits of multistakeholder governance. * Push back against misrepresentations of concepts like the “public core” to prevent them from being used as pretexts for increased governmental control. * Reinforce the neutrality and resilience of existing governance structures, particularly within ICANN and technical organizations. * Monitor and counteract attempts to shift key Internet governance functions to intergovernmental bodies like the ITU. I appreciate all your insights and contributions to this discussion. Let’s continue this dialogue and work collectively to uphold the principles of an open, secure, and inclusive Internet. Cheers, Pari Esfandiari On Thu, Feb 6, 2025 at 2:28 AM Alejandro Pisanty <apisanty@gmail.com<mailto:apisanty@gmail.com>> wrote: Mark, good point re the definition of stakeholders. You may know that I was in the WGIG (as a few others in this list.) WGIG was the Working Group on Internet Governance created by the first phase of WSIS in 2003, charged with producing a report with a definition of Internet Governance and some proposals to move forward, for the second phase in 2005. The definition of stakeholder groupings was a major issue then and we settled into government, business ("private sector" has different meanings in the US and elsewhere), civil society and the technical community. Unfortunately we couldn't get the final documents to list the technical community as a separate stakeholder, not the least because at the same time it was recognized that the people in the technical community may have their jobs indistinctly in government (say, research laboratories, computing, IT and telecommunications departments in government, standards organizations, even universities if they are public), industry both large and small, and organizations classified as civil society (their techies among others.) Later on the IGF in practice has always listed the technical community separately. The differentiated presence of the technical community is indispensable and it cuts two ways - sometimes it has to say "no,, that thing you are imagining is not technically possible, or it is unreasonable, or it breaks the Internet" and sometimes it says to other parties "we can actually do better than you are thinking and maybe already are" - and sometimes, very often rather, we have to tell people, especiallly in governments, "no, it doesn' work that way" and enter long explanations. Now picking on the second part of your statement: with fuzzy borders, we can say that one thing is the definition of the stakeholder groupings, as above, and another, complementary one, is the assignment of specific individuals to stakeholder groups at a given point in time. Also especially in developing countries we do continue to find that a small number of people fulfill many roles at the same time and thus can be simultaneously ascribed to more than one stakeholder group. Someone working in business (or even owining one) may come to Internet governance with that knowledge but acting through an organization like an NGO oriented to education or development or community networks, and or sit on an advisory committee to a telecoms or competition regulator. We have made progress in the last 20 years towards clearer roles and against conflicts of interest but this fluidity remains and also is very valuable. We should convey this clearly to the skeptics and also know that it is a facetious argument invoked with ill intent while fully knowing the above. Yours, Alejandro Pisanty On Wed, Feb 5, 2025 at 7:53 PM Mark W. Datysgeld via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org<mailto:wsis20@icann.org>> wrote: One idea presented by the document that cannot just be waved away is that "stakeholder roles remain undefined". They do. I understand Pari's relevant answer to that point, but it does not address the fact that stakeholder identity is incredibly liquid. Take any set of IGF applications and you are likely to quickly find the same speaker submitted as 3 different stakeholders in different applications. This is a subject that cannot be put aside in the upcoming discussion and the High-Level Event itself, because it is a weakness of our multistakeholder models that can and will be used against us by governments in their bid for increased control. Regards, On 5 Feb 2025 07:03, Pari Esfandiari via wsis20 wrote: This review of the RCC’s submission in the lead-up to the WSIS+20 examines its call for a state-led approach to Internet governance and its implications for the multistakeholder model. It explores how the RCC frames its arguments around digital sovereignty, interoperability, and regulatory frameworks while assessing the potential impact on global Internet governance structures, innovation, and access. Additionally, the article considers the broader geopolitical context of the submission and its alignment—or divergence—with international efforts to maintain an open, inclusive, and secure digital environment. https://circleid.com/posts/rcc-pushes-for-state-led-internet-governance-ahead-of-wsis20-review<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://circleid.com/posts/rcc-pushes-for-state-led-internet-governance-ahead-of-wsis20-review__;!!IaT_gp1N!2b7n92Tb_yRE7JjkNFqCKq_G5ZqVLVbNmLJ6VlRnw4kkZip0aAaP-ZS48c88lDYHYcnXUmi-4Ftvk28$> Cheers, Pari -- Pari Esfandiari President Global TechnoPolitics Forum<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.technopolitics.org__;!!IaT_gp1N!2b7n9...> Pario <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.parioconsultants.com__;!!IaT_gp1N!2b7...> - Architects of Ideas info@TechnoPolitics.org<mailto:info@technopolitics.org> Linkedin Profile<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.linkedin.com/in/pariesfandiari/__;!!...> Tel: +1-202-735-1415 (Office) : +1-310-435-0888 (Cell) : +44-731-210-4049 (Cell) _______________________________________________ Learn more about the WSIS+20 Outreach Network and review relevant resources: https://go.icann.org/wsis20<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://go.icann.org/wsis20__;!!IaT_gp1N!2b7n92Tb_yRE7JjkNFqCKq_G5ZqVLVbNmLJ6VlRnw4kkZip0aAaP-ZS48c88lDYHYcnXUmi-tFT7mAc$> Read the public archives for this mailing list: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/__;!!IaT_gp1N!2b7n92Tb_yRE7JjkNFqCKq_G5ZqVLVbNmLJ6VlRnw4kkZip0aAaP-ZS48c88lDYHYcnXUmi-l8hd-Ms$> _______________________________________________ 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!2b7n92Tb_yRE7JjkNFqCKq_G5ZqVLVbNmLJ6VlRnw4kkZip0aAaP-ZS48c88lDYHYcnXUmi-EbZ1zAw$>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos__;!!IaT_gp1N!2b7n92Tb_yRE7JjkNFqCKq_G5ZqVLVbNmLJ6VlRnw4kkZip0aAaP-ZS48c88lDYHYcnXUmi-uOLSs2I$>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. -- Mark W. Datysgeld Director at Governance Primer [governanceprimer.com<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://governanceprimer.com__;!!IaT_gp1N!2b7n92...>] Project Lead Developer at ICANNWiki [icannwiki.org<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://icannwiki.org/__;!!IaT_gp1N!2b7n92Tb_yRE...>] _______________________________________________ Learn more about the WSIS+20 Outreach Network and review relevant resources: https://go.icann.org/wsis20<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://go.icann.org/wsis20__;!!IaT_gp1N!2b7n92Tb_yRE7JjkNFqCKq_G5ZqVLVbNmLJ6VlRnw4kkZip0aAaP-ZS48c88lDYHYcnXUmi-tFT7mAc$> Read the public archives for this mailing list: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/__;!!IaT_gp1N!2b7n92Tb_yRE7JjkNFqCKq_G5ZqVLVbNmLJ6VlRnw4kkZip0aAaP-ZS48c88lDYHYcnXUmi-l8hd-Ms$> _______________________________________________ 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!2b7n92Tb_yRE7JjkNFqCKq_G5ZqVLVbNmLJ6VlRnw4kkZip0aAaP-ZS48c88lDYHYcnXUmi-EbZ1zAw$>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos__;!!IaT_gp1N!2b7n92Tb_yRE7JjkNFqCKq_G5ZqVLVbNmLJ6VlRnw4kkZip0aAaP-ZS48c88lDYHYcnXUmi-uOLSs2I$>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Facultad de Química UNAM Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico +525541444475 Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://pisanty.blogspot.com__;!!IaT_gp1N!2b7n92Tb_yRE7JjkNFqCKq_G5ZqVLVbNmLJ6VlRnw4kkZip0aAaP-ZS48c88lDYHYcnXUmi-7emGT4Q$> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty__;!!IaT_gp1N!2b7n92Tb_yRE7JjkNFqCKq_G5ZqVLVbNmLJ6VlRnw4kkZip0aAaP-ZS48c88lDYHYcnXUmi-jFf6zyY$> Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614__;!!IaT_gp1N!2b7n92Tb_yRE7JjkNFqCKq_G5ZqVLVbNmLJ6VlRnw4kkZip0aAaP-ZS48c88lDYHYcnXUmi-BIyjtRw$> Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://twitter.com/apisanty__;!!IaT_gp1N!2b7n92Tb_yRE7JjkNFqCKq_G5ZqVLVbNmLJ6VlRnw4kkZip0aAaP-ZS48c88lDYHYcnXUmi-uTkh9bc$> ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.isoc.org__;!!IaT_gp1N!2b7n92Tb_yRE7JjkNFqCKq_G5ZqVLVbNmLJ6VlRnw4kkZip0aAaP-ZS48c88lDYHYcnXUmi-d4fST6k$> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -- Pari Esfandiari President Global TechnoPolitics Forum<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.technopolitics.org__;!!IaT_gp1N!2b7n9...> Pario <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.parioconsultants.com__;!!IaT_gp1N!2b7...> - Architects of Ideas info@TechnoPolitics.org<mailto:info@technopolitics.org> Linkedin Profile<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.linkedin.com/in/pariesfandiari/__;!!...> Tel: +1-202-735-1415 (Office) : +1-310-435-0888 (Cell) : +44-731-210-4049 (Cell) _______________________________________________ Learn more about the WSIS+20 Outreach Network and review relevant resources: https://go.icann.org/wsis20 Read the public archives for this mailing list: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/ _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. ________________________________ DATA HANDLING For data handling questions, please view our Privacy Policy<https://apcoworldwide.com/privacy-policy/> or contact us at privacy@apcoworldwide.com<https://%20privacy@apcoworldwide.com/> with any inquiries. CONFIDENTIALITY This email may contain material that is confidential, privileged and/or work product for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, reliance or distribution by others or forwarding without express permission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
Dear Judith, I’m quite certain what happened on gender wasn’t horse trading. Not in the least. But we digress from the purposes of this list I think. Nick Ashton-Hart APCO (m) +1 202 779 1072<tel:+12027791072> Book time to meet with me here<https://outlook.office.com/bookwithme/user/ce911a0f9fa543dd9459b3a1392da25e@...> On 2/6/25, 3:12 PM, "Judith Hellerstein via wsis20" <wsis20@icann.org> wrote: HI Nick, What happened in Plenipot was just horse trading. If you are speaking about connectivity and the ITRs, but I get your point. I do think that Saudi Arabia has changed its tone and now supports the multi stakeholder approach or how they interpret it. Yes, I was in Riyadh and yes it was successful because the Saudis realized that if they want to take a lead in AI and other areas they need to change their ways. They need to garner support in different areas. Also do note, in some countries the ITU representatives are often very different than the IGF reps. I also think that the Saudi Government officials with their guests and others who came to the conference in Riyadh and experienced what true multi Stakeholder is had their eyes opened and better understand it. They might also understand what path they might want to take. So yes I think it helped immensely that the IGF was in Riyadh. Saudi Arabia also will host within 10 years the World Cup and others whom I spoke to there indicated that within a few years the total ban against alcohol will also have to disappear. They can read the writing on the walls and want to make sure they are not left out. They are also very active in other institutions and working to change the culture and the way of life as they see this must happen for them to be successful. Just my two cents Best, Judith Sent from my iPad judith@jhellerstein.com Skype ID:JudithHellerstein On Feb 6, 2025, at 2:56 PM, Ashton-Hart, Nick via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> wrote: Speaking personally, when it comes to Saudi Arabia (and other states in that region as well as others), I will believe there is real change happening when I see a change of positions on policy at key conferences like the ITU’s agenda-setting meetings. Speeches are important, many policy directions are signalled in speeches, but in the end what matters is what positions states take on key issues in negotiations themselves. Any of you who were at Plenipot in Romania on the final days in particular knows exactly what I’m talking about. Nick Ashton-Hart APCO (m) +1 202 779 1072<tel:+12027791072> Book time to meet with me here<https://outlook.office.com/bookwithme/user/ce911a0f9fa543dd9459b3a1392da25e@...> On 2/6/25, 1:43 PM, "Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond via wsis20" <wsis20@icann.org> wrote: Dear Fiona, it's the difference between having old school decision makers who have no idea what they are speaking about and new stakeholders selected for their intelligence and knowledge of the topics. The world is changing. Abdullah Alswaha is one of these new leaders. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdullah_Alswaha His speech at IGF was inspirational. https://youtu.be/wGxF6BVp-AM?si=GHQRxtOQn-LYJ7VQ A friend of mine worked with him at CISCO and he was already an inspiring boss. So the message we are sending out is one thing, but there also needs to be an intelligent ear at the other end of the fibre. Kindest regards, Olivier On 06/02/2025 18:27, Fiona Alexander via wsis20 wrote: Hi to all Interesting discussion and thread. And while the actions recommended to make sure that the facts get out there and various negotiators are armed with them seem wise, I personally was more struck by a different contribution to the same meeting. That of Saudi Arabia. I've attached for ease of finding. The RCC, presumably lead by Russia, contribution seems in my experience to be largely consistent with where Russia and that region has been on this set of issues for the larger part of the past 20 years. So really no surprise. The Saudi contribution is a different story to my eye. A clear written statement of their support for multistakeholder approaches. I don't recall ever seeing this position from them at the ITU before. In fact, they were firmly against it, at least in all the negotiations I participated in during my time in government. Would be curious to hear from others their thoughts on how we got to this. I believe there has been quite a sustained effort by the Internet technical community in this region and perhaps there are some lessons for all us on how we can actually demonstrate the utility of multistakeholder approaches to those that still are skeptical. Also could explain their effort and work to host last year's IGF. Fiona ________________________________ From: Pari Esfandiari via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org><mailto:wsis20@icann.org> Sent: Thursday, February 6, 2025 5:08 AM To: wsis20@icann.org<mailto:wsis20@icann.org> <wsis20@icann.org><mailto:wsis20@icann.org> Subject: [wsis20] Re: RCC Pushes for State-Led Internet Governance Ahead of WSIS+20 Review External Email: Use caution with links and attachments. Dear all, Thank you for the thoughtful and engaging discussion around my recent article on CircleID regarding the RCC’s push for a state-led Internet governance mode<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://circleid.com/posts/rcc-pushes-for-state-led-internet-governance-ahead-of-wsis20-review__;!!IaT_gp1N!2b7n92Tb_yRE7JjkNFqCKq_G5ZqVLVbNmLJ6VlRnw4kkZip0aAaP-ZS48c88lDYHYcnXUmi-4Ftvk28$>l. The diverse perspectives shared here highlight the significance of this issue and the need for continued vigilance in safeguarding the multistakeholder model. Addressing Key Points Raised: 1. Armenia’s Alignment with RCC – Shifting Alliances? * @Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, your observation on Armenia’s stance is indeed intriguing, considering its usual alignment with Western digital policies. However, recent geopolitical tensions and regional dependencies may have influenced this decision. Whether Armenia stands to lose or gain from this move will depend on how other global actors respond. 1. Hidden Agendas and Misleading Framing of Internet Governance * @Wolfgang Kleinwächter, your detailed analysis of Section 3 of the RCC proposal is crucial. While the call for an equitable, neutral, and geopolitically immune governance system is commendable, the assertion that the multistakeholder model fails to meet these requirements is misleading. ICANN’s structure, particularly through the GAC, already embodies sovereign equality and neutrality. The example of ICANN’s refusal to remove Russian domain names during the Ukraine conflict underscores its resilience against political pressures. Moving towards state-controlled governance would, paradoxically, introduce more geopolitical interference rather than eliminate it. 1. Misuse of the “Public Core” Concept * @Joseph Lorenzo Hall and @Tatiana Tropina, your point on the RCC’s misrepresentation of the “public core” concept is well taken. The original GCSC definition was carefully crafted through a multistakeholder process to protect essential Internet infrastructure, whereas the RCC’s broader framing risks enabling greater state intervention. As you rightly pointed out, conflating the “public core” with “critical resources” could open the door to increased governmental control over fundamental Internet operations, which would be detrimental to the open and decentralized nature of the Internet. 1. The RCC Proposal’s Conflict with WSIS Principles * @Dr. Jimson Olufuye, you highlight a fundamental flaw in the RCC proposal—it contradicts the very foundations of WSIS, the Tunis Agenda, and the Global Digital Compact (GDC), all of which emphasize multistakeholder engagement. While the proposal may be “dead on arrival” in some forums, it still serves as a strategic tool for certain governments to justify expanding their control over the Internet. This is why continued advocacy and engagement remain necessary. 1. Diplomatic Engagement and Advocacy Strategy * @Nick Ashton-Hart, @Israel Rosas, and @Remmy Nweke, I fully agree that diplomatic engagement is critical at this juncture. Many diplomats dealing with WSIS+20 and broader digital governance discussions may not have a deep understanding of the multistakeholder model’s nuances. The RCC narrative, if left unchallenged, could appeal to those who prioritize state sovereignty over openness. Strengthening outreach efforts, capacity-building initiatives, and direct engagement with policymakers will be essential to countering this influence. 1. Potential ITU Involvement in IP Addressing and Protocol Governance * @Nick Ashton-Hart, your point about the potential push to shift IP protocol governance to the ITU is an alarming but not surprising development. Given past efforts to exert greater governmental control over core Internet functions, vigilance is needed to ensure that governance remains within the multistakeholder ecosystem, where technical bodies like the IETF and RIRs maintain their crucial roles. 1. The Issue of Undefined Stakeholder Roles * @Mark W. Datysgeld and @Alejandro Pisanty, the issue of fluid stakeholder identities is a valid concern. While the multistakeholder model is designed to be inclusive and adaptable, the lack of clear stakeholder categorization has been exploited by certain actors to challenge its legitimacy. As Alejandro notes, the original WSIS definitions were already a compromise, and while we have made progress in differentiating stakeholder roles, ambiguity remains. Addressing this issue transparently in WSIS+20 discussions could help prevent its use as a pretext for government overreach. 1. Potential Impact on Network Neutrality and Platform Regulation * @Alejandro Pisanty, your warning about threats to network neutrality and regulations like Section 230 is well-founded. If these principles are eroded in democratic contexts, it will provide authoritarian governments with further justification to impose stricter controls on online content and access. Ensuring that digital governance remains rights-based and independent of political agendas must be a key focus moving forward. The Road Ahead The RCC’s proposal is not just a theoretical debate—it is part of a broader geopolitical effort to shift Internet governance towards a more state-controlled model. While it may not succeed in its current form, the underlying ideas will likely persist, making it crucial for the Internet governance community to remain proactive. As many of you pointed out, we must: * Continue engaging with diplomats and policymakers who may not be fully aware of the implications of state-led governance. * Strengthen capacity-building efforts to educate stakeholders on the benefits of multistakeholder governance. * Push back against misrepresentations of concepts like the “public core” to prevent them from being used as pretexts for increased governmental control. * Reinforce the neutrality and resilience of existing governance structures, particularly within ICANN and technical organizations. * Monitor and counteract attempts to shift key Internet governance functions to intergovernmental bodies like the ITU. I appreciate all your insights and contributions to this discussion. Let’s continue this dialogue and work collectively to uphold the principles of an open, secure, and inclusive Internet. Cheers, Pari Esfandiari On Thu, Feb 6, 2025 at 2:28 AM Alejandro Pisanty <apisanty@gmail.com<mailto:apisanty@gmail.com>> wrote: Mark, good point re the definition of stakeholders. You may know that I was in the WGIG (as a few others in this list.) WGIG was the Working Group on Internet Governance created by the first phase of WSIS in 2003, charged with producing a report with a definition of Internet Governance and some proposals to move forward, for the second phase in 2005. The definition of stakeholder groupings was a major issue then and we settled into government, business ("private sector" has different meanings in the US and elsewhere), civil society and the technical community. Unfortunately we couldn't get the final documents to list the technical community as a separate stakeholder, not the least because at the same time it was recognized that the people in the technical community may have their jobs indistinctly in government (say, research laboratories, computing, IT and telecommunications departments in government, standards organizations, even universities if they are public), industry both large and small, and organizations classified as civil society (their techies among others.) Later on the IGF in practice has always listed the technical community separately. The differentiated presence of the technical community is indispensable and it cuts two ways - sometimes it has to say "no,, that thing you are imagining is not technically possible, or it is unreasonable, or it breaks the Internet" and sometimes it says to other parties "we can actually do better than you are thinking and maybe already are" - and sometimes, very often rather, we have to tell people, especiallly in governments, "no, it doesn' work that way" and enter long explanations. Now picking on the second part of your statement: with fuzzy borders, we can say that one thing is the definition of the stakeholder groupings, as above, and another, complementary one, is the assignment of specific individuals to stakeholder groups at a given point in time. Also especially in developing countries we do continue to find that a small number of people fulfill many roles at the same time and thus can be simultaneously ascribed to more than one stakeholder group. Someone working in business (or even owining one) may come to Internet governance with that knowledge but acting through an organization like an NGO oriented to education or development or community networks, and or sit on an advisory committee to a telecoms or competition regulator. We have made progress in the last 20 years towards clearer roles and against conflicts of interest but this fluidity remains and also is very valuable. We should convey this clearly to the skeptics and also know that it is a facetious argument invoked with ill intent while fully knowing the above. Yours, Alejandro Pisanty On Wed, Feb 5, 2025 at 7:53 PM Mark W. Datysgeld via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org<mailto:wsis20@icann.org>> wrote: One idea presented by the document that cannot just be waved away is that "stakeholder roles remain undefined". They do. I understand Pari's relevant answer to that point, but it does not address the fact that stakeholder identity is incredibly liquid. Take any set of IGF applications and you are likely to quickly find the same speaker submitted as 3 different stakeholders in different applications. This is a subject that cannot be put aside in the upcoming discussion and the High-Level Event itself, because it is a weakness of our multistakeholder models that can and will be used against us by governments in their bid for increased control. Regards, On 5 Feb 2025 07:03, Pari Esfandiari via wsis20 wrote: This review of the RCC’s submission in the lead-up to the WSIS+20 examines its call for a state-led approach to Internet governance and its implications for the multistakeholder model. It explores how the RCC frames its arguments around digital sovereignty, interoperability, and regulatory frameworks while assessing the potential impact on global Internet governance structures, innovation, and access. Additionally, the article considers the broader geopolitical context of the submission and its alignment—or divergence—with international efforts to maintain an open, inclusive, and secure digital environment. https://circleid.com/posts/rcc-pushes-for-state-led-internet-governance-ahead-of-wsis20-review<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://circleid.com/posts/rcc-pushes-for-state-led-internet-governance-ahead-of-wsis20-review__;!!IaT_gp1N!2b7n92Tb_yRE7JjkNFqCKq_G5ZqVLVbNmLJ6VlRnw4kkZip0aAaP-ZS48c88lDYHYcnXUmi-4Ftvk28$> Cheers, Pari -- Pari Esfandiari President Global TechnoPolitics Forum<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.technopolitics.org__;!!IaT_gp1N!2b7n9...> Pario <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.parioconsultants.com__;!!IaT_gp1N!2b7...> - Architects of Ideas info@TechnoPolitics.org<mailto:info@technopolitics.org> Linkedin Profile<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.linkedin.com/in/pariesfandiari/__;!!...> Tel: +1-202-735-1415 (Office) : +1-310-435-0888 (Cell) : +44-731-210-4049 (Cell) _______________________________________________ Learn more about the WSIS+20 Outreach Network and review relevant resources: https://go.icann.org/wsis20<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://go.icann.org/wsis20__;!!IaT_gp1N!2b7n92Tb_yRE7JjkNFqCKq_G5ZqVLVbNmLJ6VlRnw4kkZip0aAaP-ZS48c88lDYHYcnXUmi-tFT7mAc$> Read the public archives for this mailing list: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/__;!!IaT_gp1N!2b7n92Tb_yRE7JjkNFqCKq_G5ZqVLVbNmLJ6VlRnw4kkZip0aAaP-ZS48c88lDYHYcnXUmi-l8hd-Ms$> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy__;!!IaT_gp1N!2b7n92Tb_yRE7JjkNFqCKq_G5ZqVLVbNmLJ6VlRnw4kkZip0aAaP-ZS48c88lDYHYcnXUmi-EbZ1zAw$>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos__;!!IaT_gp1N!2b7n92Tb_yRE7JjkNFqCKq_G5ZqVLVbNmLJ6VlRnw4kkZip0aAaP-ZS48c88lDYHYcnXUmi-uOLSs2I$>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. -- Mark W. Datysgeld Director at Governance Primer [governanceprimer.com<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://governanceprimer.com__;!!IaT_gp1N!2b7n92...>] Project Lead Developer at ICANNWiki [icannwiki.org<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://icannwiki.org/__;!!IaT_gp1N!2b7n92Tb_yRE...>] _______________________________________________ Learn more about the WSIS+20 Outreach Network and review relevant resources: https://go.icann.org/wsis20<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://go.icann.org/wsis20__;!!IaT_gp1N!2b7n92Tb_yRE7JjkNFqCKq_G5ZqVLVbNmLJ6VlRnw4kkZip0aAaP-ZS48c88lDYHYcnXUmi-tFT7mAc$> Read the public archives for this mailing list: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/__;!!IaT_gp1N!2b7n92Tb_yRE7JjkNFqCKq_G5ZqVLVbNmLJ6VlRnw4kkZip0aAaP-ZS48c88lDYHYcnXUmi-l8hd-Ms$> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy__;!!IaT_gp1N!2b7n92Tb_yRE7JjkNFqCKq_G5ZqVLVbNmLJ6VlRnw4kkZip0aAaP-ZS48c88lDYHYcnXUmi-EbZ1zAw$>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos__;!!IaT_gp1N!2b7n92Tb_yRE7JjkNFqCKq_G5ZqVLVbNmLJ6VlRnw4kkZip0aAaP-ZS48c88lDYHYcnXUmi-uOLSs2I$>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Facultad de Química UNAM Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico +525541444475 Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://pisanty.blogspot.com__;!!IaT_gp1N!2b7n92Tb_yRE7JjkNFqCKq_G5ZqVLVbNmLJ6VlRnw4kkZip0aAaP-ZS48c88lDYHYcnXUmi-7emGT4Q$> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty__;!!IaT_gp1N!2b7n92Tb_yRE7JjkNFqCKq_G5ZqVLVbNmLJ6VlRnw4kkZip0aAaP-ZS48c88lDYHYcnXUmi-jFf6zyY$> Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614__;!!IaT_gp1N!2b7n92Tb_yRE7JjkNFqCKq_G5ZqVLVbNmLJ6VlRnw4kkZip0aAaP-ZS48c88lDYHYcnXUmi-BIyjtRw$> Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://twitter.com/apisanty__;!!IaT_gp1N!2b7n92Tb_yRE7JjkNFqCKq_G5ZqVLVbNmLJ6VlRnw4kkZip0aAaP-ZS48c88lDYHYcnXUmi-uTkh9bc$> ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.isoc.org__;!!IaT_gp1N!2b7n92Tb_yRE7JjkNFqCKq_G5ZqVLVbNmLJ6VlRnw4kkZip0aAaP-ZS48c88lDYHYcnXUmi-d4fST6k$> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -- Pari Esfandiari President Global TechnoPolitics Forum<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.technopolitics.org__;!!IaT_gp1N!2b7n9...> Pario <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.parioconsultants.com__;!!IaT_gp1N!2b7...> - Architects of Ideas info@TechnoPolitics.org<mailto:info@technopolitics.org> Linkedin Profile<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.linkedin.com/in/pariesfandiari/__;!!...> Tel: +1-202-735-1415 (Office) : +1-310-435-0888 (Cell) : +44-731-210-4049 (Cell) _______________________________________________ Learn more about the WSIS+20 Outreach Network and review relevant resources: https://go.icann.org/wsis20 Read the public archives for this mailing list: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/ _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. ________________________________ DATA HANDLING For data handling questions, please view our Privacy Policy<https://apcoworldwide.com/privacy-policy/> or contact us at privacy@apcoworldwide.com<https://%20privacy@apcoworldwide.com/> with any inquiries. CONFIDENTIALITY This email may contain material that is confidential, privileged and/or work product for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, reliance or distribution by others or forwarding without express permission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies. _______________________________________________ Learn more about the WSIS+20 Outreach Network and review relevant resources: https://go.icann.org/wsis20 Read the public archives for this mailing list: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/ _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Dear Colleagues, Thank you all for your contributions to this discussion. It is evident from our exchanges that we are witnessing a significant shift in the Internet governance landscape, particularly with Saudi Arabia. I would like to emphasise that a key driver behind this change has been the sustained engagement and capacity-building efforts led by the technical community, including RIPE NCC, ICANN and ISOC. In recent years, when topics such as “Internet Governance” or “multistakeholderism” were often sidelined, RIPE NCC has been working closely with the Saudi Arabia and has seen tangible progress through collaborative initiatives. These include signing a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the Saudi regulator, which has paved the way for a more open and productive dialogue; organising RIPE NCC government roundtable that foster direct engagement between the Arab governments and the technical community; playing an integral role in the Saudi National IPv6 Task Force, which has helped position Saudi Arabia as the 5th globally in IPv6 adoption; organising MENOG in Riyadh, a vital platform for regional dialogue and knowledge-sharing that further solidifies multistakeholder engagement across the Middle East, North Africa, and Gulf regions. Additionally, we co-organised the first-ever joint session between the Saudi government and the technical community (RIPE NCC) at IGF2024 in Riyadh setting a new standard for inclusive dialogue. Furthermore, a coordination meeting has been agreed upon between the Saudi regulator and the technical community ahead of WSIS+20. This meeting will offer an excellent opportunity to share the technical community position and support Saudi efforts for greater multistakeholder engagement. I believe the lessons learned from our work with Saudi Arabia and with other Arab countries, such as the United Arab Emirates, can serve as a blueprint for engaging stakeholders in other regions. Best regards, Chafic Chaya On Fri, 7 Feb 2025 at 00:19, Ashton-Hart, Nick via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Judith, I’m quite certain what happened on gender wasn’t horse trading. Not in the least.
But we digress from the purposes of this list I think.
*Nick Ashton-Hart* *APCO* (m) +1 202 779 1072 <+12027791072>
Book time to meet with me here <https://outlook.office.com/bookwithme/user/ce911a0f9fa543dd9459b3a1392da25e@...>
On 2/6/25, 3:12 PM, "Judith Hellerstein via wsis20" <wsis20@icann.org> wrote:
HI Nick,
What happened in Plenipot was just horse trading. If you are speaking about connectivity and the ITRs, but I get your point. I do think that Saudi Arabia has changed its tone and now supports the multi stakeholder approach or how they interpret it. Yes, I was in Riyadh and yes it was successful because the Saudis realized that if they want to take a lead in AI and other areas they need to change their ways. They need to garner support in different areas. Also do note, in some countries the ITU representatives are often very different than the IGF reps.
I also think that the Saudi Government officials with their guests and others who came to the conference in Riyadh and experienced what true multi Stakeholder is had their eyes opened and better understand it. They might also understand what path they might want to take. So yes I think it helped immensely that the IGF was in Riyadh.
Saudi Arabia also will host within 10 years the World Cup and others whom I spoke to there indicated that within a few years the total ban against alcohol will also have to disappear. They can read the writing on the walls and want to make sure they are not left out.
They are also very active in other institutions and working to change the culture and the way of life as they see this must happen for them to be successful.
Just my two cents
Best,
Judith
Sent from my iPad
judith@jhellerstein.com
Skype ID:JudithHellerstein
On Feb 6, 2025, at 2:56 PM, Ashton-Hart, Nick via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> wrote:
Speaking personally, when it comes to Saudi Arabia (and other states in that region as well as others), I will believe there is real change happening when I see a change of positions on policy at key conferences like the ITU’s agenda-setting meetings. Speeches are important, many policy directions are signalled in speeches, but in the end what matters is what positions states take on key issues in negotiations themselves.
Any of you who were at Plenipot in Romania on the final days in particular knows exactly what I’m talking about.
*Nick Ashton-Hart* *APCO* (m) +1 202 779 1072 <+12027791072>
Book time to meet with me here <https://outlook.office.com/bookwithme/user/ce911a0f9fa543dd9459b3a1392da25e@...>
On 2/6/25, 1:43 PM, "Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond via wsis20" < wsis20@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Fiona,
it's the difference between having old school decision makers who have no idea what they are speaking about and new stakeholders selected for their intelligence and knowledge of the topics.
The world is changing.
Abdullah Alswaha is one of these new leaders. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdullah_Alswaha
His speech at IGF was inspirational. https://youtu.be/wGxF6BVp-AM?si=GHQRxtOQn-LYJ7VQ
A friend of mine worked with him at CISCO and he was already an inspiring boss.
So the message we are sending out is one thing, but there also needs to be an intelligent ear at the other end of the fibre.
Kindest regards,
Olivier
On 06/02/2025 18:27, Fiona Alexander via wsis20 wrote:
Hi to all
Interesting discussion and thread. And while the actions recommended to make sure that the facts get out there and various negotiators are armed with them seem wise, I personally was more struck by a different contribution to the same meeting. That of Saudi Arabia. I've attached for ease of finding.
The RCC, presumably lead by Russia, contribution seems in my experience to be largely consistent with where Russia and that region has been on this set of issues for the larger part of the past 20 years. So really no surprise.
The Saudi contribution is a different story to my eye. A clear written statement of their support for multistakeholder approaches. I don't recall ever seeing this position from them at the ITU before. In fact, they were firmly against it, at least in all the negotiations I participated in during my time in government.
Would be curious to hear from others their thoughts on how we got to this. I believe there has been quite a sustained effort by the Internet technical community in this region and perhaps there are some lessons for all us on how we can actually demonstrate the utility of multistakeholder approaches to those that still are skeptical. Also could explain their effort and work to host last year's IGF.
Fiona
------------------------------
*From:* Pari Esfandiari via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> <wsis20@icann.org> *Sent:* Thursday, February 6, 2025 5:08 AM *To:* wsis20@icann.org <wsis20@icann.org> <wsis20@icann.org> *Subject:* [wsis20] Re: RCC Pushes for State-Led Internet Governance Ahead of WSIS+20 Review
*External Email:* Use caution with links and attachments.
Dear all,
Thank you for the thoughtful and engaging discussion around my recent article on CircleID regarding the RCC’s push for a state-led Internet governance mode <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://circleid.com/posts/rcc-pushes-for-state-led-internet-governance-ahead-of-wsis20-review__;!!IaT_gp1N!2b7n92Tb_yRE7JjkNFqCKq_G5ZqVLVbNmLJ6VlRnw4kkZip0aAaP-ZS48c88lDYHYcnXUmi-4Ftvk28$>l. The diverse perspectives shared here highlight the significance of this issue and the need for continued vigilance in safeguarding the multistakeholder model. Addressing Key Points Raised:
1. *Armenia’s Alignment with RCC – Shifting Alliances?*
- @Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, your observation on Armenia’s stance is indeed intriguing, considering its usual alignment with Western digital policies. However, recent geopolitical tensions and regional dependencies may have influenced this decision. Whether Armenia stands to lose or gain from this move will depend on how other global actors respond.
2. *Hidden Agendas and Misleading Framing of Internet Governance*
- @Wolfgang Kleinwächter, your detailed analysis of Section 3 of the RCC proposal is crucial. While the call for an equitable, neutral, and geopolitically immune governance system is commendable, the assertion that the multistakeholder model fails to meet these requirements is misleading. ICANN’s structure, particularly through the GAC, already embodies sovereign equality and neutrality. The example of ICANN’s refusal to remove Russian domain names during the Ukraine conflict underscores its resilience against political pressures. Moving towards state-controlled governance would, paradoxically, introduce more geopolitical interference rather than eliminate it.
3. *Misuse of the “Public Core” Concept*
- @Joseph Lorenzo Hall and @Tatiana Tropina, your point on the RCC’s misrepresentation of the “public core” concept is well taken. The original GCSC definition was carefully crafted through a multistakeholder process to protect essential Internet infrastructure, whereas the RCC’s broader framing risks enabling greater state intervention. As you rightly pointed out, conflating the “public core” with “critical resources” could open the door to increased governmental control over fundamental Internet operations, which would be detrimental to the open and decentralized nature of the Internet.
4. *The RCC Proposal’s Conflict with WSIS Principles*
- @Dr. Jimson Olufuye, you highlight a fundamental flaw in the RCC proposal—it contradicts the very foundations of WSIS, the Tunis Agenda, and the Global Digital Compact (GDC), all of which emphasize multistakeholder engagement. While the proposal may be “dead on arrival” in some forums, it still serves as a strategic tool for certain governments to justify expanding their control over the Internet. This is why continued advocacy and engagement remain necessary.
5. *Diplomatic Engagement and Advocacy Strategy*
- @Nick Ashton-Hart, @Israel Rosas, and @Remmy Nweke, I fully agree that diplomatic engagement is critical at this juncture. Many diplomats dealing with WSIS+20 and broader digital governance discussions may not have a deep understanding of the multistakeholder model’s nuances. The RCC narrative, if left unchallenged, could appeal to those who prioritize state sovereignty over openness. Strengthening outreach efforts, capacity-building initiatives, and direct engagement with policymakers will be essential to countering this influence.
6. *Potential ITU Involvement in IP Addressing and Protocol Governance*
- @Nick Ashton-Hart, your point about the potential push to shift IP protocol governance to the ITU is an alarming but not surprising development. Given past efforts to exert greater governmental control over core Internet functions, vigilance is needed to ensure that governance remains within the multistakeholder ecosystem, where technical bodies like the IETF and RIRs maintain their crucial roles.
7. *The Issue of Undefined Stakeholder Roles*
- @Mark W. Datysgeld and @Alejandro Pisanty, the issue of fluid stakeholder identities is a valid concern. While the multistakeholder model is designed to be inclusive and adaptable, the lack of clear stakeholder categorization has been exploited by certain actors to challenge its legitimacy. As Alejandro notes, the original WSIS definitions were already a compromise, and while we have made progress in differentiating stakeholder roles, ambiguity remains. Addressing this issue transparently in WSIS+20 discussions could help prevent its use as a pretext for government overreach.
8. *Potential Impact on Network Neutrality and Platform Regulation*
- @Alejandro Pisanty, your warning about threats to network neutrality and regulations like Section 230 is well-founded. If these principles are eroded in democratic contexts, it will provide authoritarian governments with further justification to impose stricter controls on online content and access. Ensuring that digital governance remains rights-based and independent of political agendas must be a key focus moving forward.
The Road Ahead
The RCC’s proposal is not just a theoretical debate—it is part of a broader geopolitical effort to shift Internet governance towards a more state-controlled model. While it may not succeed in its current form, the underlying ideas will likely persist, making it crucial for the Internet governance community to remain proactive.
As many of you pointed out, we must:
- Continue engaging with diplomats and policymakers who may not be fully aware of the implications of state-led governance. - Strengthen capacity-building efforts to educate stakeholders on the benefits of multistakeholder governance. - Push back against misrepresentations of concepts like the “public core” to prevent them from being used as pretexts for increased governmental control. - Reinforce the neutrality and resilience of existing governance structures, particularly within ICANN and technical organizations. - Monitor and counteract attempts to shift key Internet governance functions to intergovernmental bodies like the ITU.
I appreciate all your insights and contributions to this discussion. Let’s continue this dialogue and work collectively to uphold the principles of an open, secure, and inclusive Internet.
Cheers, *Pari Esfandiari*
On Thu, Feb 6, 2025 at 2:28 AM Alejandro Pisanty <apisanty@gmail.com> wrote:
Mark,
good point re the definition of stakeholders. You may know that I was in the WGIG (as a few others in this list.) WGIG was the Working Group on Internet Governance created by the first phase of WSIS in 2003, charged with producing a report with a definition of Internet Governance and some proposals to move forward, for the second phase in 2005. The definition of stakeholder groupings was a major issue then and we settled into government, business ("private sector" has different meanings in the US and elsewhere), civil society and the technical community. Unfortunately we couldn't get the final documents to list the technical community as a separate stakeholder, not the least because at the same time it was recognized that the people in the technical community may have their jobs indistinctly in government (say, research laboratories, computing, IT and telecommunications departments in government, standards organizations, even universities if they are public), industry both large and small, and organizations classified as civil society (their techies among others.) Later on the IGF in practice has always listed the technical community separately. The differentiated presence of the technical community is indispensable and it cuts two ways - sometimes it has to say "no,, that thing you are imagining is not technically possible, or it is unreasonable, or it breaks the Internet" and sometimes it says to other parties "we can actually do better than you are thinking and maybe already are" - and sometimes, very often rather, we have to tell people, especiallly in governments, "no, it doesn' work that way" and enter long explanations.
Now picking on the second part of your statement: with fuzzy borders, we can say that one thing is the definition of the stakeholder groupings, as above, and another, complementary one, is the assignment of specific individuals to stakeholder groups at a given point in time. Also especially in developing countries we do continue to find that a small number of people fulfill many roles at the same time and thus can be simultaneously ascribed to more than one stakeholder group. Someone working in business (or even owining one) may come to Internet governance with that knowledge but acting through an organization like an NGO oriented to education or development or community networks, and or sit on an advisory committee to a telecoms or competition regulator. We have made progress in the last 20 years towards clearer roles and against conflicts of interest but this fluidity remains and also is very valuable.
We should convey this clearly to the skeptics and also know that it is a facetious argument invoked with ill intent while fully knowing the above.
Yours,
Alejandro Pisanty
On Wed, Feb 5, 2025 at 7:53 PM Mark W. Datysgeld via wsis20 < wsis20@icann.org> wrote:
One idea presented by the document that cannot just be waved away is that "stakeholder roles remain undefined". They do. I understand Pari's relevant answer to that point, but it does not address the fact that stakeholder identity is incredibly liquid. Take any set of IGF applications and you are likely to quickly find the same speaker submitted as 3 different stakeholders in different applications.
This is a subject that cannot be put aside in the upcoming discussion and the High-Level Event itself, because it is a weakness of our multistakeholder models that can and will be used against us by governments in their bid for increased control.
Regards,
On 5 Feb 2025 07:03, Pari Esfandiari via wsis20 wrote:
This review of the RCC’s submission in the lead-up to the WSIS+20 examines its call for a state-led approach to Internet governance and its implications for the multistakeholder model. It explores how the RCC frames its arguments around digital sovereignty, interoperability, and regulatory frameworks while assessing the potential impact on global Internet governance structures, innovation, and access. Additionally, the article considers the broader geopolitical context of the submission and its alignment—or divergence—with international efforts to maintain an open, inclusive, and secure digital environment.
https://circleid.com/posts/rcc-pushes-for-state-led-internet-governance-ahea... <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://circleid.com/posts/rcc-pushes-for-state-...>
Cheers,
Pari
--
Pari Esfandiari
President
*Global TechnoPolitics Forum <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.technopolitics.org__;!!IaT_gp1N!2b7n9...> *
*Pario <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.parioconsultants.com__;!!IaT_gp1N!2b7n92Tb_yRE7JjkNFqCKq_G5ZqVLVbNmLJ6VlRnw4kkZip0aAaP-ZS48c88lDYHYcnXUmi-xP8p8ow$>- Architects of Ideas*
info@TechnoPolitics.org <info@technopolitics.org>
*Linkedin Profile <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.linkedin.com/in/pariesfandiari/__;!!IaT_gp1N!2b7n92Tb_yRE7JjkNFqCKq_G5ZqVLVbNmLJ6VlRnw4kkZip0aAaP-ZS48c88lDYHYcnXUmi-Bt4JaUE$>*
Tel: +1-202*-**735-1415* (Office)
: +1-310-435-0888 (Cell)
: +44-731-210-4049 (Cell)
_______________________________________________
Learn more about the WSIS+20 Outreach Network and review relevant resources: https://go.icann.org/wsis20 <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://go.icann.org/wsis20__;!!IaT_gp1N!2b7n92T...>
Read the public archives for this mailing list: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/__;!!IaT_g...>
_______________________________________________
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_gp1...>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos__;!!IaT_gp1N!2...>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
-- Mark W. Datysgeld Director at Governance Primer [governanceprimer.com <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://governanceprimer.com__;!!IaT_gp1N!2b7n92...> ] Project Lead Developer at ICANNWiki [icannwiki.org <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://icannwiki.org/__;!!IaT_gp1N!2b7n92Tb_yRE...> ]
_______________________________________________
Learn more about the WSIS+20 Outreach Network and review relevant resources: https://go.icann.org/wsis20 <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://go.icann.org/wsis20__;!!IaT_gp1N!2b7n92T...>
Read the public archives for this mailing list: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/__;!!IaT_g...>
_______________________________________________ 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_gp1...>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos__;!!IaT_gp1N!2...>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
--
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Facultad de Química UNAM Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico +525541444475 Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://pisanty.blogspot.com__;!!IaT_gp1N!2b7n92T...> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty__;!!IaT_gp1N!...> Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614...> Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://twitter.com/apisanty__;!!IaT_gp1N!2b7n92T...> ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.isoc.org__;!!IaT_gp1N!2b7n92Tb_yRE7Jj...> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
--
Pari Esfandiari
President
*Global TechnoPolitics Forum <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.technopolitics.org__;!!IaT_gp1N!2b7n9...> *
*Pario <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.parioconsultants.com__;!!IaT_gp1N!2b7n92Tb_yRE7JjkNFqCKq_G5ZqVLVbNmLJ6VlRnw4kkZip0aAaP-ZS48c88lDYHYcnXUmi-xP8p8ow$>- Architects of Ideas*
info@TechnoPolitics.org <info@technopolitics.org>
*Linkedin Profile <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.linkedin.com/in/pariesfandiari/__;!!IaT_gp1N!2b7n92Tb_yRE7JjkNFqCKq_G5ZqVLVbNmLJ6VlRnw4kkZip0aAaP-ZS48c88lDYHYcnXUmi-Bt4JaUE$>*
Tel: +1-202*-**735-1415* (Office)
: +1-310-435-0888 (Cell)
: +44-731-210-4049 (Cell)
_______________________________________________
Learn more about the WSIS+20 Outreach Network and review relevant resources: https://go.icann.org/wsis20
Read the public archives for this mailing list: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/
_______________________________________________
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
------------------------------
DATA HANDLING
For data handling questions, please view our Privacy Policy <https://apcoworldwide.com/privacy-policy/> or contact us at privacy@apcoworldwide.com <https://%20privacy@apcoworldwide.com/> with any inquiries.
CONFIDENTIALITY
This email may contain material that is confidential, privileged and/or work product for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, reliance or distribution by others or forwarding without express permission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
_______________________________________________
Learn more about the WSIS+20 Outreach Network and review relevant resources: https://go.icann.org/wsis20
Read the public archives for this mailing list: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________
Learn more about the WSIS+20 Outreach Network and review relevant resources: https://go.icann.org/wsis20
Read the public archives for this mailing list: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
@ Saudi Arabia: We should also recognize the DCO, initiated by SA, with a strong woman Deemah AlYahya as Secretary General. https://dco.org/governance/ w
Chafic Chaya via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> hat am 07.02.2025 13:41 CET geschrieben:
Dear Colleagues,
Thank you all for your contributions to this discussion. It is evident from our exchanges that we are witnessing a significant shift in the Internet governance landscape, particularly with Saudi Arabia.
I would like to emphasise that a key driver behind this change has been the sustained engagement and capacity-building efforts led by the technical community, including RIPE NCC, ICANN and ISOC. In recent years, when topics such as “Internet Governance” or “multistakeholderism” were often sidelined, RIPE NCC has been working closely with the Saudi Arabia and has seen tangible progress through collaborative initiatives.
These include signing a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the Saudi regulator, which has paved the way for a more open and productive dialogue; organising RIPE NCC government roundtable that foster direct engagement between the Arab governments and the technical community; playing an integral role in the Saudi National IPv6 Task Force, which has helped position Saudi Arabia as the 5th globally in IPv6 adoption; organising MENOG in Riyadh, a vital platform for regional dialogue and knowledge-sharing that further solidifies multistakeholder engagement across the Middle East, North Africa, and Gulf regions. Additionally, we co-organised the first-ever joint session between the Saudi government and the technical community (RIPE NCC) at IGF2024 in Riyadh setting a new standard for inclusive dialogue.
Furthermore, a coordination meeting has been agreed upon between the Saudi regulator and the technical community ahead of WSIS+20. This meeting will offer an excellent opportunity to share the technical community position and support Saudi efforts for greater multistakeholder engagement.
I believe the lessons learned from our work with Saudi Arabia and with other Arab countries, such as the United Arab Emirates, can serve as a blueprint for engaging stakeholders in other regions.
Best regards,
Chafic Chaya
On Fri, 7 Feb 2025 at 00:19, Ashton-Hart, Nick via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org mailto:wsis20@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Judith, I’m quite certain what happened on gender wasn’t horse trading. Not in the least.
But we digress from the purposes of this list I think.
Nick Ashton-Hart APCO (m) +1 202 779 1072 tel:+12027791072
Book time to meet with me here https://outlook.office.com/bookwithme/user/ce911a0f9fa543dd9459b3a1392da25e@...
On 2/6/25, 3:12 PM, "Judith Hellerstein via wsis20" <wsis20@icann.org mailto:wsis20@icann.org> wrote:
HI Nick,
What happened in Plenipot was just horse trading. If you are speaking about connectivity and the ITRs, but I get your point. I do think that Saudi Arabia has changed its tone and now supports the multi stakeholder approach or how they interpret it. Yes, I was in Riyadh and yes it was successful because the Saudis realized that if they want to take a lead in AI and other areas they need to change their ways. They need to garner support in different areas. Also do note, in some countries the ITU representatives are often very different than the IGF reps.
I also think that the Saudi Government officials with their guests and others who came to the conference in Riyadh and experienced what true multi Stakeholder is had their eyes opened and better understand it. They might also understand what path they might want to take. So yes I think it helped immensely that the IGF was in Riyadh.
Saudi Arabia also will host within 10 years the World Cup and others whom I spoke to there indicated that within a few years the total ban against alcohol will also have to disappear. They can read the writing on the walls and want to make sure they are not left out.
They are also very active in other institutions and working to change the culture and the way of life as they see this must happen for them to be successful.
Just my two cents
Best,
Judith
Sent from my iPad
judith@jhellerstein.com mailto:judith@jhellerstein.com
Skype ID:JudithHellerstein
On Feb 6, 2025, at 2:56 PM, Ashton-Hart, Nick via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org mailto:wsis20@icann.org> wrote:
Speaking personally, when it comes to Saudi Arabia (and other states in that region as well as others), I will believe there is real change happening when I see a change of positions on policy at key conferences like the ITU’s agenda-setting meetings. Speeches are important, many policy directions are signalled in speeches, but in the end what matters is what positions states take on key issues in negotiations themselves.
Any of you who were at Plenipot in Romania on the final days in particular knows exactly what I’m talking about.
Nick Ashton-Hart APCO (m) +1 202 779 1072 tel:+12027791072
Book time to meet with me here https://outlook.office.com/bookwithme/user/ce911a0f9fa543dd9459b3a1392da25e@...
On 2/6/25, 1:43 PM, "Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond via wsis20" <wsis20@icann.org mailto:wsis20@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Fiona,
it's the difference between having old school decision makers who have no idea what they are speaking about and new stakeholders selected for their intelligence and knowledge of the topics.
The world is changing.
Abdullah Alswaha is one of these new leaders. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdullah_Alswaha
His speech at IGF was inspirational. https://youtu.be/wGxF6BVp-AM?si=GHQRxtOQn-LYJ7VQ
A friend of mine worked with him at CISCO and he was already an inspiring boss.
So the message we are sending out is one thing, but there also needs to be an intelligent ear at the other end of the fibre.
Kindest regards,
Olivier
On 06/02/2025 18:27, Fiona Alexander via wsis20 wrote:
Hi to all
Interesting discussion and thread. And while the actions recommended to make sure that the facts get out there and various negotiators are armed with them seem wise, I personally was more struck by a different contribution to the same meeting. That of Saudi Arabia. I've attached for ease of finding.
The RCC, presumably lead by Russia, contribution seems in my experience to be largely consistent with where Russia and that region has been on this set of issues for the larger part of the past 20 years. So really no surprise.
The Saudi contribution is a different story to my eye. A clear written statement of their support for multistakeholder approaches. I don't recall ever seeing this position from them at the ITU before. In fact, they were firmly against it, at least in all the negotiations I participated in during my time in government.
Would be curious to hear from others their thoughts on how we got to this. I believe there has been quite a sustained effort by the Internet technical community in this region and perhaps there are some lessons for all us on how we can actually demonstrate the utility of multistakeholder approaches to those that still are skeptical. Also could explain their effort and work to host last year's IGF.
Fiona
---------------------------------------------
From: Pari Esfandiari via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> mailto:wsis20@icann.org Sent: Thursday, February 6, 2025 5:08 AM To: wsis20@icann.org mailto:wsis20@icann.org <wsis20@icann.org> mailto:wsis20@icann.org Subject: [wsis20] Re: RCC Pushes for State-Led Internet Governance Ahead of WSIS+20 Review
External Email: Use caution with links and attachments.
Dear all,
Thank you for the thoughtful and engaging discussion around my recent article on CircleID regarding the RCC’s push for a state-led Internet governance mode https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://circleid.com/posts/rcc-pushes-for-state-.... The diverse perspectives shared here highlight the significance of this issue and the need for continued vigilance in safeguarding the multistakeholder model.
Addressing Key Points Raised:
1. Armenia’s Alignment with RCC – Shifting Alliances? o @Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, your observation on Armenia’s stance is indeed intriguing, considering its usual alignment with Western digital policies. However, recent geopolitical tensions and regional dependencies may have influenced this decision. Whether Armenia stands to lose or gain from this move will depend on how other global actors respond. 1. Hidden Agendas and Misleading Framing of Internet Governance o @Wolfgang Kleinwächter, your detailed analysis of Section 3 of the RCC proposal is crucial. While the call for an equitable, neutral, and geopolitically immune governance system is commendable, the assertion that the multistakeholder model fails to meet these requirements is misleading. ICANN’s structure, particularly through the GAC, already embodies sovereign equality and neutrality. The example of ICANN’s refusal to remove Russian domain names during the Ukraine conflict underscores its resilience against political pressures. Moving towards state-controlled governance would, paradoxically, introduce more geopolitical interference rather than eliminate it. 1. Misuse of the “Public Core” Concept o @Joseph Lorenzo Hall and @Tatiana Tropina, your point on the RCC’s misrepresentation of the “public core” concept is well taken. The original GCSC definition was carefully crafted through a multistakeholder process to protect essential Internet infrastructure, whereas the RCC’s broader framing risks enabling greater state intervention. As you rightly pointed out, conflating the “public core” with “critical resources” could open the door to increased governmental control over fundamental Internet operations, which would be detrimental to the open and decentralized nature of the Internet. 1. The RCC Proposal’s Conflict with WSIS Principles o @Dr. Jimson Olufuye, you highlight a fundamental flaw in the RCC proposal—it contradicts the very foundations of WSIS, the Tunis Agenda, and the Global Digital Compact (GDC), all of which emphasize multistakeholder engagement. While the proposal may be “dead on arrival” in some forums, it still serves as a strategic tool for certain governments to justify expanding their control over the Internet. This is why continued advocacy and engagement remain necessary. 1. Diplomatic Engagement and Advocacy Strategy o @Nick Ashton-Hart, @Israel Rosas, and @Remmy Nweke, I fully agree that diplomatic engagement is critical at this juncture. Many diplomats dealing with WSIS+20 and broader digital governance discussions may not have a deep understanding of the multistakeholder model’s nuances. The RCC narrative, if left unchallenged, could appeal to those who prioritize state sovereignty over openness. Strengthening outreach efforts, capacity-building initiatives, and direct engagement with policymakers will be essential to countering this influence. 1. Potential ITU Involvement in IP Addressing and Protocol Governance o @Nick Ashton-Hart, your point about the potential push to shift IP protocol governance to the ITU is an alarming but not surprising development. Given past efforts to exert greater governmental control over core Internet functions, vigilance is needed to ensure that governance remains within the multistakeholder ecosystem, where technical bodies like the IETF and RIRs maintain their crucial roles. 1. The Issue of Undefined Stakeholder Roles o @Mark W. Datysgeld and @Alejandro Pisanty, the issue of fluid stakeholder identities is a valid concern. While the multistakeholder model is designed to be inclusive and adaptable, the lack of clear stakeholder categorization has been exploited by certain actors to challenge its legitimacy. As Alejandro notes, the original WSIS definitions were already a compromise, and while we have made progress in differentiating stakeholder roles, ambiguity remains. Addressing this issue transparently in WSIS+20 discussions could help prevent its use as a pretext for government overreach. 1. Potential Impact on Network Neutrality and Platform Regulation o @Alejandro Pisanty, your warning about threats to network neutrality and regulations like Section 230 is well-founded. If these principles are eroded in democratic contexts, it will provide authoritarian governments with further justification to impose stricter controls on online content and access. Ensuring that digital governance remains rights-based and independent of political agendas must be a key focus moving forward.
The Road Ahead
The RCC’s proposal is not just a theoretical debate—it is part of a broader geopolitical effort to shift Internet governance towards a more state-controlled model. While it may not succeed in its current form, the underlying ideas will likely persist, making it crucial for the Internet governance community to remain proactive.
As many of you pointed out, we must:
* Continue engaging with diplomats and policymakers who may not be fully aware of the implications of state-led governance. * Strengthen capacity-building efforts to educate stakeholders on the benefits of multistakeholder governance. * Push back against misrepresentations of concepts like the “public core” to prevent them from being used as pretexts for increased governmental control. * Reinforce the neutrality and resilience of existing governance structures, particularly within ICANN and technical organizations. * Monitor and counteract attempts to shift key Internet governance functions to intergovernmental bodies like the ITU.
I appreciate all your insights and contributions to this discussion. Let’s continue this dialogue and work collectively to uphold the principles of an open, secure, and inclusive Internet.
Cheers, Pari Esfandiari
On Thu, Feb 6, 2025 at 2:28 AM Alejandro Pisanty <apisanty@gmail.com mailto:apisanty@gmail.com> wrote:
Mark,
good point re the definition of stakeholders. You may know that I was in the WGIG (as a few others in this list.) WGIG was the Working Group on Internet Governance created by the first phase of WSIS in 2003, charged with producing a report with a definition of Internet Governance and some proposals to move forward, for the second phase in 2005. The definition of stakeholder groupings was a major issue then and we settled into government, business ("private sector" has different meanings in the US and elsewhere), civil society and the technical community. Unfortunately we couldn't get the final documents to list the technical community as a separate stakeholder, not the least because at the same time it was recognized that the people in the technical community may have their jobs indistinctly in government (say, research laboratories, computing, IT and telecommunications departments in government, standards organizations, even universities if they are public), industry both large and small, and organizations classified as civil society (their techies among others.) Later on the IGF in practice has always listed the technical community separately. The differentiated presence of the technical community is indispensable and it cuts two ways - sometimes it has to say "no,, that thing you are imagining is not technically possible, or it is unreasonable, or it breaks the Internet" and sometimes it says to other parties "we can actually do better than you are thinking and maybe already are" - and sometimes, very often rather, we have to tell people, especiallly in governments, "no, it doesn' work that way" and enter long explanations.
Now picking on the second part of your statement: with fuzzy borders, we can say that one thing is the definition of the stakeholder groupings, as above, and another, complementary one, is the assignment of specific individuals to stakeholder groups at a given point in time. Also especially in developing countries we do continue to find that a small number of people fulfill many roles at the same time and thus can be simultaneously ascribed to more than one stakeholder group. Someone working in business (or even owining one) may come to Internet governance with that knowledge but acting through an organization like an NGO oriented to education or development or community networks, and or sit on an advisory committee to a telecoms or competition regulator. We have made progress in the last 20 years towards clearer roles and against conflicts of interest but this fluidity remains and also is very valuable.
We should convey this clearly to the skeptics and also know that it is a facetious argument invoked with ill intent while fully knowing the above.
Yours,
Alejandro Pisanty
On Wed, Feb 5, 2025 at 7:53 PM Mark W. Datysgeld via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org mailto:wsis20@icann.org> wrote:
One idea presented by the document that cannot just be waved away is that "stakeholder roles remain undefined". They do. I understand Pari's relevant answer to that point, but it does not address the fact that stakeholder identity is incredibly liquid. Take any set of IGF applications and you are likely to quickly find the same speaker submitted as 3 different stakeholders in different applications.
This is a subject that cannot be put aside in the upcoming discussion and the High-Level Event itself, because it is a weakness of our multistakeholder models that can and will be used against us by governments in their bid for increased control.
Regards,
On 5 Feb 2025 07:03, Pari Esfandiari via wsis20 wrote:
> > This review of the RCC’s submission in the lead-up to the WSIS+20 examines its call for a state-led approach to Internet governance and its implications for the multistakeholder model. It explores how the RCC frames its arguments around digital sovereignty, interoperability, and regulatory frameworks while assessing the potential impact on global Internet governance structures, innovation, and access. Additionally, the article considers the broader geopolitical context of the submission and its alignment—or divergence—with international efforts to maintain an open, inclusive, and secure digital environment. > > https://circleid.com/posts/rcc-pushes-for-state-led-internet-governance-ahea... https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://circleid.com/posts/rcc-pushes-for-state-... > > Cheers, > > Pari > > > > > > -- > > Pari Esfandiari > > President > > Global TechnoPolitics Forum https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.technopolitics.org__;!!IaT_gp1N!2b7n9... > > Pario https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.parioconsultants.com__;!!IaT_gp1N!2b7... - Architects of Ideas > > info@TechnoPolitics.org mailto:info@technopolitics.org > > Linkedin Profile https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.linkedin.com/in/pariesfandiari/__;!!... > > Tel: +1-202-735-1415 (Office) > > : +1-310-435-0888 (Cell) > > : +44-731-210-4049 (Cell) > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > Learn more about the WSIS+20 Outreach Network and review relevant resources: https://go.icann.org/wsis20 https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://go.icann.org/wsis20__;!!IaT_gp1N!2b7n92T... > > > > Read the public archives for this mailing list: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/ https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/__;!!IaT_g... > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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_gp1...) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos__;!!IaT_gp1N!2...). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. >
-- Mark W. Datysgeld Director at Governance Primer [governanceprimer.com https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://governanceprimer.com__;!!IaT_gp1N!2b7n92...] Project Lead Developer at ICANNWiki [icannwiki.org https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://icannwiki.org/__;!!IaT_gp1N!2b7n92Tb_yRE...]
_______________________________________________
Learn more about the WSIS+20 Outreach Network and review relevant resources: https://go.icann.org/wsis20 https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://go.icann.org/wsis20__;!!IaT_gp1N!2b7n92T...
Read the public archives for this mailing list: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/ https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/__;!!IaT_g...
_______________________________________________ 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_gp1...) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos__;!!IaT_gp1N!2...). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
--
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Facultad de Química UNAM Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico +525541444475 Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://pisanty.blogspot.com__;!!IaT_gp1N!2b7n92T... LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty__;!!IaT_gp1N!... Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614... Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://twitter.com/apisanty__;!!IaT_gp1N!2b7n92T... ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.isoc.org__;!!IaT_gp1N!2b7n92Tb_yRE7Jj... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
--
Pari Esfandiari
President
Global TechnoPolitics Forum https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.technopolitics.org__;!!IaT_gp1N!2b7n9...
Pario https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.parioconsultants.com__;!!IaT_gp1N!2b7... - Architects of Ideas
info@TechnoPolitics.org mailto:info@technopolitics.org
Linkedin Profile https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.linkedin.com/in/pariesfandiari/__;!!...
Tel: +1-202-735-1415 (Office)
: +1-310-435-0888 (Cell)
: +44-731-210-4049 (Cell)
_______________________________________________
Learn more about the WSIS+20 Outreach Network and review relevant resources: https://go.icann.org/wsis20
Read the public archives for this mailing list: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/
_______________________________________________
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
---------------------------------------------
DATA HANDLING
For data handling questions, please view our Privacy Policy https://apcoworldwide.com/privacy-policy/ or contact us at privacy@apcoworldwide.com https://%20privacy@apcoworldwide.com/ with any inquiries.
CONFIDENTIALITY
This email may contain material that is confidential, privileged and/or work product for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, reliance or distribution by others or forwarding without express permission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
_______________________________________________
Learn more about the WSIS+20 Outreach Network and review relevant resources: https://go.icann.org/wsis20
Read the public archives for this mailing list: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________
Learn more about the WSIS+20 Outreach Network and review relevant resources: https://go.icann.org/wsis20
Read the public archives for this mailing list: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ Learn more about the WSIS+20 Outreach Network and review relevant resources: https://go.icann.org/wsis20 Read the public archives for this mailing list: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/ _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Does anyone going to attend or watch remotely the UN ESCWA – Digital Cooperation and Development Forum (DCDF2025) held in Anman, Jordan which is stated as "relevant event" at DESA's page? https://publicadministration.desa.un.org/wsis20/relevant%20events Especially the following sub-forum: The fourth Arab High-Level Forum on WSIS and 2030 Agenda; February 24 to 26, 2025. Although no details have been announced, I imagine that place could be a field to discuss WSIS+20 as well as digital cooperation among the Arab countries including Saudi Arabia. https://dcdf-2025.unescwa.org/index.html https://indico.un.org/event/1013523/ Kind regards, Shin Yamasaki From: Wolfgang Kleinwächter via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> Subject: [wsis20] Re: RCC Pushes for State-Led Internet Governance Ahead of WSIS+20 Review Date: 2025/2/7 21:57:12
@ Saudi Arabia: We should also recognize the DCO, initiated by SA, with a strong woman Deemah AlYahya as Secretary General. https://dco.org/governance/ w
Chafic Chaya via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> hat am 07.02.2025 13:41 CET geschrieben:
Dear Colleagues,
Thank you all for your contributions to this discussion. It is evident from our exchanges that we are witnessing a significant shift in the Internet governance landscape, particularly with Saudi Arabia.
I would like to emphasise that a key driver behind this change has been the sustained engagement and capacity-building efforts led by the technical community, including RIPE NCC, ICANN and ISOC. In recent years, when topics such as “Internet Governance” or “multistakeholderism” were often sidelined, RIPE NCC has been working closely with the Saudi Arabia and has seen tangible progress through collaborative initiatives.
These include signing a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the Saudi regulator, which has paved the way for a more open and productive dialogue; organising RIPE NCC government roundtable that foster direct engagement between the Arab governments and the technical community; playing an integral role in the Saudi National IPv6 Task Force, which has helped position Saudi Arabia as the 5th globally in IPv6 adoption; organising MENOG in Riyadh, a vital platform for regional dialogue and knowledge-sharing that further solidifies multistakeholder engagement across the Middle East, North Africa, and Gulf regions. Additionally, we co- organised the first-ever joint session between the Saudi government and the technical community (RIPE NCC) at IGF2024 in Riyadh setting a new standard for inclusive dialogue.
Furthermore, a coordination meeting has been agreed upon between the Saudi regulator and the technical community ahead of WSIS+20. This meeting will offer an excellent opportunity to share the technical community position and support Saudi efforts for greater multistakeholder engagement.
I believe the lessons learned from our work with Saudi Arabia and with other Arab countries, such as the United Arab Emirates, can serve as a blueprint for engaging stakeholders in other regions.
Best regards,
Chafic Chaya
On Fri, 7 Feb 2025 at 00:19, Ashton-Hart, Nick via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org <mailto:wsis20@icann.org>> wrote:
Dear Judith, I’m quite certain what happened on gender wasn’t horse trading. Not in the least.
But we digress from the purposes of this list I think.
*Nick Ashton-Hart* *APCO*** (m) +1 202 779 1072 <tel:+12027791072>
Book time to meet with me here <https://outlook.office.com/ bookwithme/user/ ce911a0f9fa543dd9459b3a1392da25e@apcoworldwide.com? anonymous&isanonymous=true>
On 2/6/25, 3:12 PM, "Judith Hellerstein via wsis20" <wsis20@icann.org <mailto:wsis20@icann.org>> wrote:
HI Nick,
What happened in Plenipot was just horse trading. If you are speaking about connectivity and the ITRs, but I get your point. I do think that Saudi Arabia has changed its tone and now supports the multi stakeholder approach or how they interpret it. Yes, I was in Riyadh and yes it was successful because the Saudis realized that if they want to take a lead in AI and other areas they need to change their ways. They need to garner support in different areas. Also do note, in some countries the ITU representatives are often very different than the IGF reps.
I also think that the Saudi Government officials with their guests and others who came to the conference in Riyadh and experienced what true multi Stakeholder is had their eyes opened and better understand it. They might also understand what path they might want to take. So yes I think it helped immensely that the IGF was in Riyadh.
Saudi Arabia also will host within 10 years the World Cup and others whom I spoke to there indicated that within a few years the total ban against alcohol will also have to disappear. They can read the writing on the walls and want to make sure they are not left out.
They are also very active in other institutions and working to change the culture and the way of life as they see this must happen for them to be successful.
Just my two cents
Best,
Judith
Sent from my iPad
judith@jhellerstein.com <mailto:judith@jhellerstein.com>
Skype ID:JudithHellerstein
On Feb 6, 2025, at 2:56 PM, Ashton-Hart, Nick via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org <mailto:wsis20@icann.org>> wrote:
Speaking personally, when it comes to Saudi Arabia (and other states in that region as well as others), I will believe there is real change happening when I see a change of positions on policy at key conferences like the ITU’s agenda-setting meetings. Speeches are important, many policy directions are signalled in speeches, but in the end what matters is what positions states take on key issues in negotiations themselves.
Any of you who were at Plenipot in Romania on the final days in particular knows exactly what I’m talking about.
*Nick Ashton-Hart* *APCO*** (m) +1 202 779 1072 <tel:+12027791072>
Book time to meet with me here <https:// outlook.office.com/bookwithme/user/ ce911a0f9fa543dd9459b3a1392da25e@apcoworldwide.com? anonymous&isanonymous=true>
On 2/6/25, 1:43 PM, "Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond via wsis20" <wsis20@icann.org <mailto:wsis20@icann.org>> wrote:
Dear Fiona,
it's the difference between having old school decision makers who have no idea what they are speaking about and new stakeholders selected for their intelligence and knowledge of the topics.
The world is changing.
Abdullah Alswaha is one of these new leaders. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdullah_Alswaha <https:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdullah_Alswaha>
His speech at IGF was inspirational. https://youtu.be/wGxF6BVp-AM?si=GHQRxtOQn-LYJ7VQ <https:// youtu.be/wGxF6BVp-AM?si=GHQRxtOQn-LYJ7VQ>
A friend of mine worked with him at CISCO and he was already an inspiring boss.
So the message we are sending out is one thing, but there also needs to be an intelligent ear at the other end of the fibre.
Kindest regards,
Olivier
On 06/02/2025 18:27, Fiona Alexander via wsis20 wrote:
Hi to all
Interesting discussion and thread. And while the actions recommended to make sure that the facts get out there and various negotiators are armed with them seem wise, I personally was more struck by a different contribution to the same meeting. That of Saudi Arabia. I've attached for ease of finding.
The RCC, presumably lead by Russia, contribution seems in my experience to be largely consistent with where Russia and that region has been on this set of issues for the larger part of the past 20 years. So really no surprise.
The Saudi contribution is a different story to my eye. A clear written statement of their support for multistakeholder approaches. I don't recall ever seeing this position from them at the ITU before. In fact, they were firmly against it, at least in all the negotiations I participated in during my time in government.
Would be curious to hear from others their thoughts on how we got to this. I believe there has been quite a sustained effort by the Internet technical community in this region and perhaps there are some lessons for all us on how we can actually demonstrate the utility of multistakeholder approaches to those that still are skeptical. Also could explain their effort and work to host last year's IGF.
Fiona
--------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* Pari Esfandiari via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> <mailto:wsis20@icann.org> *Sent:* Thursday, February 6, 2025 5:08 AM *To:* wsis20@icann.org <mailto:wsis20@icann.org> <wsis20@icann.org> <mailto:wsis20@icann.org> *Subject:* [wsis20] Re: RCC Pushes for State-Led Internet Governance Ahead of WSIS+20 Review
*External Email:* Use caution with links and attachments.
Dear all,
Thank you for the thoughtful and engaging discussion around my recent article on CircleID regarding the RCC’s push for a state-led Internet governance mode <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://circleid.com/ posts/rcc-pushes-for-state-led-internet-governance- ahead-of-wsis20-review__;!!IaT_gp1N! 2b7n92Tb_yRE7JjkNFqCKq_G5ZqVLVbNmLJ6VlRnw4kkZip0aAaP- ZS48c88lDYHYcnXUmi-4Ftvk28$>l. The diverse perspectives shared here highlight the significance of this issue and the need for continued vigilance in safeguarding the multistakeholder model.
Addressing Key Points Raised:
1. *Armenia’s Alignment with RCC – Shifting Alliances?*
* @Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, your observation on Armenia’s stance is indeed intriguing, considering its usual alignment with Western digital policies. However, recent geopolitical tensions and regional dependencies may have influenced this decision. Whether Armenia stands to lose or gain from this move will depend on how other global actors respond.
2. *Hidden Agendas and Misleading Framing of Internet Governance*
* @Wolfgang Kleinwächter, your detailed analysis of Section 3 of the RCC proposal is crucial. While the call for an equitable, neutral, and geopolitically immune governance system is commendable, the assertion that the multistakeholder model fails to meet these requirements is misleading. ICANN’s structure, particularly through the GAC, already embodies sovereign equality and neutrality. The example of ICANN’s refusal to remove Russian domain names during the Ukraine conflict underscores its resilience against political pressures. Moving towards state-controlled governance would, paradoxically, introduce more geopolitical interference rather than eliminate it.
3. *Misuse of the “Public Core” Concept*
* @Joseph Lorenzo Hall and @Tatiana Tropina, your point on the RCC’s misrepresentation of the “public core” concept is well taken. The original GCSC definition was carefully crafted through a multistakeholder process to protect essential Internet infrastructure, whereas the RCC’s broader framing risks enabling greater state intervention. As you rightly pointed out, conflating the “public core” with “critical resources” could open the door to increased governmental control over fundamental Internet operations, which would be detrimental to the open and decentralized nature of the Internet.
4. *The RCC Proposal’s Conflict with WSIS Principles*
* @Dr. Jimson Olufuye, you highlight a fundamental flaw in the RCC proposal—it contradicts the very foundations of WSIS, the Tunis Agenda, and the Global Digital Compact (GDC), all of which emphasize multistakeholder engagement. While the proposal may be “dead on arrival” in some forums, it still serves as a strategic tool for certain governments to justify expanding their control over the Internet. This is why continued advocacy and engagement remain necessary.
5. *Diplomatic Engagement and Advocacy Strategy*
* @Nick Ashton-Hart, @Israel Rosas, and @Remmy Nweke, I fully agree that diplomatic engagement is critical at this juncture. Many diplomats dealing with WSIS+20 and broader digital governance discussions may not have a deep understanding of the multistakeholder model’s nuances. The RCC narrative, if left unchallenged, could appeal to those who prioritize state sovereignty over openness. Strengthening outreach efforts, capacity- building initiatives, and direct engagement with policymakers will be essential to countering this influence.
6. *Potential ITU Involvement in IP Addressing and Protocol Governance*
* @Nick Ashton-Hart, your point about the potential push to shift IP protocol governance to the ITU is an alarming but not surprising development. Given past efforts to exert greater governmental control over core Internet functions, vigilance is needed to ensure that governance remains within the multistakeholder ecosystem, where technical bodies like the IETF and RIRs maintain their crucial roles.
7. *The Issue of Undefined Stakeholder Roles*
* @Mark W. Datysgeld and @Alejandro Pisanty, the issue of fluid stakeholder identities is a valid concern. While the multistakeholder model is designed to be inclusive and adaptable, the lack of clear stakeholder categorization has been exploited by certain actors to challenge its legitimacy. As Alejandro notes, the original WSIS definitions were already a compromise, and while we have made progress in differentiating stakeholder roles, ambiguity remains. Addressing this issue transparently in WSIS+20 discussions could help prevent its use as a pretext for government overreach.
8. *Potential Impact on Network Neutrality and Platform Regulation*
* @Alejandro Pisanty, your warning about threats to network neutrality and regulations like Section 230 is well-founded. If these principles are eroded in democratic contexts, it will provide authoritarian governments with further justification to impose stricter controls on online content and access. Ensuring that digital governance remains rights-based and independent of political agendas must be a key focus moving forward.
The Road Ahead
The RCC’s proposal is not just a theoretical debate—it is part of a broader geopolitical effort to shift Internet governance towards a more state-controlled model. While it may not succeed in its current form, the underlying ideas will likely persist, making it crucial for the Internet governance community to remain proactive.
As many of you pointed out, we must:
* Continue engaging with diplomats and policymakers who may not be fully aware of the implications of state-led governance. * Strengthen capacity-building efforts to educate stakeholders on the benefits of multistakeholder governance. * Push back against misrepresentations of concepts like the “public core” to prevent them from being used as pretexts for increased governmental control. * Reinforce the neutrality and resilience of existing governance structures, particularly within ICANN and technical organizations. * Monitor and counteract attempts to shift key Internet governance functions to intergovernmental bodies like the ITU.
I appreciate all your insights and contributions to this discussion. Let’s continue this dialogue and work collectively to uphold the principles of an open, secure, and inclusive Internet.
Cheers, *Pari Esfandiari*
On Thu, Feb 6, 2025 at 2:28 AM Alejandro Pisanty <apisanty@gmail.com <mailto:apisanty@gmail.com>> wrote:
Mark,
good point re the definition of stakeholders. You may know that I was in the WGIG (as a few others in this list.) WGIG was the Working Group on Internet Governance created by the first phase of WSIS in 2003, charged with producing a report with a definition of Internet Governance and some proposals to move forward, for the second phase in 2005. The definition of stakeholder groupings was a major issue then and we settled into government, business ("private sector" has different meanings in the US and elsewhere), civil society and the technical community. Unfortunately we couldn't get the final documents to list the technical community as a separate stakeholder, not the least because at the same time it was recognized that the people in the technical community may have their jobs indistinctly in government (say, research laboratories, computing, IT and telecommunications departments in government, standards organizations, even universities if they are public), industry both large and small, and organizations classified as civil society (their techies among others.) Later on the IGF in practice has always listed the technical community separately. The differentiated presence of the technical community is indispensable and it cuts two ways - sometimes it has to say "no,, that thing you are imagining is not technically possible, or it is unreasonable, or it breaks the Internet" and sometimes it says to other parties "we can actually do better than you are thinking and maybe already are" - and sometimes, very often rather, we have to tell people, especiallly in governments, "no, it doesn' work that way" and enter long explanations.
Now picking on the second part of your statement: with fuzzy borders, we can say that one thing is the definition of the stakeholder groupings, as above, and another, complementary one, is the assignment of specific individuals to stakeholder groups at a given point in time. Also especially in developing countries we do continue to find that a small number of people fulfill many roles at the same time and thus can be simultaneously ascribed to more than one stakeholder group. Someone working in business (or even owining one) may come to Internet governance with that knowledge but acting through an organization like an NGO oriented to education or development or community networks, and or sit on an advisory committee to a telecoms or competition regulator. We have made progress in the last 20 years towards clearer roles and against conflicts of interest but this fluidity remains and also is very valuable.
We should convey this clearly to the skeptics and also know that it is a facetious argument invoked with ill intent while fully knowing the above.
Yours,
Alejandro Pisanty
On Wed, Feb 5, 2025 at 7:53 PM Mark W. Datysgeld via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org <mailto:wsis20@icann.org>> wrote:
One idea presented by the document that cannot just be waved away is that "stakeholder roles remain undefined". They do. I understand Pari's relevant answer to that point, but it does not address the fact that stakeholder identity is incredibly liquid. Take any set of IGF applications and you are likely to quickly find the same speaker submitted as 3 different stakeholders in different applications.
This is a subject that cannot be put aside in the upcoming discussion and the High-Level Event itself, because it is a weakness of our multistakeholder models that can and will be used against us by governments in their bid for increased control.
Regards,
On 5 Feb 2025 07:03, Pari Esfandiari via wsis20 wrote:
This review of the RCC’s submission in the lead-up to the WSIS+20 examines its call for a state-led approach to Internet governance and its implications for the multistakeholder model. It explores how the RCC frames its arguments around digital sovereignty, interoperability, and regulatory frameworks while assessing the potential impact on global Internet governance structures, innovation, and access. Additionally, the article considers the broader geopolitical context of the submission and its alignment—or divergence—with international efforts to maintain an open, inclusive, and secure digital environment.
https://circleid.com/posts/rcc-pushes-for- state-led-internet-governance-ahead-of- wsis20-review <https://urldefense.com/v3/ __https://circleid.com/posts/rcc-pushes- for-state-led-internet-governance-ahead- of-wsis20-review__;!!IaT_gp1N! 2b7n92Tb_yRE7JjkNFqCKq_G5ZqVLVbNmLJ6VlRnw4kkZip0aAaP-ZS48c88lDYHYcnXUmi-4Ftvk28$>
Cheers,
Pari
--
Pari Esfandiari
President
*/Global TechnoPolitics Forum <https:// urldefense.com/v3/__http:// www.technopolitics.org__;!!IaT_gp1N! 2b7n92Tb_yRE7JjkNFqCKq_G5ZqVLVbNmLJ6VlRnw4kkZip0aAaP-ZS48c88lDYHYcnXUmi-NbZKWFk$> /*
*/Pario <https://urldefense.com/v3/ __http://www.parioconsultants.com__;!! IaT_gp1N! 2b7n92Tb_yRE7JjkNFqCKq_G5ZqVLVbNmLJ6VlRnw4kkZip0aAaP-ZS48c88lDYHYcnXUmi-xP8p8ow$>- Architects of Ideas/*
info@TechnoPolitics.org <mailto:info@technopolitics.org>
*Linkedin Profile <https://urldefense.com/ v3/__https://www.linkedin.com/in/ pariesfandiari/__;!!IaT_gp1N! 2b7n92Tb_yRE7JjkNFqCKq_G5ZqVLVbNmLJ6VlRnw4kkZip0aAaP-ZS48c88lDYHYcnXUmi-Bt4JaUE$>*
Tel: +1-202_-__735-1415_ (Office)
: +1-310-435-0888 (Cell)
: +44-731-210-4049 (Cell)
_______________________________________________
Learn more about the WSIS+20 Outreach Network and review relevant resources:https://go.icann.org/wsis20 <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://go.icann.org/wsis20__;!!IaT_gp1N!2b7n92T...>
Read the public archives for this mailing list:https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/__;!!IaT_g...>
_______________________________________________
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_gp1...>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos__;!!IaT_gp1N!2...>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
-- Mark W. Datysgeld Director at Governance Primer [governanceprimer.com <https://urldefense.com/ v3/__https://governanceprimer.com__;!! IaT_gp1N! 2b7n92Tb_yRE7JjkNFqCKq_G5ZqVLVbNmLJ6VlRnw4kkZip0aAaP-ZS48c88lDYHYcnXUmi-jWVFiuA$>] Project Lead Developer at ICANNWiki [icannwiki.org <https://urldefense.com/v3/ __https://icannwiki.org/__;!!IaT_gp1N! 2b7n92Tb_yRE7JjkNFqCKq_G5ZqVLVbNmLJ6VlRnw4kkZip0aAaP-ZS48c88lDYHYcnXUmi-hziaYGI$>]
_______________________________________________
Learn more about the WSIS+20 Outreach Network and review relevant resources: https:// go.icann.org/wsis20 <https://urldefense.com/ v3/__https://go.icann.org/wsis20__;!!IaT_gp1N! 2b7n92Tb_yRE7JjkNFqCKq_G5ZqVLVbNmLJ6VlRnw4kkZip0aAaP-ZS48c88lDYHYcnXUmi-tFT7mAc$>
Read the public archives for this mailing list: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:// mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/__;!!IaT_gp1N! 2b7n92Tb_yRE7JjkNFqCKq_G5ZqVLVbNmLJ6VlRnw4kkZip0aAaP-ZS48c88lDYHYcnXUmi-l8hd-Ms$>
_______________________________________________ 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! 2b7n92Tb_yRE7JjkNFqCKq_G5ZqVLVbNmLJ6VlRnw4kkZip0aAaP-ZS48c88lDYHYcnXUmi-EbZ1zAw$>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos__;!!IaT_gp1N!2...>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
--
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Facultad de Química UNAM Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico +525541444475 Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com <https:// urldefense.com/v3/__http:// pisanty.blogspot.com__;!!IaT_gp1N! 2b7n92Tb_yRE7JjkNFqCKq_G5ZqVLVbNmLJ6VlRnw4kkZip0aAaP-ZS48c88lDYHYcnXUmi-7emGT4Q$> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:// www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty__;!!IaT_gp1N! 2b7n92Tb_yRE7JjkNFqCKq_G5ZqVLVbNmLJ6VlRnw4kkZip0aAaP-ZS48c88lDYHYcnXUmi-jFf6zyY$> Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http:// www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:// www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614__;!! IaT_gp1N! 2b7n92Tb_yRE7JjkNFqCKq_G5ZqVLVbNmLJ6VlRnw4kkZip0aAaP-ZS48c88lDYHYcnXUmi-BIyjtRw$> Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty <https:// urldefense.com/v3/__http://twitter.com/ apisanty__;!!IaT_gp1N! 2b7n92Tb_yRE7JjkNFqCKq_G5ZqVLVbNmLJ6VlRnw4kkZip0aAaP-ZS48c88lDYHYcnXUmi-uTkh9bc$> ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:// www.isoc.org__;!!IaT_gp1N! 2b7n92Tb_yRE7JjkNFqCKq_G5ZqVLVbNmLJ6VlRnw4kkZip0aAaP-ZS48c88lDYHYcnXUmi-d4fST6k$> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
--
Pari Esfandiari
President
*/Global TechnoPolitics Forum <https://urldefense.com/ v3/__http://www.technopolitics.org__;!!IaT_gp1N! 2b7n92Tb_yRE7JjkNFqCKq_G5ZqVLVbNmLJ6VlRnw4kkZip0aAaP- ZS48c88lDYHYcnXUmi-NbZKWFk$> /*
*/Pario <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:// www.parioconsultants.com__;!!IaT_gp1N! 2b7n92Tb_yRE7JjkNFqCKq_G5ZqVLVbNmLJ6VlRnw4kkZip0aAaP- ZS48c88lDYHYcnXUmi-xP8p8ow$>- Architects of Ideas/*
info@TechnoPolitics.org <mailto:info@technopolitics.org>
*Linkedin Profile <https://urldefense.com/v3/ __https://www.linkedin.com/in/pariesfandiari/__;!! IaT_gp1N! 2b7n92Tb_yRE7JjkNFqCKq_G5ZqVLVbNmLJ6VlRnw4kkZip0aAaP- ZS48c88lDYHYcnXUmi-Bt4JaUE$>*
Tel: +1-202_-__735-1415_ (Office)
: +1-310-435-0888 (Cell)
: +44-731-210-4049 (Cell)
_______________________________________________
Learn more about the WSIS+20 Outreach Network and review relevant resources:https://go.icann.org/wsis20 <https://go.icann.org/wsis20>
Read the public archives for this mailing list:https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/ <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/>
_______________________________________________
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy <https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
DATA HANDLING
For data handling questions, please view our Privacy Policy <https://apcoworldwide.com/privacy-policy/> or contact us at privacy@apcoworldwide.com <https:// %20privacy@apcoworldwide.com/> with any inquiries.
CONFIDENTIALITY
This email may contain material that is confidential, privileged and/or work product for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, reliance or distribution by others or forwarding without express permission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
_______________________________________________
Learn more about the WSIS+20 Outreach Network and review relevant resources: https://go.icann.org/wsis20 <https:// go.icann.org/wsis20>
Read the public archives for this mailing list: https:// mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/ <https://mm.icann.org/ pipermail/wsis20/>
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy <https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <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.
_______________________________________________
Learn more about the WSIS+20 Outreach Network and review relevant resources: https://go.icann.org/wsis20 <https:// go.icann.org/wsis20>
Read the public archives for this mailing list: https:// mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/ <https://mm.icann.org/ pipermail/wsis20/>
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy <https://www.icann.org/ privacy/policy>) and the website Terms of Service (https:// www.icann.org/privacy/tos <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.
_______________________________________________ Learn more about the WSIS+20 Outreach Network and review relevant resources: https://go.icann.org/wsis20 Read the public archives for this mailing list: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/ _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/ tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________
Learn more about the WSIS+20 Outreach Network and review relevant resources: https://go.icann.org/wsis20
Read the public archives for this mailing list: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Hi Shin, The RIPE NCC will attend DCDF2025, and I am invited to participate in several sessions and workshops. Indeed, this event presents the platform for discussions on WSIS+20 and digital cooperation among Arab countries. I can say that the Arab States’ position aligns with Saudi Arabia’s, which has positively contributed to the open consultation process. BR//Chafic On Mon, 10 Feb 2025 at 15:12, Shin Yamasaki via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> wrote:
Does anyone going to attend or watch remotely the UN ESCWA – Digital Cooperation and Development Forum (DCDF2025) held in Anman, Jordan which is stated as "relevant event" at DESA's page?
https://publicadministration.desa.un.org/wsis20/relevant%20events
Especially the following sub-forum: The fourth Arab High-Level Forum on WSIS and 2030 Agenda; February 24 to 26, 2025.
Although no details have been announced, I imagine that place could be a field to discuss WSIS+20 as well as digital cooperation among the Arab countries including Saudi Arabia.
https://dcdf-2025.unescwa.org/index.html https://indico.un.org/event/1013523/
Kind regards, Shin Yamasaki
From: Wolfgang Kleinwächter via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> Subject: [wsis20] Re: RCC Pushes for State-Led Internet Governance Ahead of WSIS+20 Review Date: 2025/2/7 21:57:12
@ Saudi Arabia: We should also recognize the DCO, initiated by SA, with a strong woman Deemah AlYahya as Secretary General. https://dco.org/governance/ w
Chafic Chaya via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> hat am 07.02.2025 13:41 CET geschrieben:
Dear Colleagues,
Thank you all for your contributions to this discussion. It is evident from our exchanges that we are witnessing a significant shift in the Internet governance landscape, particularly with Saudi Arabia.
I would like to emphasise that a key driver behind this change has been the sustained engagement and capacity-building efforts led by the technical community, including RIPE NCC, ICANN and ISOC. In recent years, when topics such as “Internet Governance” or “multistakeholderism” were often sidelined, RIPE NCC has been working closely with the Saudi Arabia and has seen tangible progress through collaborative initiatives.
These include signing a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the Saudi regulator, which has paved the way for a more open and productive dialogue; organising RIPE NCC government roundtable that foster direct engagement between the Arab governments and the technical community; playing an integral role in the Saudi National IPv6 Task Force, which has helped position Saudi Arabia as the 5th globally in IPv6 adoption; organising MENOG in Riyadh, a vital platform for regional dialogue and knowledge-sharing that further solidifies multistakeholder engagement across the Middle East, North Africa, and Gulf regions. Additionally, we co- organised the first-ever joint session between the Saudi government and the technical community (RIPE NCC) at IGF2024 in Riyadh setting a new standard for inclusive dialogue.
Furthermore, a coordination meeting has been agreed upon between the Saudi regulator and the technical community ahead of WSIS+20. This meeting will offer an excellent opportunity to share the technical community position and support Saudi efforts for greater multistakeholder engagement.
I believe the lessons learned from our work with Saudi Arabia and with other Arab countries, such as the United Arab Emirates, can serve as a blueprint for engaging stakeholders in other regions.
Best regards,
Chafic Chaya
On Fri, 7 Feb 2025 at 00:19, Ashton-Hart, Nick via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org <mailto:wsis20@icann.org>> wrote:
Dear Judith, I’m quite certain what happened on gender wasn’t horse trading. Not in the least.
But we digress from the purposes of this list I think.
*Nick Ashton-Hart* *APCO*** (m) +1 202 779 1072 <tel:+12027791072>
Book time to meet with me here <https://outlook.office.com/ bookwithme/user/ ce911a0f9fa543dd9459b3a1392da25e@apcoworldwide.com? anonymous&isanonymous=true>
On 2/6/25, 3:12 PM, "Judith Hellerstein via wsis20" <wsis20@icann.org <mailto:wsis20@icann.org>> wrote:
HI Nick,
What happened in Plenipot was just horse trading. If you are speaking about connectivity and the ITRs, but I get your point. I do think that Saudi Arabia has changed its tone and now supports the multi stakeholder approach or how they interpret it. Yes, I was in Riyadh and yes it was successful because the Saudis realized that if they want to take a lead in AI and other areas they need to change their ways. They need to garner support in different areas. Also do note, in some countries the ITU representatives are often very different than the IGF reps.
I also think that the Saudi Government officials with their guests and others who came to the conference in Riyadh and experienced what true multi Stakeholder is had their eyes opened and better understand it. They might also understand what path they might want to take. So yes I think it helped immensely that the IGF was in Riyadh.
Saudi Arabia also will host within 10 years the World Cup and others whom I spoke to there indicated that within a few years the total ban against alcohol will also have to disappear. They can read the writing on the walls and want to make sure they are not left out.
They are also very active in other institutions and working to change the culture and the way of life as they see this must happen for them to be successful.
Just my two cents
Best,
Judith
Sent from my iPad
judith@jhellerstein.com <mailto:judith@jhellerstein.com>
Skype ID:JudithHellerstein
On Feb 6, 2025, at 2:56 PM, Ashton-Hart, Nick via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org <mailto:wsis20@icann.org>> wrote:
Speaking personally, when it comes to Saudi Arabia (and other states in that region as well as others), I will believe there is real change happening when I see a change of positions on policy at key conferences like the ITU’s agenda-setting meetings. Speeches are important, many policy directions are signalled in speeches, but in the end what matters is what positions states take on key issues in negotiations themselves.
Any of you who were at Plenipot in Romania on the final days in particular knows exactly what I’m talking about.
*Nick Ashton-Hart* *APCO*** (m) +1 202 779 1072 <tel:+12027791072>
Book time to meet with me here <https:// outlook.office.com/bookwithme/user/ ce911a0f9fa543dd9459b3a1392da25e@apcoworldwide.com? anonymous&isanonymous=true>
On 2/6/25, 1:43 PM, "Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond via wsis20" <wsis20@icann.org <mailto:wsis20@icann.org>> wrote:
Dear Fiona,
it's the difference between having old school decision makers who have no idea what they are speaking about and new stakeholders selected for their intelligence and knowledge of the topics.
The world is changing.
Abdullah Alswaha is one of these new leaders. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdullah_Alswaha <https:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdullah_Alswaha>
His speech at IGF was inspirational. https://youtu.be/wGxF6BVp-AM?si=GHQRxtOQn-LYJ7VQ <https:// youtu.be/wGxF6BVp-AM?si=GHQRxtOQn-LYJ7VQ>
A friend of mine worked with him at CISCO and he was already an inspiring boss.
So the message we are sending out is one thing, but there also needs to be an intelligent ear at the other end of the fibre.
Kindest regards,
Olivier
On 06/02/2025 18:27, Fiona Alexander via wsis20 wrote:
Hi to all
Interesting discussion and thread. And while the actions recommended to make sure that the facts get out there and various negotiators are armed with them seem wise, I personally was more struck by a different contribution to the same meeting. That of Saudi Arabia. I've attached for ease of finding.
The RCC, presumably lead by Russia, contribution seems in my experience to be largely consistent with where Russia and that region has been on this set of issues for the larger part of the past 20 years. So really no surprise.
The Saudi contribution is a different story to my eye. A clear written statement of their support for multistakeholder approaches. I don't recall ever seeing this position from them at the ITU before. In fact, they were firmly against it, at least in all the negotiations I participated in during my time in government.
Would be curious to hear from others their thoughts on how we got to this. I believe there has been quite a sustained effort by the Internet technical community in this region and perhaps there are some lessons for all us on how we can actually demonstrate the utility of multistakeholder approaches to those that still are skeptical. Also could explain their effort and work to host last year's IGF.
Fiona
*From:* Pari Esfandiari via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> <mailto:wsis20@icann.org> *Sent:* Thursday, February 6, 2025 5:08 AM *To:* wsis20@icann.org <mailto:wsis20@icann.org> <wsis20@icann.org> <mailto:wsis20@icann.org> *Subject:* [wsis20] Re: RCC Pushes for State-Led Internet Governance Ahead of WSIS+20 Review
*External Email:* Use caution with links and attachments.
Dear all,
Thank you for the thoughtful and engaging discussion around my recent article on CircleID regarding the RCC’s push for a state-led Internet governance mode <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://circleid.com/ posts/rcc-pushes-for-state-led-internet-governance- ahead-of-wsis20-review__;!!IaT_gp1N! 2b7n92Tb_yRE7JjkNFqCKq_G5ZqVLVbNmLJ6VlRnw4kkZip0aAaP- ZS48c88lDYHYcnXUmi-4Ftvk28$>l. The diverse perspectives shared here highlight the significance of this issue and the need for continued vigilance in safeguarding the multistakeholder model.
Addressing Key Points Raised:
1. *Armenia’s Alignment with RCC – Shifting Alliances?*
* @Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, your observation on Armenia’s stance is indeed intriguing, considering its usual alignment with Western digital policies. However, recent geopolitical tensions and regional dependencies may have influenced this decision. Whether Armenia stands to lose or gain from this move will depend on how other global actors respond.
2. *Hidden Agendas and Misleading Framing of Internet Governance*
* @Wolfgang Kleinwächter, your detailed analysis of Section 3 of the RCC proposal is crucial. While the call for an equitable, neutral, and geopolitically immune governance system is commendable, the assertion that the multistakeholder model fails to meet these requirements is misleading. ICANN’s structure, particularly through the GAC, already embodies sovereign equality and neutrality. The example of ICANN’s refusal to remove Russian domain names during the Ukraine conflict underscores its resilience against political pressures. Moving towards state-controlled governance would, paradoxically, introduce more geopolitical interference rather than eliminate it.
3. *Misuse of the “Public Core” Concept*
* @Joseph Lorenzo Hall and @Tatiana Tropina, your point on the RCC’s misrepresentation of the “public core” concept is well taken. The original GCSC definition was carefully crafted through a multistakeholder process to protect essential Internet infrastructure, whereas the RCC’s broader framing risks enabling greater state intervention. As you rightly pointed out, conflating the “public core” with “critical resources” could open the door to increased governmental control over fundamental Internet operations, which would be detrimental to the open and decentralized nature of the Internet.
4. *The RCC Proposal’s Conflict with WSIS Principles*
* @Dr. Jimson Olufuye, you highlight a fundamental flaw in the RCC proposal—it contradicts the very foundations of WSIS, the Tunis Agenda, and the Global Digital Compact (GDC), all of which emphasize multistakeholder engagement. While the proposal may be “dead on arrival” in some forums, it still serves as a strategic tool for certain governments to justify expanding their control over the Internet. This is why continued advocacy and engagement remain necessary.
5. *Diplomatic Engagement and Advocacy Strategy*
* @Nick Ashton-Hart, @Israel Rosas, and @Remmy Nweke, I fully agree that diplomatic engagement is critical at this juncture. Many diplomats dealing with WSIS+20 and broader digital governance discussions may not have a deep understanding of the multistakeholder model’s nuances. The RCC narrative, if left unchallenged, could appeal to those who prioritize state sovereignty over openness. Strengthening outreach efforts, capacity- building initiatives, and direct engagement with policymakers will be essential to countering this influence.
6. *Potential ITU Involvement in IP Addressing and Protocol Governance*
* @Nick Ashton-Hart, your point about the potential push to shift IP protocol governance to the ITU is an alarming but not surprising development. Given past efforts to exert greater governmental control over core Internet functions, vigilance is needed to ensure that governance remains within the multistakeholder ecosystem, where technical bodies like the IETF and RIRs maintain their crucial roles.
7. *The Issue of Undefined Stakeholder Roles*
* @Mark W. Datysgeld and @Alejandro Pisanty, the issue of fluid stakeholder identities is a valid concern. While the multistakeholder model is designed to be inclusive and adaptable, the lack of clear stakeholder categorization has been exploited by certain actors to challenge its legitimacy. As Alejandro notes, the original WSIS definitions were already a compromise, and while we have made progress in differentiating stakeholder roles, ambiguity remains. Addressing this issue transparently in WSIS+20 discussions could help prevent its use as a pretext for government overreach.
8. *Potential Impact on Network Neutrality and Platform Regulation*
* @Alejandro Pisanty, your warning about threats to network neutrality and regulations like Section 230 is well-founded. If these principles are eroded in democratic contexts, it will provide authoritarian governments with further justification to impose stricter controls on online content and access. Ensuring that digital governance remains rights-based and independent of political agendas must be a key focus moving forward.
The Road Ahead
The RCC’s proposal is not just a theoretical debate—it is part of a broader geopolitical effort to shift Internet governance towards a more state-controlled model. While it may not succeed in its current form, the underlying ideas will likely persist, making it crucial for the Internet governance community to remain proactive.
As many of you pointed out, we must:
* Continue engaging with diplomats and policymakers who may not be fully aware of the implications of state-led governance. * Strengthen capacity-building efforts to educate stakeholders on the benefits of multistakeholder governance. * Push back against misrepresentations of concepts like the “public core” to prevent them from being used as pretexts for increased governmental control. * Reinforce the neutrality and resilience of existing governance structures, particularly within ICANN and technical organizations. * Monitor and counteract attempts to shift key Internet governance functions to intergovernmental bodies like the ITU.
I appreciate all your insights and contributions to this discussion. Let’s continue this dialogue and work collectively to uphold the principles of an open, secure, and inclusive Internet.
Cheers, *Pari Esfandiari*
On Thu, Feb 6, 2025 at 2:28 AM Alejandro Pisanty <apisanty@gmail.com <mailto:apisanty@gmail.com>> wrote:
Mark,
good point re the definition of stakeholders. You may know that I was in the WGIG (as a few others in this list.) WGIG was the Working Group on Internet Governance created by the first phase of WSIS in 2003, charged with producing a report with a definition of Internet Governance and some proposals to move forward, for the second phase in 2005. The definition of stakeholder groupings was a major issue then and we settled into government, business ("private sector" has different meanings in the US and elsewhere), civil society and the technical community. Unfortunately we couldn't get the final documents to list the technical community as a separate stakeholder, not the least because at the same time it was recognized that the people in the technical community may have their jobs indistinctly in government (say, research laboratories, computing, IT and telecommunications departments in government, standards organizations, even universities if they are public), industry both large and small, and organizations classified as civil society (their techies among others.) Later on the IGF in practice has always listed the technical community separately. The differentiated presence of the technical community is indispensable and it cuts two ways - sometimes it has to say "no,, that thing you are imagining is not technically possible, or it is unreasonable, or it breaks the Internet" and sometimes it says to other parties "we can actually do better than you are thinking and maybe already are" - and sometimes, very often rather, we have to tell people, especiallly in governments, "no, it doesn' work that way" and enter long explanations.
Now picking on the second part of your statement: with fuzzy borders, we can say that one thing is the definition of the stakeholder groupings, as above, and another, complementary one, is the assignment of specific individuals to stakeholder groups at a given point in time. Also especially in developing countries we do continue to find that a small number of people fulfill many roles at the same time and thus can be simultaneously ascribed to more than one stakeholder group. Someone working in business (or even owining one) may come to Internet governance with that knowledge but acting through an organization like an NGO oriented to education or development or community networks, and or sit on an advisory committee to a telecoms or competition regulator. We have made progress in the last 20 years towards clearer roles and against conflicts of interest but this fluidity remains and also is very valuable.
We should convey this clearly to the skeptics and also know that it is a facetious argument invoked with ill intent while fully knowing the above.
Yours,
Alejandro Pisanty
On Wed, Feb 5, 2025 at 7:53 PM Mark W. Datysgeld via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org <mailto:wsis20@icann.org>> wrote:
One idea presented by the document that cannot just be waved away is that "stakeholder roles remain undefined". They do. I understand Pari's relevant answer to that point, but it does not address the fact that stakeholder identity is incredibly liquid. Take any set of IGF applications and you are likely to quickly find the same speaker submitted as 3 different stakeholders in different applications.
This is a subject that cannot be put aside in the upcoming discussion and the High-Level Event itself, because it is a weakness of our multistakeholder models that can and will be used against us by governments in their bid for increased control.
Regards,
On 5 Feb 2025 07:03, Pari Esfandiari via wsis20 wrote:
This review of the RCC’s submission in the lead-up to the WSIS+20 examines its call for a state-led approach to Internet governance and its implications for the multistakeholder model. It explores how the RCC frames its arguments around digital sovereignty, interoperability, and regulatory frameworks while assessing the potential impact on global Internet governance structures, innovation, and access. Additionally, the article considers the broader geopolitical context of the submission and its alignment—or divergence—with international efforts to maintain an open, inclusive, and secure digital environment.
https://circleid.com/posts/rcc-pushes-for- state-led-internet-governance-ahead-of- wsis20-review <https://urldefense.com/v3/ __https://circleid.com/posts/rcc-pushes- for-state-led-internet-governance-ahead- of-wsis20-review__;!!IaT_gp1N!
2b7n92Tb_yRE7JjkNFqCKq_G5ZqVLVbNmLJ6VlRnw4kkZip0aAaP-ZS48c88lDYHYcnXUmi-4Ftvk28$>
Cheers,
Pari
--
Pari Esfandiari
President
*/Global TechnoPolitics Forum <https:// urldefense.com/v3/__http:// www.technopolitics.org__;!!IaT_gp1N!
2b7n92Tb_yRE7JjkNFqCKq_G5ZqVLVbNmLJ6VlRnw4kkZip0aAaP-ZS48c88lDYHYcnXUmi-NbZKWFk$> /*
*/Pario <https://urldefense.com/v3/ __http://www.parioconsultants.com__;!! IaT_gp1N!
2b7n92Tb_yRE7JjkNFqCKq_G5ZqVLVbNmLJ6VlRnw4kkZip0aAaP-ZS48c88lDYHYcnXUmi-xP8p8ow$>- Architects of Ideas/*
info@TechnoPolitics.org <mailto:info@technopolitics.org>
*Linkedin Profile <https://urldefense.com/ v3/__https://www.linkedin.com/in/ pariesfandiari/__;!!IaT_gp1N!
2b7n92Tb_yRE7JjkNFqCKq_G5ZqVLVbNmLJ6VlRnw4kkZip0aAaP-ZS48c88lDYHYcnXUmi-Bt4JaUE$>*
Tel: +1-202_-__735-1415_ (Office)
: +1-310-435-0888 (Cell)
: +44-731-210-4049 (Cell)
_______________________________________________
Learn more about the WSIS+20 Outreach Network
and review relevant resources:https://go.icann.org/wsis20 < https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://go.icann.org/wsis20__;!!IaT_gp1N!2b7n92T...
Read the public archives for this mailing list:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/ < https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/__;!!IaT_g...
_______________________________________________
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_gp1...>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos < https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos__;!!IaT_gp1N!2...>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
-- Mark W. Datysgeld Director at Governance Primer [governanceprimer.com <https://urldefense.com/ v3/__https://governanceprimer.com__;!! IaT_gp1N!
2b7n92Tb_yRE7JjkNFqCKq_G5ZqVLVbNmLJ6VlRnw4kkZip0aAaP-ZS48c88lDYHYcnXUmi-jWVFiuA$>]
Project Lead Developer at ICANNWiki [icannwiki.org <https://urldefense.com/v3/ __https://icannwiki.org/__;!!IaT_gp1N!
2b7n92Tb_yRE7JjkNFqCKq_G5ZqVLVbNmLJ6VlRnw4kkZip0aAaP-ZS48c88lDYHYcnXUmi-hziaYGI$>]
_______________________________________________
Learn more about the WSIS+20 Outreach Network and review relevant resources: https:// go.icann.org/wsis20 <https://urldefense.com/ v3/__https://go.icann.org/wsis20__;!!IaT_gp1N!
2b7n92Tb_yRE7JjkNFqCKq_G5ZqVLVbNmLJ6VlRnw4kkZip0aAaP-ZS48c88lDYHYcnXUmi-tFT7mAc$>
Read the public archives for this mailing list: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:// mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/__;!!IaT_gp1N!
2b7n92Tb_yRE7JjkNFqCKq_G5ZqVLVbNmLJ6VlRnw4kkZip0aAaP-ZS48c88lDYHYcnXUmi-l8hd-Ms$>
_______________________________________________ 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!
2b7n92Tb_yRE7JjkNFqCKq_G5ZqVLVbNmLJ6VlRnw4kkZip0aAaP-ZS48c88lDYHYcnXUmi-EbZ1zAw$>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos < https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos__;!!IaT_gp1N!2...>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
--
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Facultad de Química UNAM Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico +525541444475 Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com <https:// urldefense.com/v3/__http:// pisanty.blogspot.com__;!!IaT_gp1N!
2b7n92Tb_yRE7JjkNFqCKq_G5ZqVLVbNmLJ6VlRnw4kkZip0aAaP-ZS48c88lDYHYcnXUmi-7emGT4Q$>
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:// www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty__;!!IaT_gp1N!
2b7n92Tb_yRE7JjkNFqCKq_G5ZqVLVbNmLJ6VlRnw4kkZip0aAaP-ZS48c88lDYHYcnXUmi-jFf6zyY$>
Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http:// www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:// www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614__;!! IaT_gp1N!
2b7n92Tb_yRE7JjkNFqCKq_G5ZqVLVbNmLJ6VlRnw4kkZip0aAaP-ZS48c88lDYHYcnXUmi-BIyjtRw$>
Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty <https:// urldefense.com/v3/__http://twitter.com/ apisanty__;!!IaT_gp1N!
2b7n92Tb_yRE7JjkNFqCKq_G5ZqVLVbNmLJ6VlRnw4kkZip0aAaP-ZS48c88lDYHYcnXUmi-uTkh9bc$>
---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:// www.isoc.org__;!!IaT_gp1N!
2b7n92Tb_yRE7JjkNFqCKq_G5ZqVLVbNmLJ6VlRnw4kkZip0aAaP-ZS48c88lDYHYcnXUmi-d4fST6k$>
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
--
Pari Esfandiari
President
*/Global TechnoPolitics Forum <https://urldefense.com/ v3/__http://www.technopolitics.org__;!!IaT_gp1N! 2b7n92Tb_yRE7JjkNFqCKq_G5ZqVLVbNmLJ6VlRnw4kkZip0aAaP- ZS48c88lDYHYcnXUmi-NbZKWFk$> /*
*/Pario <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:// www.parioconsultants.com__;!!IaT_gp1N! 2b7n92Tb_yRE7JjkNFqCKq_G5ZqVLVbNmLJ6VlRnw4kkZip0aAaP- ZS48c88lDYHYcnXUmi-xP8p8ow$>- Architects of Ideas/*
info@TechnoPolitics.org <mailto:info@technopolitics.org>
*Linkedin Profile <https://urldefense.com/v3/ __https://www.linkedin.com/in/pariesfandiari/__;!! IaT_gp1N! 2b7n92Tb_yRE7JjkNFqCKq_G5ZqVLVbNmLJ6VlRnw4kkZip0aAaP- ZS48c88lDYHYcnXUmi-Bt4JaUE$>*
Tel: +1-202_-__735-1415_ (Office)
: +1-310-435-0888 (Cell)
: +44-731-210-4049 (Cell)
_______________________________________________
Learn more about the WSIS+20 Outreach Network and review
relevant resources:https://go.icann.org/wsis20 < https://go.icann.org/wsis20>
Read the public archives for this mailing list:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/ < https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/>
_______________________________________________
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the
processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy <https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos < 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.
DATA HANDLING
For data handling questions, please view our Privacy Policy <https://apcoworldwide.com/privacy-policy/> or contact us at privacy@apcoworldwide.com <https:// %20privacy@apcoworldwide.com/> with any inquiries.
CONFIDENTIALITY
This email may contain material that is confidential, privileged and/or work product for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, reliance or distribution by others or forwarding without express permission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
_______________________________________________
Learn more about the WSIS+20 Outreach Network and review relevant resources: https://go.icann.org/wsis20 <https:// go.icann.org/wsis20>
Read the public archives for this mailing list: https:// mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/ <https://mm.icann.org/ pipermail/wsis20/>
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy <https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <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.
_______________________________________________
Learn more about the WSIS+20 Outreach Network and review relevant resources: https://go.icann.org/wsis20 <https:// go.icann.org/wsis20>
Read the public archives for this mailing list: https:// mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/ <https://mm.icann.org/ pipermail/wsis20/>
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy <https://www.icann.org/ privacy/policy>) and the website Terms of Service (https:// www.icann.org/privacy/tos <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.
_______________________________________________ Learn more about the WSIS+20 Outreach Network and review relevant resources: https://go.icann.org/wsis20 Read the public archives for this mailing list: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/ _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/ tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________
Learn more about the WSIS+20 Outreach Network and review relevant resources: https://go.icann.org/wsis20
Read the public archives for this mailing list: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________
Learn more about the WSIS+20 Outreach Network and review relevant resources: https://go.icann.org/wsis20
Read the public archives for this mailing list: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Hi Chafic, Thank you for sharing with it! I am interested in those issues discussed among the Arab States at the forum. Best regards, Shin From: Chafic Chaya <cchaya@ripe.net> Subject: [wsis20] Re: RCC Pushes for State-Led Internet Governance Ahead of WSIS+20 Review Date: 2025/2/14 21:21:35
Hi Shin,
The RIPE NCC will attend DCDF2025, and I am invited to participate in several sessions and workshops.
Indeed, this event presents the platform for discussions on WSIS+20 and digital cooperation among Arab countries. I can say that the Arab States’ position aligns with Saudi Arabia’s, which has positively contributed to the open consultation process.
BR//Chafic
On Mon, 10 Feb 2025 at 15:12, Shin Yamasaki via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org <mailto:wsis20@icann.org>> wrote:
Does anyone going to attend or watch remotely the UN ESCWA – Digital Cooperation and Development Forum (DCDF2025) held in Anman, Jordan which is stated as "relevant event" at DESA's page?
https://publicadministration.desa.un.org/wsis20/ relevant%20events <https://publicadministration.desa.un.org/ wsis20/relevant%20events>
Especially the following sub-forum: The fourth Arab High-Level Forum on WSIS and 2030 Agenda; February 24 to 26, 2025.
Although no details have been announced, I imagine that place could be a field to discuss WSIS+20 as well as digital cooperation among the Arab countries including Saudi Arabia.
https://dcdf-2025.unescwa.org/index.html <https:// dcdf-2025.unescwa.org/index.html> https://indico.un.org/event/1013523/ <https://indico.un.org/ event/1013523/>
Kind regards, Shin Yamasaki
From: Wolfgang Kleinwächter via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org <mailto:wsis20@icann.org>> Subject: [wsis20] Re: RCC Pushes for State-Led Internet Governance Ahead of WSIS+20 Review Date: 2025/2/7 21:57:12
> @ Saudi Arabia: We should also recognize the DCO, initiated by SA, > with a strong woman Deemah AlYahya as Secretary General. > https://dco.org/governance/ <https://dco.org/governance/> > w >> Chafic Chaya via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org <mailto:wsis20@icann.org>> hat am 07.02.2025 13:41 >> CET geschrieben: >> >> Dear Colleagues, >> >> Thank you all for your contributions to this discussion. It is >> evident from our exchanges that we are witnessing a significant >> shift in the Internet governance landscape, particularly with >> Saudi Arabia. >> >> I would like to emphasise that a key driver behind this change has >> been the sustained engagement and capacity-building efforts led by >> the technical community, including RIPE NCC, ICANN and ISOC. In >> recent years, when topics such as “Internet Governance” or >> “multistakeholderism” were often sidelined, RIPE NCC has been >> working closely with the Saudi Arabia and has seen tangible >> progress through collaborative initiatives. >> >> These include signing a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the >> Saudi regulator, which has paved the way for a more open and >> productive dialogue; organising RIPE NCC government roundtable >> that foster direct engagement between the Arab governments and the >> technical community; playing an integral role in the Saudi >> National IPv6 Task Force, which has helped position Saudi Arabia >> as the 5th globally in IPv6 adoption; organising MENOG in Riyadh, >> a vital platform for regional dialogue and knowledge-sharing that >> further solidifies multistakeholder engagement across the Middle >> East, North Africa, and Gulf regions. Additionally, we co- >> organised the first-ever joint session between the Saudi >> government and the technical community (RIPE NCC) at IGF2024 in >> Riyadh setting a new standard for inclusive dialogue. >> >> Furthermore, a coordination meeting has been agreed upon between >> the Saudi regulator and the technical community ahead of WSIS+20. >> This meeting will offer an excellent opportunity to share the >> technical community position and support Saudi efforts for >> greater multistakeholder engagement. >> >> I believe the lessons learned from our work with Saudi Arabia and >> with other Arab countries, such as the United Arab Emirates, can >> serve as a blueprint for engaging stakeholders in other regions. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Chafic Chaya >> >> >> On Fri, 7 Feb 2025 at 00:19, Ashton-Hart, Nick via wsis20 >> <wsis20@icann.org <mailto:wsis20@icann.org> <mailto:wsis20@icann.org <mailto:wsis20@icann.org>>> wrote: >> >> Dear Judith, I’m quite certain what happened on gender wasn’t >> horse trading. Not in the least. >> >> But we digress from the purposes of this list I think. >> >> *Nick Ashton-Hart* >> *APCO*** >> (m) +1 202 779 1072 <tel:+12027791072> >> >> Book time to meet with me here <https:// outlook.office.com/ <https://outlook.office.com/> >> bookwithme/user/ >> ce911a0f9fa543dd9459b3a1392da25e@apcoworldwide.com <mailto:ce911a0f9fa543dd9459b3a1392da25e@apcoworldwide.com>? >> anonymous&isanonymous=true> >> >> On 2/6/25, 3:12 PM, "Judith Hellerstein via wsis20" >> <wsis20@icann.org <mailto:wsis20@icann.org> <mailto:wsis20@icann.org <mailto:wsis20@icann.org>>> wrote: >> >> >> HI Nick, >> >> What happened in Plenipot was just horse trading. If you are >> speaking about connectivity and the ITRs, but I get your >> point. I do think that Saudi Arabia has changed its tone and >> now supports the multi stakeholder approach or how they >> interpret it. Yes, I was in Riyadh and yes it was successful >> because the Saudis realized that if they want to take a lead >> in AI and other areas they need to change their ways. They >> need to garner support in different areas. Also do note, in >> some countries the ITU representatives are often very >> different than the IGF reps. >> >> I also think that the Saudi Government officials with their >> guests and others who came to the conference in Riyadh and >> experienced what true multi Stakeholder is had their eyes >> opened and better understand it. They might also understand >> what path they might want to take. So yes I think it helped >> immensely that the IGF was in Riyadh. >> >> Saudi Arabia also will host within 10 years the World Cup and >> others whom I spoke to there indicated that within a few years >> the total ban against alcohol will also have to disappear. >> They can read the writing on the walls and want to make sure >> they are not left out. >> >> They are also very active in other institutions and working to >> change the culture and the way of life as they see this must >> happen for them to be successful. >> >> Just my two cents >> >> Best, >> >> Judith >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> judith@jhellerstein.com <mailto:judith@jhellerstein.com> <mailto:judith@jhellerstein.com <mailto:judith@jhellerstein.com>> >> >> Skype ID:JudithHellerstein >> >> >> >> On Feb 6, 2025, at 2:56 PM, Ashton-Hart, Nick via wsis20 >> <wsis20@icann.org <mailto:wsis20@icann.org> <mailto:wsis20@icann.org <mailto:wsis20@icann.org>>> wrote: >> >> Speaking personally, when it comes to Saudi Arabia (and >> other states in that region as well as others), I will >> believe there is real change happening when I see a change >> of positions on policy at key conferences like the ITU’s >> agenda-setting meetings. Speeches are important, many >> policy directions are signalled in speeches, but in the >> end what matters is what positions states take on key >> issues in negotiations themselves. >> >> Any of you who were at Plenipot in Romania on the final >> days in particular knows exactly what I’m talking about. >> >> *Nick Ashton-Hart* >> *APCO*** >> (m) +1 202 779 1072 <tel:+12027791072> >> >> Book time to meet with me here <https:// >> outlook.office.com/bookwithme/user/ <http:// outlook.office.com/bookwithme/user/> >> ce911a0f9fa543dd9459b3a1392da25e@apcoworldwide.com <mailto:ce911a0f9fa543dd9459b3a1392da25e@apcoworldwide.com>? >> anonymous&isanonymous=true> >> >> On 2/6/25, 1:43 PM, "Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond via wsis20" >> <wsis20@icann.org <mailto:wsis20@icann.org> <mailto:wsis20@icann.org <mailto:wsis20@icann.org>>> wrote: >> >> >> Dear Fiona, >> >> it's the difference between having old school decision >> makers who have no idea what they are speaking about and >> new stakeholders selected for their intelligence and >> knowledge of the topics. >> >> The world is changing. >> >> Abdullah Alswaha is one of these new leaders. >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdullah_Alswaha <https:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdullah_Alswaha> <https:// >> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdullah_Alswaha <http:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdullah_Alswaha>> >> >> His speech at IGF was inspirational. >> https://youtu.be/wGxF6BVp-AM?si=GHQRxtOQn-LYJ7VQ <https:// youtu.be/wGxF6BVp-AM?si=GHQRxtOQn-LYJ7VQ> <https:// >> youtu.be/wGxF6BVp-AM?si=GHQRxtOQn-LYJ7VQ <http://youtu.be/ wGxF6BVp-AM?si=GHQRxtOQn-LYJ7VQ>> >> >> A friend of mine worked with him at CISCO and he was >> already an inspiring boss. >> >> So the message we are sending out is one thing, but there >> also needs to be an intelligent ear at the other end of >> the fibre. >> >> Kindest regards, >> >> Olivier >> >> On 06/02/2025 18:27, Fiona Alexander via wsis20 wrote: >> >> Hi to all >> >> Interesting discussion and thread. And while the >> actions recommended to make sure that the facts get >> out there and various negotiators are armed with them >> seem wise, I personally was more struck by a >> different contribution to the same meeting. That of >> Saudi Arabia. I've attached for ease of finding. >> >> The RCC, presumably lead by Russia, contribution seems >> in my experience to be largely consistent with where >> Russia and that region has been on this set of issues >> for the larger part of the past 20 years. So really >> no surprise. >> >> The Saudi contribution is a different story to my >> eye. A clear written statement of their support for >> multistakeholder approaches. I don't recall ever >> seeing this position from them at the ITU before. In >> fact, they were firmly against it, at least in all the >> negotiations I participated in during my time in >> government. >> >> Would be curious to hear from others their thoughts on >> how we got to this. I believe there has been quite a >> sustained effort by the Internet technical community >> in this region and perhaps there are some lessons for >> all us on how we can actually demonstrate the utility >> of multistakeholder approaches to those that still are >> skeptical. Also could explain their effort and work >> to host last year's IGF. >> >> Fiona >> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> *From:* Pari Esfandiari via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org <mailto:wsis20@icann.org>> >> <mailto:wsis20@icann.org <mailto:wsis20@icann.org>> >> *Sent:* Thursday, February 6, 2025 5:08 AM >> *To:* wsis20@icann.org <mailto:wsis20@icann.org> <mailto:wsis20@icann.org <mailto:wsis20@icann.org>> >> <wsis20@icann.org <mailto:wsis20@icann.org>> <mailto:wsis20@icann.org <mailto:wsis20@icann.org>> >> *Subject:* [wsis20] Re: RCC Pushes for State-Led >> Internet Governance Ahead of WSIS+20 Review >> >> *External Email:* Use caution with links and attachments. >> >> Dear all, >> >> Thank you for the thoughtful and engaging discussion >> around my recent article on CircleID regarding the >> RCC’s push for a state-led Internet governance mode >> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:// circleid.com/ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://circleid.com/> >> posts/rcc-pushes-for-state-led-internet-governance- >> ahead-of-wsis20-review__;!!IaT_gp1N! >> 2b7n92Tb_yRE7JjkNFqCKq_G5ZqVLVbNmLJ6VlRnw4kkZip0aAaP- >> ZS48c88lDYHYcnXUmi-4Ftvk28$>l. The diverse >> perspectives shared here highlight the significance of >> this issue and the need for continued vigilance in >> safeguarding the multistakeholder model. >> >> >> Addressing Key Points Raised: >> >> 1. *Armenia’s Alignment with RCC – Shifting Alliances?* >> >> * @Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, your observation >> on Armenia’s stance is indeed intriguing, >> considering its usual alignment with Western >> digital policies. However, recent geopolitical >> tensions and regional dependencies may have >> influenced this decision. Whether Armenia >> stands to lose or gain from this move will >> depend on how other global actors respond. >> >> 2. *Hidden Agendas and Misleading Framing of Internet >> Governance* >> >> * @Wolfgang Kleinwächter, your detailed analysis >> of Section 3 of the RCC proposal is crucial. >> While the call for an equitable, neutral, and >> geopolitically immune governance system is >> commendable, the assertion that the >> multistakeholder model fails to meet these >> requirements is misleading. ICANN’s structure, >> particularly through the GAC, already embodies >> sovereign equality and neutrality. The example >> of ICANN’s refusal to remove Russian domain >> names during the Ukraine conflict underscores >> its resilience against political pressures. >> Moving towards state-controlled governance >> would, paradoxically, introduce more >> geopolitical interference rather than >> eliminate it. >> >> 3. *Misuse of the “Public Core” Concept* >> >> * @Joseph Lorenzo Hall and @Tatiana Tropina, >> your point on the RCC’s misrepresentation of >> the “public core” concept is well taken. The >> original GCSC definition was carefully crafted >> through a multistakeholder process to protect >> essential Internet infrastructure, whereas the >> RCC’s broader framing risks enabling greater >> state intervention. As you rightly pointed >> out, conflating the “public core” with >> “critical resources” could open the door to >> increased governmental control over >> fundamental Internet operations, which would >> be detrimental to the open and decentralized >> nature of the Internet. >> >> 4. *The RCC Proposal’s Conflict with WSIS Principles* >> >> * @Dr. Jimson Olufuye, you highlight a >> fundamental flaw in the RCC proposal—it >> contradicts the very foundations of WSIS, the >> Tunis Agenda, and the Global Digital Compact >> (GDC), all of which emphasize multistakeholder >> engagement. While the proposal may be “dead on >> arrival” in some forums, it still serves as a >> strategic tool for certain governments to >> justify expanding their control over the >> Internet. This is why continued advocacy and >> engagement remain necessary. >> >> 5. *Diplomatic Engagement and Advocacy Strategy* >> >> * @Nick Ashton-Hart, @Israel Rosas, and @Remmy >> Nweke, I fully agree that diplomatic >> engagement is critical at this juncture. Many >> diplomats dealing with WSIS+20 and broader >> digital governance discussions may not have a >> deep understanding of the multistakeholder >> model’s nuances. The RCC narrative, if left >> unchallenged, could appeal to those who >> prioritize state sovereignty over openness. >> Strengthening outreach efforts, capacity- >> building initiatives, and direct engagement >> with policymakers will be essential to >> countering this influence. >> >> 6. *Potential ITU Involvement in IP Addressing and >> Protocol Governance* >> >> * @Nick Ashton-Hart, your point about the >> potential push to shift IP protocol governance >> to the ITU is an alarming but not surprising >> development. Given past efforts to exert >> greater governmental control over core >> Internet functions, vigilance is needed to >> ensure that governance remains within the >> multistakeholder ecosystem, where technical >> bodies like the IETF and RIRs maintain their >> crucial roles. >> >> 7. *The Issue of Undefined Stakeholder Roles* >> >> * @Mark W. Datysgeld and @Alejandro Pisanty, the >> issue of fluid stakeholder identities is a >> valid concern. While the multistakeholder >> model is designed to be inclusive and >> adaptable, the lack of clear stakeholder >> categorization has been exploited by certain >> actors to challenge its legitimacy. As >> Alejandro notes, the original WSIS definitions >> were already a compromise, and while we have >> made progress in differentiating stakeholder >> roles, ambiguity remains. Addressing this >> issue transparently in WSIS+20 discussions >> could help prevent its use as a pretext for >> government overreach. >> >> 8. *Potential Impact on Network Neutrality and >> Platform Regulation* >> >> * @Alejandro Pisanty, your warning about threats >> to network neutrality and regulations like >> Section 230 is well-founded. If these >> principles are eroded in democratic contexts, >> it will provide authoritarian governments with >> further justification to impose stricter >> controls on online content and access. >> Ensuring that digital governance remains >> rights-based and independent of political >> agendas must be a key focus moving forward. >> >> >> The Road Ahead >> >> The RCC’s proposal is not just a theoretical debate—it >> is part of a broader geopolitical effort to shift >> Internet governance towards a more state-controlled >> model. While it may not succeed in its current form, >> the underlying ideas will likely persist, making it >> crucial for the Internet governance community to >> remain proactive. >> >> As many of you pointed out, we must: >> >> * Continue engaging with diplomats and policymakers >> who may not be fully aware of the implications of >> state-led governance. >> * Strengthen capacity-building efforts to educate >> stakeholders on the benefits of multistakeholder >> governance. >> * Push back against misrepresentations of concepts >> like the “public core” to prevent them from being >> used as pretexts for increased governmental control. >> * Reinforce the neutrality and resilience of >> existing governance structures, particularly >> within ICANN and technical organizations. >> * Monitor and counteract attempts to shift key >> Internet governance functions to intergovernmental >> bodies like the ITU. >> >> I appreciate all your insights and contributions to >> this discussion. Let’s continue this dialogue and work >> collectively to uphold the principles of an open, >> secure, and inclusive Internet. >> >> Cheers, >> *Pari Esfandiari* >> >> On Thu, Feb 6, 2025 at 2:28 AM Alejandro Pisanty >> <apisanty@gmail.com <mailto:apisanty@gmail.com> <mailto:apisanty@gmail.com <mailto:apisanty@gmail.com>>> wrote: >> >> Mark, >> >> good point re the definition of stakeholders. You >> may know that I was in the WGIG (as a few others >> in this list.) WGIG was the Working Group on >> Internet Governance created by the first phase of >> WSIS in 2003, charged with producing a report with >> a definition of Internet Governance and some >> proposals to move forward, for the second phase in >> 2005. The definition of stakeholder groupings was >> a major issue then and we settled into government, >> business ("private sector" has different meanings >> in the US and elsewhere), civil society and the >> technical community. Unfortunately we couldn't get >> the final documents to list the technical >> community as a separate stakeholder, not the least >> because at the same time it was recognized that >> the people in the technical community may have >> their jobs indistinctly in government (say, >> research laboratories, computing, IT and >> telecommunications departments in government, >> standards organizations, even universities if they >> are public), industry both large and small, and >> organizations classified as civil society (their >> techies among others.) Later on the IGF in >> practice has always listed the technical community >> separately. The differentiated presence of the >> technical community is indispensable and it cuts >> two ways - sometimes it has to say "no,, that >> thing you are imagining is not technically >> possible, or it is unreasonable, or it breaks the >> Internet" and sometimes it says to other parties >> "we can actually do better than you are thinking >> and maybe already are" - and sometimes, very often >> rather, we have to tell people, especiallly in >> governments, "no, it doesn' work that way" and >> enter long explanations. >> >> Now picking on the second part of your statement: >> with fuzzy borders, we can say that one thing is >> the definition of the stakeholder groupings, as >> above, and another, complementary one, is the >> assignment of specific individuals to stakeholder >> groups at a given point in time. Also especially >> in developing countries we do continue to find >> that a small number of people fulfill many roles >> at the same time and thus can be simultaneously >> ascribed to more than one stakeholder group. >> Someone working in business (or even owining one) >> may come to Internet governance with that >> knowledge but acting through an organization like >> an NGO oriented to education or development or >> community networks, and or sit on an advisory >> committee to a telecoms or competition regulator. >> We have made progress in the last 20 years towards >> clearer roles and against conflicts of interest >> but this fluidity remains and also is very valuable. >> >> We should convey this clearly to the skeptics and >> also know that it is a facetious argument invoked >> with ill intent while fully knowing the above. >> >> Yours, >> >> Alejandro Pisanty >> >> On Wed, Feb 5, 2025 at 7:53 PM Mark W. Datysgeld >> via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org <mailto:wsis20@icann.org> >> <mailto:wsis20@icann.org <mailto:wsis20@icann.org>>> wrote: >> >> One idea presented by the document that cannot >> just be waved away is that "stakeholder roles >> remain undefined". They do. I understand >> Pari's relevant answer to that point, but it >> does not address the fact that stakeholder >> identity is incredibly liquid. Take any set of >> IGF applications and you are likely to quickly >> find the same speaker submitted as 3 different >> stakeholders in different applications. >> >> This is a subject that cannot be put aside in >> the upcoming discussion and the High-Level >> Event itself, because it is a weakness of our >> multistakeholder models that can and will be >> used against us by governments in their bid >> for increased control. >> >> Regards, >> >> On 5 Feb 2025 07:03, Pari Esfandiari via >> wsis20 wrote: >> >> This review of the RCC’s submission in the >> lead-up to the WSIS+20 examines its call >> for a state-led approach to Internet >> governance and its implications for the >> multistakeholder model. It explores how >> the RCC frames its arguments around >> digital sovereignty, interoperability, and >> regulatory frameworks while assessing the >> potential impact on global Internet >> governance structures, innovation, and >> access. Additionally, the article >> considers the broader geopolitical context >> of the submission and its alignment—or >> divergence—with international efforts to >> maintain an open, inclusive, and secure >> digital environment. >> >> https://circleid.com/posts/rcc-pushes-for- <https:// circleid.com/posts/rcc-pushes-for-> >> state-led-internet-governance-ahead-of- >> wsis20-review <https:// urldefense.com/v3/ <https://urldefense.com/v3/> >> __https://circleid.com/posts/rcc- pushes- <https://circleid.com/posts/rcc-pushes-> >> for-state-led-internet-governance-ahead- >> of-wsis20-review__;!!IaT_gp1N! >> 2b7n92Tb_yRE7JjkNFqCKq_G5ZqVLVbNmLJ6VlRnw4kkZip0aAaP- ZS48c88lDYHYcnXUmi-4Ftvk28$> >> >> Cheers, >> >> Pari >> >> -- >> >> Pari Esfandiari >> >> President >> >> */Global TechnoPolitics Forum <https:// >> urldefense.com/v3/__http:// <http://urldefense.com/v3/__http://> >> www.technopolitics.org__;!!IaT_gp1N! >> 2b7n92Tb_yRE7JjkNFqCKq_G5ZqVLVbNmLJ6VlRnw4kkZip0aAaP- ZS48c88lDYHYcnXUmi-NbZKWFk$> /* >> >> */Pario <https://urldefense.com/v3/ <https://urldefense.com/v3/> >> __http://www.parioconsultants.com__ <http://www.parioconsultants.com__>;!! >> IaT_gp1N! >> 2b7n92Tb_yRE7JjkNFqCKq_G5ZqVLVbNmLJ6VlRnw4kkZip0aAaP- ZS48c88lDYHYcnXUmi-xP8p8ow$>- Architects of Ideas/* >> >> info@TechnoPolitics.org >> <mailto:info@technopolitics.org <mailto:info@technopolitics.org>> >> >> *Linkedin Profile <https:// urldefense.com/ <https://urldefense.com/> >> v3/__https://www.linkedin.com/in/ <https://www.linkedin.com/in/> >> pariesfandiari/__;!!IaT_gp1N! >> 2b7n92Tb_yRE7JjkNFqCKq_G5ZqVLVbNmLJ6VlRnw4kkZip0aAaP- ZS48c88lDYHYcnXUmi-Bt4JaUE$>* >> >> Tel: +1-202_-__735-1415_ (Office) >> >> : +1-310-435-0888 (Cell) >> >> : +44-731-210-4049 (Cell) >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> >> >> >> >> Learn more about the WSIS+20 Outreach Network and review relevant resources:https:// go.icann.org/wsis20 <https://go.icann.org/wsis20> <https:// urldefense.com/v3/__https://go.icann.org/wsis20__;!!IaT_gp1N! 2b7n92Tb_yRE7JjkNFqCKq_G5ZqVLVbNmLJ6VlRnw4kkZip0aAaP- ZS48c88lDYHYcnXUmi-tFT7mAc$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/ __https://go.icann.org/wsis20__;!!IaT_gp1N! 2b7n92Tb_yRE7JjkNFqCKq_G5ZqVLVbNmLJ6VlRnw4kkZip0aAaP- ZS48c88lDYHYcnXUmi-tFT7mAc$>> >> >> >> >> Read the public archives for this mailing list:https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/ <https:// mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/> <https://urldefense.com/v3/ __https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/__;!!IaT_gp1N! 2b7n92Tb_yRE7JjkNFqCKq_G5ZqVLVbNmLJ6VlRnw4kkZip0aAaP- ZS48c88lDYHYcnXUmi-l8hd-Ms$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/ __https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/__;!!IaT_gp1N! 2b7n92Tb_yRE7JjkNFqCKq_G5ZqVLVbNmLJ6VlRnw4kkZip0aAaP- ZS48c88lDYHYcnXUmi-l8hd-Ms$>> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy <https:// www.icann.org/privacy/policy> <https://urldefense.com/v3/ __https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy__;!!IaT_gp1N! 2b7n92Tb_yRE7JjkNFqCKq_G5ZqVLVbNmLJ6VlRnw4kkZip0aAaP- ZS48c88lDYHYcnXUmi-EbZ1zAw$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/ __https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy__;!!IaT_gp1N! 2b7n92Tb_yRE7JjkNFqCKq_G5ZqVLVbNmLJ6VlRnw4kkZip0aAaP- ZS48c88lDYHYcnXUmi-EbZ1zAw$>>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <https://www.icann.org/ privacy/tos> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.icann.org/ privacy/tos__;!!IaT_gp1N! 2b7n92Tb_yRE7JjkNFqCKq_G5ZqVLVbNmLJ6VlRnw4kkZip0aAaP- ZS48c88lDYHYcnXUmi-uOLSs2I$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/ __https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos__;!!IaT_gp1N! 2b7n92Tb_yRE7JjkNFqCKq_G5ZqVLVbNmLJ6VlRnw4kkZip0aAaP- ZS48c88lDYHYcnXUmi-uOLSs2I$>>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. >> >> -- >> Mark W. Datysgeld >> Director at Governance Primer >> [governanceprimer.com <http:// governanceprimer.com> <https://urldefense.com/ <https:// urldefense.com/> >> v3/__https://governanceprimer.com__ <https://governanceprimer.com__>;!! >> IaT_gp1N! >> 2b7n92Tb_yRE7JjkNFqCKq_G5ZqVLVbNmLJ6VlRnw4kkZip0aAaP- ZS48c88lDYHYcnXUmi-jWVFiuA$>] >> Project Lead Developer at ICANNWiki >> [icannwiki.org <http://icannwiki.org> <https://urldefense.com/v3/ <https://urldefense.com/v3/> >> __https://icannwiki.org/__;!!IaT_gp1N <https://icannwiki.org/__;!!IaT_gp1N>! >> 2b7n92Tb_yRE7JjkNFqCKq_G5ZqVLVbNmLJ6VlRnw4kkZip0aAaP- ZS48c88lDYHYcnXUmi-hziaYGI$>] >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> >> Learn more about the WSIS+20 Outreach Network >> and review relevant resources: https:// >> go.icann.org/wsis20 <http://go.icann.org/wsis20> <https:// urldefense.com/ <https://urldefense.com/> >> v3/__https://go.icann.org/wsis20__;!! IaT_gp1N <https://go.icann.org/wsis20__;!!IaT_gp1N>! >> 2b7n92Tb_yRE7JjkNFqCKq_G5ZqVLVbNmLJ6VlRnw4kkZip0aAaP- ZS48c88lDYHYcnXUmi-tFT7mAc$> >> >> Read the public archives for this mailing >> list: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ wsis20/ <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/> >> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:// <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://> >> mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/__;!!IaT_gp1N <http:// mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/__;!!IaT_gp1N>! >> 2b7n92Tb_yRE7JjkNFqCKq_G5ZqVLVbNmLJ6VlRnw4kkZip0aAaP- ZS48c88lDYHYcnXUmi-l8hd-Ms$> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> By submitting your personal data, you consent >> to the processing of your personal data for >> purposes of subscribing to this mailing list >> accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy >> (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy <https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy> >> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:// <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://> >> www.icann.org/privacy/policy__;!!IaT_gp1N <http:// www.icann.org/privacy/policy__;!!IaT_gp1N>! >> 2b7n92Tb_yRE7JjkNFqCKq_G5ZqVLVbNmLJ6VlRnw4kkZip0aAaP- ZS48c88lDYHYcnXUmi-EbZ1zAw$>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <https://www.icann.org/ privacy/tos> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.icann.org/ privacy/tos__;!!IaT_gp1N! 2b7n92Tb_yRE7JjkNFqCKq_G5ZqVLVbNmLJ6VlRnw4kkZip0aAaP- ZS48c88lDYHYcnXUmi-uOLSs2I$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/ __https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos__;!!IaT_gp1N! 2b7n92Tb_yRE7JjkNFqCKq_G5ZqVLVbNmLJ6VlRnw4kkZip0aAaP- ZS48c88lDYHYcnXUmi-uOLSs2I$>>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. >> >> -- >> >> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - >> Dr. Alejandro Pisanty >> Facultad de Química UNAM >> Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico >> +525541444475 >> Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com <http:// pisanty.blogspot.com> <https:// >> urldefense.com/v3/__http:// <http://urldefense.com/v3/__http://> >> pisanty.blogspot.com__;!!IaT_gp1N! >> 2b7n92Tb_yRE7JjkNFqCKq_G5ZqVLVbNmLJ6VlRnw4kkZip0aAaP- ZS48c88lDYHYcnXUmi-7emGT4Q$> >> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty <http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty> >> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:// <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://> >> www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty__;!!IaT_gp1N <http:// www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty__;!!IaT_gp1N>! >> 2b7n92Tb_yRE7JjkNFqCKq_G5ZqVLVbNmLJ6VlRnw4kkZip0aAaP- ZS48c88lDYHYcnXUmi-jFf6zyY$> >> Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http:// >> www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 <http:// www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614> >> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:// <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://> >> www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614__; <http:// www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614__;>!! >> IaT_gp1N! >> 2b7n92Tb_yRE7JjkNFqCKq_G5ZqVLVbNmLJ6VlRnw4kkZip0aAaP- ZS48c88lDYHYcnXUmi-BIyjtRw$> >> Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty <http://twitter.com/apisanty> <https:// >> urldefense.com/v3/__http://twitter.com/ <http:// urldefense.com/v3/__http://twitter.com/> >> apisanty__;!!IaT_gp1N! >> 2b7n92Tb_yRE7JjkNFqCKq_G5ZqVLVbNmLJ6VlRnw4kkZip0aAaP- ZS48c88lDYHYcnXUmi-uTkh9bc$> >> ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http:// www.isoc.org <http://www.isoc.org> >> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:// <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://> >> www.isoc.org__;!!IaT_gp1N! >> 2b7n92Tb_yRE7JjkNFqCKq_G5ZqVLVbNmLJ6VlRnw4kkZip0aAaP- ZS48c88lDYHYcnXUmi-d4fST6k$> >> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . >> >> -- >> >> Pari Esfandiari >> >> President >> >> */Global TechnoPolitics Forum <https:// urldefense.com/ <https://urldefense.com/> >> v3/__http://www.technopolitics.org__ <http:// www.technopolitics.org__>;!!IaT_gp1N! >> 2b7n92Tb_yRE7JjkNFqCKq_G5ZqVLVbNmLJ6VlRnw4kkZip0aAaP- >> ZS48c88lDYHYcnXUmi-NbZKWFk$> /* >> >> */Pario <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:// <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://> >> www.parioconsultants.com__;!!IaT_gp1N! >> 2b7n92Tb_yRE7JjkNFqCKq_G5ZqVLVbNmLJ6VlRnw4kkZip0aAaP- >> ZS48c88lDYHYcnXUmi-xP8p8ow$>- Architects of Ideas/* >> >> info@TechnoPolitics.org <mailto:info@technopolitics.org <mailto:info@technopolitics.org>> >> >> *Linkedin Profile <https://urldefense.com/v3/ <https://urldefense.com/v3/> >> __https://www.linkedin.com/in/pariesfandiari/__; <https://www.linkedin.com/in/pariesfandiari/__;>!! >> IaT_gp1N! >> 2b7n92Tb_yRE7JjkNFqCKq_G5ZqVLVbNmLJ6VlRnw4kkZip0aAaP- >> ZS48c88lDYHYcnXUmi-Bt4JaUE$>* >> >> Tel: +1-202_-__735-1415_ (Office) >> >> : +1-310-435-0888 (Cell) >> >> : +44-731-210-4049 (Cell) >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> >> >> >> >> Learn more about the WSIS+20 Outreach Network and review relevant resources:https://go.icann.org/wsis20 <https://go.icann.org/wsis20> <https://go.icann.org/wsis20 <https://go.icann.org/wsis20>> >> >> >> >> Read the public archives for this mailing list:https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/ <https:// mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/> <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ wsis20/ <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/>> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy <https://www.icann.org/ privacy/policy> <https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy <https:// www.icann.org/privacy/policy>>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <https://www.icann.org/ privacy/tos> <https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <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. >> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> DATA HANDLING >> >> For data handling questions, please view our Privacy >> Policy <https://apcoworldwide.com/privacy-policy/ <https://apcoworldwide.com/privacy-policy/>> or >> contact us at privacy@apcoworldwide.com <mailto:privacy@apcoworldwide.com> <https:// >> %20privacy@apcoworldwide.com/ <http://20privacy@apcoworldwide.com/>> with any inquiries. >> >> >> CONFIDENTIALITY >> >> This email may contain material that is confidential, >> privileged and/or work product for the sole use of the >> intended recipient. Any review, reliance or distribution >> by others or forwarding without express permission is >> strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended >> recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> >> Learn more about the WSIS+20 Outreach Network and review >> relevant resources: https://go.icann.org/wsis20 <https://go.icann.org/wsis20> <https:// >> go.icann.org/wsis20 <http://go.icann.org/wsis20>> >> >> Read the public archives for this mailing list: https:// >> mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/ <http://mm.icann.org/ pipermail/wsis20/> <https://mm.icann.org/ <https://mm.icann.org/> >> pipermail/wsis20/> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the >> processing of your personal data for purposes of >> subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN >> Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy <https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy> >> <https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy <https:// www.icann.org/privacy/policy>>) and the website >> Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos> >> <https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <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. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> >> Learn more about the WSIS+20 Outreach Network and review >> relevant resources: https://go.icann.org/wsis20 <https://go.icann.org/wsis20> <https:// >> go.icann.org/wsis20 <http://go.icann.org/wsis20>> >> >> Read the public archives for this mailing list: https:// >> mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/ <http://mm.icann.org/ pipermail/wsis20/> <https://mm.icann.org/ <https://mm.icann.org/> >> pipermail/wsis20/> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the >> processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing >> to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy >> (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy <https:// www.icann.org/privacy/policy> <https://www.icann.org/ <https:// www.icann.org/> >> privacy/policy>) and the website Terms of Service (https:// >> www.icann.org/privacy/tos <http://www.icann.org/privacy/tos> <https://www.icann.org/privacy/ <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. >> >> _______________________________________________ Learn more about >> the WSIS+20 Outreach Network and review relevant resources: >> https://go.icann.org/wsis20 <https://go.icann.org/wsis20> Read the public archives for this >> mailing list: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/ <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/> >> _______________________________________________ By submitting your >> personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data >> for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with >> the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/ policy <https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>) >> and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/ privacy/ <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. > > _______________________________________________ > > > Learn more about the WSIS+20 Outreach Network and review relevant resources: https://go.icann.org/wsis20 <https:// go.icann.org/wsis20> > > Read the public archives for this mailing list: https:// mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/ <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ wsis20/> > > _______________________________________________ > By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy <https://www.icann.org/ privacy/policy>) and the website Terms of Service (https:// www.icann.org/privacy/tos <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.
_______________________________________________
Learn more about the WSIS+20 Outreach Network and review relevant resources: https://go.icann.org/wsis20 <https:// go.icann.org/wsis20>
Read the public archives for this mailing list: https:// mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/ <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ wsis20/>
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https:// www.icann.org/privacy/policy <https://www.icann.org/privacy/ policy>) and the website Terms of Service (https:// www.icann.org/privacy/tos <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.
@ Fiona: In my eyes this is not a surprise. The times of Mr. Darrab in the WGIG (2004/05) is gone. He wanted to have an intergovernmental treaty for the Root Server System. This was unrealistic from the beginning. But he continued with this position at WCIT (2012) and even during the two UNCSTD WGECs. Since Saudi Arabia chaired the G20 (2021), they have realized that to become one of the leaders in cybersecurity and AI, they have to be realistic and pragmatic. The speech of the minister at the IGF in December 2024 was a clear signal that Saudis ambitions are to become the AI leader of the Global South und to bridge the North-South divide. This fits also into MBS plans (Riyadh 2030 & FIFA World Cup 2034). You can also listen to Abdullahs speeches during the recent WEF in Davos: He is very open minded. But it is also clear, that he has a special interpretation of the MS model: It is multistakeholderism under MSBs control. If you read the text of the mysterious "Riyadh Declaration" from December 2004, there is no reference to human rights and individual freedoms. A. support for the multistakeholder approach does not exclude mass survaillence. w
Fiona Alexander via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> hat am 06.02.2025 19:27 CET geschrieben:
Hi to all
Interesting discussion and thread. And while the actions recommended to make sure that the facts get out there and various negotiators are armed with them seem wise, I personally was more struck by a different contribution to the same meeting. That of Saudi Arabia. I've attached for ease of finding.
The RCC, presumably lead by Russia, contribution seems in my experience to be largely consistent with where Russia and that region has been on this set of issues for the larger part of the past 20 years. So really no surprise.
The Saudi contribution is a different story to my eye. A clear written statement of their support for multistakeholder approaches. I don't recall ever seeing this position from them at the ITU before. In fact, they were firmly against it, at least in all the negotiations I participated in during my time in government.
Would be curious to hear from others their thoughts on how we got to this. I believe there has been quite a sustained effort by the Internet technical community in this region and perhaps there are some lessons for all us on how we can actually demonstrate the utility of multistakeholder approaches to those that still are skeptical. Also could explain their effort and work to host last year's IGF.
Fiona
--------------------------------------------- From: Pari Esfandiari via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> Sent: Thursday, February 6, 2025 5:08 AM To: wsis20@icann.org <wsis20@icann.org> Subject: [wsis20] Re: RCC Pushes for State-Led Internet Governance Ahead of WSIS+20 Review
External Email: Use caution with links and attachments.
Dear all,
Thank you for the thoughtful and engaging discussion around my recent article on CircleID regarding the RCC’s push for a state-led Internet governance mode https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://circleid.com/posts/rcc-pushes-for-state-.... The diverse perspectives shared here highlight the significance of this issue and the need for continued vigilance in safeguarding the multistakeholder model.
Addressing Key Points Raised:
1. Armenia’s Alignment with RCC – Shifting Alliances?
o @Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, your observation on Armenia’s stance is indeed intriguing, considering its usual alignment with Western digital policies. However, recent geopolitical tensions and regional dependencies may have influenced this decision. Whether Armenia stands to lose or gain from this move will depend on how other global actors respond. 2. Hidden Agendas and Misleading Framing of Internet Governance
o @Wolfgang Kleinwächter, your detailed analysis of Section 3 of the RCC proposal is crucial. While the call for an equitable, neutral, and geopolitically immune governance system is commendable, the assertion that the multistakeholder model fails to meet these requirements is misleading. ICANN’s structure, particularly through the GAC, already embodies sovereign equality and neutrality. The example of ICANN’s refusal to remove Russian domain names during the Ukraine conflict underscores its resilience against political pressures. Moving towards state-controlled governance would, paradoxically, introduce more geopolitical interference rather than eliminate it. 3. Misuse of the “Public Core” Concept
o @Joseph Lorenzo Hall and @Tatiana Tropina, your point on the RCC’s misrepresentation of the “public core” concept is well taken. The original GCSC definition was carefully crafted through a multistakeholder process to protect essential Internet infrastructure, whereas the RCC’s broader framing risks enabling greater state intervention. As you rightly pointed out, conflating the “public core” with “critical resources” could open the door to increased governmental control over fundamental Internet operations, which would be detrimental to the open and decentralized nature of the Internet. 4. The RCC Proposal’s Conflict with WSIS Principles
o @Dr. Jimson Olufuye, you highlight a fundamental flaw in the RCC proposal—it contradicts the very foundations of WSIS, the Tunis Agenda, and the Global Digital Compact (GDC), all of which emphasize multistakeholder engagement. While the proposal may be “dead on arrival” in some forums, it still serves as a strategic tool for certain governments to justify expanding their control over the Internet. This is why continued advocacy and engagement remain necessary. 5. Diplomatic Engagement and Advocacy Strategy
o @Nick Ashton-Hart, @Israel Rosas, and @Remmy Nweke, I fully agree that diplomatic engagement is critical at this juncture. Many diplomats dealing with WSIS+20 and broader digital governance discussions may not have a deep understanding of the multistakeholder model’s nuances. The RCC narrative, if left unchallenged, could appeal to those who prioritize state sovereignty over openness. Strengthening outreach efforts, capacity-building initiatives, and direct engagement with policymakers will be essential to countering this influence. 6. Potential ITU Involvement in IP Addressing and Protocol Governance
o @Nick Ashton-Hart, your point about the potential push to shift IP protocol governance to the ITU is an alarming but not surprising development. Given past efforts to exert greater governmental control over core Internet functions, vigilance is needed to ensure that governance remains within the multistakeholder ecosystem, where technical bodies like the IETF and RIRs maintain their crucial roles. 7. The Issue of Undefined Stakeholder Roles
o @Mark W. Datysgeld and @Alejandro Pisanty, the issue of fluid stakeholder identities is a valid concern. While the multistakeholder model is designed to be inclusive and adaptable, the lack of clear stakeholder categorization has been exploited by certain actors to challenge its legitimacy. As Alejandro notes, the original WSIS definitions were already a compromise, and while we have made progress in differentiating stakeholder roles, ambiguity remains. Addressing this issue transparently in WSIS+20 discussions could help prevent its use as a pretext for government overreach. 8. Potential Impact on Network Neutrality and Platform Regulation
o @Alejandro Pisanty, your warning about threats to network neutrality and regulations like Section 230 is well-founded. If these principles are eroded in democratic contexts, it will provide authoritarian governments with further justification to impose stricter controls on online content and access. Ensuring that digital governance remains rights-based and independent of political agendas must be a key focus moving forward.
The Road Ahead
The RCC’s proposal is not just a theoretical debate—it is part of a broader geopolitical effort to shift Internet governance towards a more state-controlled model. While it may not succeed in its current form, the underlying ideas will likely persist, making it crucial for the Internet governance community to remain proactive.
As many of you pointed out, we must:
* Continue engaging with diplomats and policymakers who may not be fully aware of the implications of state-led governance. * Strengthen capacity-building efforts to educate stakeholders on the benefits of multistakeholder governance. * Push back against misrepresentations of concepts like the “public core” to prevent them from being used as pretexts for increased governmental control. * Reinforce the neutrality and resilience of existing governance structures, particularly within ICANN and technical organizations. * Monitor and counteract attempts to shift key Internet governance functions to intergovernmental bodies like the ITU.
I appreciate all your insights and contributions to this discussion. Let’s continue this dialogue and work collectively to uphold the principles of an open, secure, and inclusive Internet.
Cheers, Pari Esfandiari
On Thu, Feb 6, 2025 at 2:28 AM Alejandro Pisanty <apisanty@gmail.com mailto:apisanty@gmail.com> wrote:
Mark,
good point re the definition of stakeholders. You may know that I was in the WGIG (as a few others in this list.) WGIG was the Working Group on Internet Governance created by the first phase of WSIS in 2003, charged with producing a report with a definition of Internet Governance and some proposals to move forward, for the second phase in 2005. The definition of stakeholder groupings was a major issue then and we settled into government, business ("private sector" has different meanings in the US and elsewhere), civil society and the technical community. Unfortunately we couldn't get the final documents to list the technical community as a separate stakeholder, not the least because at the same time it was recognized that the people in the technical community may have their jobs indistinctly in government (say, research laboratories, computing, IT and telecommunications departments in government, standards organizations, even universities if they are public), industry both large and small, and organizations classified as civil society (their techies among others.) Later on the IGF in practice has always listed the technical community separately. The differentiated presence of the technical community is indispensable and it cuts two ways - sometimes it has to say "no,, that thing you are imagining is not technically possible, or it is unreasonable, or it breaks the Internet" and sometimes it says to other parties "we can actually do better than you are thinking and maybe already are" - and sometimes, very often rather, we have to tell people, especiallly in governments, "no, it doesn' work that way" and enter long explanations.
Now picking on the second part of your statement: with fuzzy borders, we can say that one thing is the definition of the stakeholder groupings, as above, and another, complementary one, is the assignment of specific individuals to stakeholder groups at a given point in time. Also especially in developing countries we do continue to find that a small number of people fulfill many roles at the same time and thus can be simultaneously ascribed to more than one stakeholder group. Someone working in business (or even owining one) may come to Internet governance with that knowledge but acting through an organization like an NGO oriented to education or development or community networks, and or sit on an advisory committee to a telecoms or competition regulator. We have made progress in the last 20 years towards clearer roles and against conflicts of interest but this fluidity remains and also is very valuable.
We should convey this clearly to the skeptics and also know that it is a facetious argument invoked with ill intent while fully knowing the above.
Yours,
Alejandro Pisanty
On Wed, Feb 5, 2025 at 7:53 PM Mark W. Datysgeld via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org mailto:wsis20@icann.org> wrote:
One idea presented by the document that cannot just be waved away is that "stakeholder roles remain undefined". They do. I understand Pari's relevant answer to that point, but it does not address the fact that stakeholder identity is incredibly liquid. Take any set of IGF applications and you are likely to quickly find the same speaker submitted as 3 different stakeholders in different applications.
This is a subject that cannot be put aside in the upcoming discussion and the High-Level Event itself, because it is a weakness of our multistakeholder models that can and will be used against us by governments in their bid for increased control.
Regards,
On 5 Feb 2025 07:03, Pari Esfandiari via wsis20 wrote:
This review of the RCC’s submission in the lead-up to the WSIS+20 examines its call for a state-led approach to Internet governance and its implications for the multistakeholder model. It explores how the RCC frames its arguments around digital sovereignty, interoperability, and regulatory frameworks while assessing the potential impact on global Internet governance structures, innovation, and access. Additionally, the article considers the broader geopolitical context of the submission and its alignment—or divergence—with international efforts to maintain an open, inclusive, and secure digital environment. https://circleid.com/posts/rcc-pushes-for-state-led-internet-governance-ahea... https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://circleid.com/posts/rcc-pushes-for-state-... Cheers, Pari
-- Pari Esfandiari President Global TechnoPolitics Forum https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.technopolitics.org__;!!IaT_gp1N!2b7n9... Pario https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.parioconsultants.com__;!!IaT_gp1N!2b7... - Architects of Ideas info@TechnoPolitics.org mailto:info@technopolitics.org Linkedin Profile https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.linkedin.com/in/pariesfandiari/__;!!... Tel: +1-202-735-1415 (Office) : +1-310-435-0888 (Cell) : +44-731-210-4049 (Cell)
_______________________________________________ Learn more about the WSIS+20 Outreach Network and review relevant resources: https://go.icann.org/wsis20 https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://go.icann.org/wsis20__;!!IaT_gp1N!2b7n92T... Read the public archives for this mailing list: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/ https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/__;!!IaT_g... _______________________________________________ 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_gp1...) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos__;!!IaT_gp1N!2...). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
-- Mark W. Datysgeld Director at Governance Primer [governanceprimer.com https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://governanceprimer.com__;!!IaT_gp1N!2b7n92...] Project Lead Developer at ICANNWiki [icannwiki.org https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://icannwiki.org/__;!!IaT_gp1N!2b7n92Tb_yRE...] _______________________________________________
Learn more about the WSIS+20 Outreach Network and review relevant resources: https://go.icann.org/wsis20 https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://go.icann.org/wsis20__;!!IaT_gp1N!2b7n92T...
Read the public archives for this mailing list: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/ https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/__;!!IaT_g...
_______________________________________________ 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_gp1...) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos__;!!IaT_gp1N!2...). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Facultad de Química UNAM Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico +525541444475 Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://pisanty.blogspot.com__;!!IaT_gp1N!2b7n92T... LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty__;!!IaT_gp1N!... Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614... Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://twitter.com/apisanty__;!!IaT_gp1N!2b7n92T... ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.isoc.org__;!!IaT_gp1N!2b7n92Tb_yRE7Jj... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
-- Pari Esfandiari President Global TechnoPolitics Forum https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.technopolitics.org__;!!IaT_gp1N!2b7n9... Pario https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.parioconsultants.com__;!!IaT_gp1N!2b7... - Architects of Ideas info@TechnoPolitics.org mailto:info@technopolitics.org Linkedin Profile https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.linkedin.com/in/pariesfandiari/__;!!... Tel: +1-202-735-1415 (Office) : +1-310-435-0888 (Cell) : +44-731-210-4049 (Cell) _______________________________________________ Learn more about the WSIS+20 Outreach Network and review relevant resources: https://go.icann.org/wsis20 Read the public archives for this mailing list: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/ _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
+1 The only permanent thing is change. As the influence of fossil fuel dwindles, the need to evolve new strategies and partners for future prosperity becomes self-evidence. JO On 2025-02-07 01:05, Wolfgang Kleinwächter via wsis20 wrote:
@ Fiona: In my eyes this is not a surprise. The times of Mr. Darrab in the WGIG (2004/05) is gone. He wanted to have an intergovernmental treaty for the Root Server System. This was unrealistic from the beginning. But he continued with this position at WCIT (2012) and even during the two UNCSTD WGECs.
Since Saudi Arabia chaired the G20 (2021), they have realized that to become one of the leaders in cybersecurity and AI, they have to be realistic and pragmatic. The speech of the minister at the IGF in December 2024 was a clear signal that Saudis ambitions are to become the AI leader of the Global South und to bridge the North-South divide. This fits also into MBS plans (Riyadh 2030 & FIFA World Cup 2034). You can also listen to Abdullahs speeches during the recent WEF in Davos: He is very open minded.
But it is also clear, that he has a special interpretation of the MS model: It is multistakeholderism under MSBs control. If you read the text of the mysterious "Riyadh Declaration" from December 2004, there is no reference to human rights and individual freedoms. A. support for the multistakeholder approach does not exclude mass survaillence.
w
Fiona Alexander via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> hat am 06.02.2025 19:27 CET geschrieben:
Hi to all
Interesting discussion and thread. And while the actions recommended to make sure that the facts get out there and various negotiators are armed with them seem wise, I personally was more struck by a different contribution to the same meeting. That of Saudi Arabia. I've attached for ease of finding.
The RCC, presumably lead by Russia, contribution seems in my experience to be largely consistent with where Russia and that region has been on this set of issues for the larger part of the past 20 years. So really no surprise.
The Saudi contribution is a different story to my eye. A clear written statement of their support for multistakeholder approaches. I don't recall ever seeing this position from them at the ITU before. In fact, they were firmly against it, at least in all the negotiations I participated in during my time in government.
Would be curious to hear from others their thoughts on how we got to this. I believe there has been quite a sustained effort by the Internet technical community in this region and perhaps there are some lessons for all us on how we can actually demonstrate the utility of multistakeholder approaches to those that still are skeptical. Also could explain their effort and work to host last year's IGF.
Fiona
-------------------------
From: Pari Esfandiari via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> Sent: Thursday, February 6, 2025 5:08 AM To: wsis20@icann.org <wsis20@icann.org> Subject: [wsis20] Re: RCC Pushes for State-Led Internet Governance Ahead of WSIS+20 Review
External Email: Use caution with links and attachments.
Dear all,
Thank you for the thoughtful and engaging discussion around my recent article on CircleID regarding the RCC’s push for a state-led Internet governance mode [1]l. The diverse perspectives shared here highlight the significance of this issue and the need for continued vigilance in safeguarding the multistakeholder model.
ADDRESSING KEY POINTS RAISED:
*
Armenia’s Alignment with RCC – Shifting Alliances?
* @Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, your observation on Armenia’s stance is indeed intriguing, considering its usual alignment with Western digital policies. However, recent geopolitical tensions and regional dependencies may have influenced this decision. Whether Armenia stands to lose or gain from this move will depend on how other global actors respond.
*
Hidden Agendas and Misleading Framing of Internet Governance
* @Wolfgang Kleinwächter, your detailed analysis of Section 3 of the RCC proposal is crucial. While the call for an equitable, neutral, and geopolitically immune governance system is commendable, the assertion that the multistakeholder model fails to meet these requirements is misleading. ICANN’s structure, particularly through the GAC, already embodies sovereign equality and neutrality. The example of ICANN’s refusal to remove Russian domain names during the Ukraine conflict underscores its resilience against political pressures. Moving towards state-controlled governance would, paradoxically, introduce more geopolitical interference rather than eliminate it.
*
Misuse of the “Public Core” Concept
* @Joseph Lorenzo Hall and @Tatiana Tropina, your point on the RCC’s misrepresentation of the “public core” concept is well taken. The original GCSC definition was carefully crafted through a multistakeholder process to protect essential Internet infrastructure, whereas the RCC’s broader framing risks enabling greater state intervention. As you rightly pointed out, conflating the “public core” with “critical resources” could open the door to increased governmental control over fundamental Internet operations, which would be detrimental to the open and decentralized nature of the Internet.
*
The RCC Proposal’s Conflict with WSIS Principles
* @Dr. Jimson Olufuye, you highlight a fundamental flaw in the RCC proposal—it contradicts the very foundations of WSIS, the Tunis Agenda, and the Global Digital Compact (GDC), all of which emphasize multistakeholder engagement. While the proposal may be “dead on arrival” in some forums, it still serves as a strategic tool for certain governments to justify expanding their control over the Internet. This is why continued advocacy and engagement remain necessary.
*
Diplomatic Engagement and Advocacy Strategy
* @Nick Ashton-Hart, @Israel Rosas, and @Remmy Nweke, I fully agree that diplomatic engagement is critical at this juncture. Many diplomats dealing with WSIS+20 and broader digital governance discussions may not have a deep understanding of the multistakeholder model’s nuances. The RCC narrative, if left unchallenged, could appeal to those who prioritize state sovereignty over openness. Strengthening outreach efforts, capacity-building initiatives, and direct engagement with policymakers will be essential to countering this influence.
*
Potential ITU Involvement in IP Addressing and Protocol Governance
* @Nick Ashton-Hart, your point about the potential push to shift IP protocol governance to the ITU is an alarming but not surprising development. Given past efforts to exert greater governmental control over core Internet functions, vigilance is needed to ensure that governance remains within the multistakeholder ecosystem, where technical bodies like the IETF and RIRs maintain their crucial roles.
*
The Issue of Undefined Stakeholder Roles
* @Mark W. Datysgeld and @Alejandro Pisanty, the issue of fluid stakeholder identities is a valid concern. While the multistakeholder model is designed to be inclusive and adaptable, the lack of clear stakeholder categorization has been exploited by certain actors to challenge its legitimacy. As Alejandro notes, the original WSIS definitions were already a compromise, and while we have made progress in differentiating stakeholder roles, ambiguity remains. Addressing this issue transparently in WSIS+20 discussions could help prevent its use as a pretext for government overreach.
*
Potential Impact on Network Neutrality and Platform Regulation
* @Alejandro Pisanty, your warning about threats to network neutrality and regulations like Section 230 is well-founded. If these principles are eroded in democratic contexts, it will provide authoritarian governments with further justification to impose stricter controls on online content and access. Ensuring that digital governance remains rights-based and independent of political agendas must be a key focus moving forward.
THE ROAD AHEAD
The RCC’s proposal is not just a theoretical debate—it is part of a broader geopolitical effort to shift Internet governance towards a more state-controlled model. While it may not succeed in its current form, the underlying ideas will likely persist, making it crucial for the Internet governance community to remain proactive.
As many of you pointed out, we must:
* Continue engaging with diplomats and policymakers who may not be fully aware of the implications of state-led governance. * Strengthen capacity-building efforts to educate stakeholders on the benefits of multistakeholder governance. * Push back against misrepresentations of concepts like the “public core” to prevent them from being used as pretexts for increased governmental control. * Reinforce the neutrality and resilience of existing governance structures, particularly within ICANN and technical organizations. * Monitor and counteract attempts to shift key Internet governance functions to intergovernmental bodies like the ITU.
I appreciate all your insights and contributions to this discussion. Let’s continue this dialogue and work collectively to uphold the principles of an open, secure, and inclusive Internet.
Cheers, Pari Esfandiari
On Thu, Feb 6, 2025 at 2:28 AM Alejandro Pisanty <apisanty@gmail.com> wrote: Mark,
good point re the definition of stakeholders. You may know that I was in the WGIG (as a few others in this list.) WGIG was the Working Group on Internet Governance created by the first phase of WSIS in 2003, charged with producing a report with a definition of Internet Governance and some proposals to move forward, for the second phase in 2005. The definition of stakeholder groupings was a major issue then and we settled into government, business ("private sector" has different meanings in the US and elsewhere), civil society and the technical community. Unfortunately we couldn't get the final documents to list the technical community as a separate stakeholder, not the least because at the same time it was recognized that the people in the technical community may have their jobs indistinctly in government (say, research laboratories, computing, IT and telecommunications departments in government, standards organizations, even universities if they are public), industry both large and small, and organizations classified as civil society (their techies among others.) Later on the IGF in practice has always listed the technical community separately. The differentiated presence of the technical community is indispensable and it cuts two ways - sometimes it has to say "no,, that thing you are imagining is not technically possible, or it is unreasonable, or it breaks the Internet" and sometimes it says to other parties "we can actually do better than you are thinking and maybe already are" - and sometimes, very often rather, we have to tell people, especiallly in governments, "no, it doesn' work that way" and enter long explanations.
Now picking on the second part of your statement: with fuzzy borders, we can say that one thing is the definition of the stakeholder groupings, as above, and another, complementary one, is the assignment of specific individuals to stakeholder groups at a given point in time. Also especially in developing countries we do continue to find that a small number of people fulfill many roles at the same time and thus can be simultaneously ascribed to more than one stakeholder group. Someone working in business (or even owining one) may come to Internet governance with that knowledge but acting through an organization like an NGO oriented to education or development or community networks, and or sit on an advisory committee to a telecoms or competition regulator. We have made progress in the last 20 years towards clearer roles and against conflicts of interest but this fluidity remains and also is very valuable.
We should convey this clearly to the skeptics and also know that it is a facetious argument invoked with ill intent while fully knowing the above.
Yours,
Alejandro Pisanty
On Wed, Feb 5, 2025 at 7:53 PM Mark W. Datysgeld via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> wrote:
One idea presented by the document that cannot just be waved away is that "stakeholder roles remain undefined". They do. I understand Pari's relevant answer to that point, but it does not address the fact that stakeholder identity is incredibly liquid. Take any set of IGF applications and you are likely to quickly find the same speaker submitted as 3 different stakeholders in different applications.
This is a subject that cannot be put aside in the upcoming discussion and the High-Level Event itself, because it is a weakness of our multistakeholder models that can and will be used against us by governments in their bid for increased control.
Regards,
On 5 Feb 2025 07:03, Pari Esfandiari via wsis20 wrote: This review of the RCC’s submission in the lead-up to the WSIS+20 examines its call for a state-led approach to Internet governance and its implications for the multistakeholder model. It explores how the RCC frames its arguments around digital sovereignty, interoperability, and regulatory frameworks while assessing the potential impact on global Internet governance structures, innovation, and access. Additionally, the article considers the broader geopolitical context of the submission and its alignment—or divergence—with international efforts to maintain an open, inclusive, and secure digital environment.
https://circleid.com/posts/rcc-pushes-for-state-led-internet-governance-ahea...
[1] Cheers, Pari
-- Pari Esfandiari President _Global TechnoPolitics Forum [2] _ _Pario [3]- Architects of Ideas_ info@TechnoPolitics.org Linkedin Profile [4] Tel: +1-202-735-1415 (Office) : +1-310-435-0888 (Cell) : +44-731-210-4049 (Cell)
_______________________________________________ Learn more about the WSIS+20 Outreach Network and review relevant resources: https://go.icann.org/wsis20 [5] Read the public archives for this mailing list: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/ [6] _______________________________________________ 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 [7]) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos [8]). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. -- Mark W. Datysgeld Director at Governance Primer [governanceprimer.com [9]] Project Lead Developer at ICANNWiki [icannwiki.org [10]] _______________________________________________
Learn more about the WSIS+20 Outreach Network and review relevant resources: https://go.icann.org/wsis20 [5]
Read the public archives for this mailing list: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/ [6]
_______________________________________________ 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 [7]) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos [8]). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Facultad de Química UNAM Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico +525541444475 Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com [11] LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty [12] Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 [13] Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty [14] ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org [15] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
-- Pari Esfandiari President _Global TechnoPolitics Forum [2] _ _Pario [3]- Architects of Ideas_ info@TechnoPolitics.org Linkedin Profile [4] Tel: +1-202-735-1415 (Office) : +1-310-435-0888 (Cell) : +44-731-210-4049 (Cell) _______________________________________________ Learn more about the WSIS+20 Outreach Network and review relevant resources: https://go.icann.org/wsis20 Read the public archives for this mailing list: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/ _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Links: ------ [1] https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://circleid.com/posts/rcc-pushes-for-state-... [2] https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.technopolitics.org__;!!IaT_gp1N!2b7n9... [3] https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.parioconsultants.com__;!!IaT_gp1N!2b7... [4] https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.linkedin.com/in/pariesfandiari/__;!!... [5] https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://go.icann.org/wsis20__;!!IaT_gp1N!2b7n92T... [6] https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/__;!!IaT_g... [7] https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy__;!!IaT_gp1... [8] https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos__;!!IaT_gp1N!2... [9] https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://governanceprimer.com__;!!IaT_gp1N!2b7n92... [10] https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://icannwiki.org/__;!!IaT_gp1N!2b7n92Tb_yRE... [11] https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://pisanty.blogspot.com__;!!IaT_gp1N!2b7n92T... [12] https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty__;!!IaT_gp1N!... [13] https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614... [14] https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://twitter.com/apisanty__;!!IaT_gp1N!2b7n92T... [15] https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.isoc.org__;!!IaT_gp1N!2b7n92Tb_yRE7Jj... _______________________________________________
Learn more about the WSIS+20 Outreach Network and review relevant resources: https://go.icann.org/wsis20
Read the public archives for this mailing list: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Here is another related and irritating document: The Russia-Iran Treaty on Strategic Partnership from January 17, 2025 . It includes Article 11 on information security (see below). Look in particular at paras. 2 & 4. Treaty on Comprehensive Strategic Partnership between the Russian Federation and the Islamic Republic of Iran, Moscow, January 17, 2025 ... Article 11 1. The Contracting Parties shall carry out political and practical cooperation in the field of international information security in accordance with the Agreement between the Government of the Russian Federation and the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran on cooperation in the field of information security dated January 26, 2021 (corresponding to 7 Bahman 1399 AH). 2. The Contracting Parties shall promote the formation, under the auspices of the United Nations, of a system for ensuring international information security and the creation of a legally binding regime for the prevention and peaceful settlement of conflicts based on the principles of sovereign equality and non-interference in the internal affairs of states. 3. The Contracting Parties shall expand cooperation in the field of combating the use of information and communication technologies for criminal purposes, coordinate actions and jointly promote initiatives within the framework of international organizations and other negotiating platforms. The Contracting Parties shall promote the strengthening of national sovereignty in the international information space, exchange information and create conditions for interaction between the competent authorities of the Contracting Parties. 4. The Contracting Parties support the course towards internationalization of the management of the Internet information and telecommunications network, advocate equal rights for states in its management, consider any attempts to limit the sovereign right to regulate and ensure the security of national segments of the global network to be unacceptable, and are interested in more active involvement of the International Telecommunication Union in solving these problems. 5. The Contracting Parties support the strengthening of sovereignty in the international information space through regulation of the activities of international companies in the field of information and communication technologies, as well as through the exchange of experience in managing national segments of the Internet and the development of infrastructure in the field of information and communication technologies, and cooperate in the field of digital development. Wolfgang
Pari Esfandiari via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> hat am 06.02.2025 11:08 CET geschrieben:
Dear all,
Thank you for the thoughtful and engaging discussion around my recent article on CircleID regarding the RCC’s push for a state-led Internet governance mode https://circleid.com/posts/rcc-pushes-for-state-led-internet-governance-ahea.... The diverse perspectives shared here highlight the significance of this issue and the need for continued vigilance in safeguarding the multistakeholder model.
Addressing Key Points Raised:
1. Armenia’s Alignment with RCC – Shifting Alliances?
o @Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, your observation on Armenia’s stance is indeed intriguing, considering its usual alignment with Western digital policies. However, recent geopolitical tensions and regional dependencies may have influenced this decision. Whether Armenia stands to lose or gain from this move will depend on how other global actors respond. 2. Hidden Agendas and Misleading Framing of Internet Governance
o @Wolfgang Kleinwächter, your detailed analysis of Section 3 of the RCC proposal is crucial. While the call for an equitable, neutral, and geopolitically immune governance system is commendable, the assertion that the multistakeholder model fails to meet these requirements is misleading. ICANN’s structure, particularly through the GAC, already embodies sovereign equality and neutrality. The example of ICANN’s refusal to remove Russian domain names during the Ukraine conflict underscores its resilience against political pressures. Moving towards state-controlled governance would, paradoxically, introduce more geopolitical interference rather than eliminate it. 3. Misuse of the “Public Core” Concept
o @Joseph Lorenzo Hall and @Tatiana Tropina, your point on the RCC’s misrepresentation of the “public core” concept is well taken. The original GCSC definition was carefully crafted through a multistakeholder process to protect essential Internet infrastructure, whereas the RCC’s broader framing risks enabling greater state intervention. As you rightly pointed out, conflating the “public core” with “critical resources” could open the door to increased governmental control over fundamental Internet operations, which would be detrimental to the open and decentralized nature of the Internet. 4. The RCC Proposal’s Conflict with WSIS Principles
o @Dr. Jimson Olufuye, you highlight a fundamental flaw in the RCC proposal—it contradicts the very foundations of WSIS, the Tunis Agenda, and the Global Digital Compact (GDC), all of which emphasize multistakeholder engagement. While the proposal may be “dead on arrival” in some forums, it still serves as a strategic tool for certain governments to justify expanding their control over the Internet. This is why continued advocacy and engagement remain necessary. 5. Diplomatic Engagement and Advocacy Strategy
o @Nick Ashton-Hart, @Israel Rosas, and @Remmy Nweke, I fully agree that diplomatic engagement is critical at this juncture. Many diplomats dealing with WSIS+20 and broader digital governance discussions may not have a deep understanding of the multistakeholder model’s nuances. The RCC narrative, if left unchallenged, could appeal to those who prioritize state sovereignty over openness. Strengthening outreach efforts, capacity-building initiatives, and direct engagement with policymakers will be essential to countering this influence. 6. Potential ITU Involvement in IP Addressing and Protocol Governance
o @Nick Ashton-Hart, your point about the potential push to shift IP protocol governance to the ITU is an alarming but not surprising development. Given past efforts to exert greater governmental control over core Internet functions, vigilance is needed to ensure that governance remains within the multistakeholder ecosystem, where technical bodies like the IETF and RIRs maintain their crucial roles. 7. The Issue of Undefined Stakeholder Roles
o @Mark W. Datysgeld and @Alejandro Pisanty, the issue of fluid stakeholder identities is a valid concern. While the multistakeholder model is designed to be inclusive and adaptable, the lack of clear stakeholder categorization has been exploited by certain actors to challenge its legitimacy. As Alejandro notes, the original WSIS definitions were already a compromise, and while we have made progress in differentiating stakeholder roles, ambiguity remains. Addressing this issue transparently in WSIS+20 discussions could help prevent its use as a pretext for government overreach. 8. Potential Impact on Network Neutrality and Platform Regulation
o @Alejandro Pisanty, your warning about threats to network neutrality and regulations like Section 230 is well-founded. If these principles are eroded in democratic contexts, it will provide authoritarian governments with further justification to impose stricter controls on online content and access. Ensuring that digital governance remains rights-based and independent of political agendas must be a key focus moving forward.
The Road Ahead
The RCC’s proposal is not just a theoretical debate—it is part of a broader geopolitical effort to shift Internet governance towards a more state-controlled model. While it may not succeed in its current form, the underlying ideas will likely persist, making it crucial for the Internet governance community to remain proactive.
As many of you pointed out, we must:
* Continue engaging with diplomats and policymakers who may not be fully aware of the implications of state-led governance. * Strengthen capacity-building efforts to educate stakeholders on the benefits of multistakeholder governance. * Push back against misrepresentations of concepts like the “public core” to prevent them from being used as pretexts for increased governmental control. * Reinforce the neutrality and resilience of existing governance structures, particularly within ICANN and technical organizations. * Monitor and counteract attempts to shift key Internet governance functions to intergovernmental bodies like the ITU.
I appreciate all your insights and contributions to this discussion. Let’s continue this dialogue and work collectively to uphold the principles of an open, secure, and inclusive Internet.
Cheers, Pari Esfandiari
On Thu, Feb 6, 2025 at 2:28 AM Alejandro Pisanty <apisanty@gmail.com mailto:apisanty@gmail.com> wrote:
Mark,
good point re the definition of stakeholders. You may know that I was in the WGIG (as a few others in this list.) WGIG was the Working Group on Internet Governance created by the first phase of WSIS in 2003, charged with producing a report with a definition of Internet Governance and some proposals to move forward, for the second phase in 2005. The definition of stakeholder groupings was a major issue then and we settled into government, business ("private sector" has different meanings in the US and elsewhere), civil society and the technical community. Unfortunately we couldn't get the final documents to list the technical community as a separate stakeholder, not the least because at the same time it was recognized that the people in the technical community may have their jobs indistinctly in government (say, research laboratories, computing, IT and telecommunications departments in government, standards organizations, even universities if they are public), industry both large and small, and organizations classified as civil society (their techies among others.) Later on the IGF in practice has always listed the technical community separately. The differentiated presence of the technical community is indispensable and it cuts two ways - sometimes it has to say "no,, that thing you are imagining is not technically possible, or it is unreasonable, or it breaks the Internet" and sometimes it says to other parties "we can actually do better than you are thinking and maybe already are" - and sometimes, very often rather, we have to tell people, especiallly in governments, "no, it doesn' work that way" and enter long explanations.
Now picking on the second part of your statement: with fuzzy borders, we can say that one thing is the definition of the stakeholder groupings, as above, and another, complementary one, is the assignment of specific individuals to stakeholder groups at a given point in time. Also especially in developing countries we do continue to find that a small number of people fulfill many roles at the same time and thus can be simultaneously ascribed to more than one stakeholder group. Someone working in business (or even owining one) may come to Internet governance with that knowledge but acting through an organization like an NGO oriented to education or development or community networks, and or sit on an advisory committee to a telecoms or competition regulator. We have made progress in the last 20 years towards clearer roles and against conflicts of interest but this fluidity remains and also is very valuable.
We should convey this clearly to the skeptics and also know that it is a facetious argument invoked with ill intent while fully knowing the above.
Yours,
Alejandro Pisanty
On Wed, Feb 5, 2025 at 7:53 PM Mark W. Datysgeld via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org mailto:wsis20@icann.org> wrote:
One idea presented by the document that cannot just be waved away is that "stakeholder roles remain undefined". They do. I understand Pari's relevant answer to that point, but it does not address the fact that stakeholder identity is incredibly liquid. Take any set of IGF applications and you are likely to quickly find the same speaker submitted as 3 different stakeholders in different applications.
This is a subject that cannot be put aside in the upcoming discussion and the High-Level Event itself, because it is a weakness of our multistakeholder models that can and will be used against us by governments in their bid for increased control.
Regards,
On 5 Feb 2025 07:03, Pari Esfandiari via wsis20 wrote:
This review of the RCC’s submission in the lead-up to the WSIS+20 examines its call for a state-led approach to Internet governance and its implications for the multistakeholder model. It explores how the RCC frames its arguments around digital sovereignty, interoperability, and regulatory frameworks while assessing the potential impact on global Internet governance structures, innovation, and access. Additionally, the article considers the broader geopolitical context of the submission and its alignment—or divergence—with international efforts to maintain an open, inclusive, and secure digital environment. https://circleid.com/posts/rcc-pushes-for-state-led-internet-governance-ahea... Cheers, Pari
-- Pari Esfandiari President Global TechnoPolitics Forum http://www.technopolitics.org Pario http://www.parioconsultants.com - Architects of Ideas info@TechnoPolitics.org mailto:info@technopolitics.org Linkedin Profile https://www.linkedin.com/in/pariesfandiari/ Tel: +1-202-735-1415 (Office) : +1-310-435-0888 (Cell) : +44-731-210-4049 (Cell)
_______________________________________________
Learn more about the WSIS+20 Outreach Network and review relevant resources: https://go.icann.org/wsis20
Read the public archives for this mailing list: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
-- Mark W. Datysgeld Director at Governance Primer [governanceprimer.com https://governanceprimer.com] Project Lead Developer at ICANNWiki [icannwiki.org https://icannwiki.org/] _______________________________________________
Learn more about the WSIS+20 Outreach Network and review relevant resources: https://go.icann.org/wsis20
Read the public archives for this mailing list: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Facultad de Química UNAM Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico +525541444475 Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
-- Pari Esfandiari President Global TechnoPolitics Forum http://www.technopolitics.org Pario http://www.parioconsultants.com - Architects of Ideas info@TechnoPolitics.org mailto:info@technopolitics.org Linkedin Profile https://www.linkedin.com/in/pariesfandiari/
Tel: +1-202-735-1415 (Office) : +1-310-435-0888 (Cell) : +44-731-210-4049 (Cell) _______________________________________________ Learn more about the WSIS+20 Outreach Network and review relevant resources: https://go.icann.org/wsis20 Read the public archives for this mailing list: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/ _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Hi One of the nice ripple effects of the dynamics unleashed by WSIS has been the increasing openness of access to some ITU documents, such as those of the Council Working Group on WSIS & SDGs (the backlash to WCIT helped too). Hence we’re able to read the RCC’s missive and have this conversation elicited by Pari. However, the contributions made to the other WSIS+20 processes like the consultations for the High Level Event and the CSTD's review are not accessible. We went through this with the GDC process as well, and it was arguably consequential. The inability to see what states and stakeholders are inputting into these processes as they unfold limits dialogue, strategic cooperation and coalition building, and impactful responses. I’ve not noticed this issue being raised much in the submissions that have been shared thus far; transparency just gets flagged as something stakeholders favor and practice in ICANN etc., but would it not be useful to call for the WSIS+20 review to be as open as the WSIS process itself was? Cheers Bill PS: On Alex’s points on stakeholders, the TC and WGIG, if anyone’s interested there are nice pieces by Alex, Avri, Wolfgang on others on this nexus in this open access book https://www.apc.org/sites/default/files/IG_10_Final_0.pdf
On Feb 5, 2025, at 9:27 PM, Alejandro Pisanty via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> wrote:
Mark,
good point re the definition of stakeholders. You may know that I was in the WGIG (as a few others in this list.) WGIG was the Working Group on Internet Governance created by the first phase of WSIS in 2003, charged with producing a report with a definition of Internet Governance and some proposals to move forward, for the second phase in 2005. The definition of stakeholder groupings was a major issue then and we settled into government, business ("private sector" has different meanings in the US and elsewhere), civil society and the technical community. Unfortunately we couldn't get the final documents to list the technical community as a separate stakeholder, not the least because at the same time it was recognized that the people in the technical community may have their jobs indistinctly in government (say, research laboratories, computing, IT and telecommunications departments in government, standards organizations, even universities if they are public), industry both large and small, and organizations classified as civil society (their techies among others.) Later on the IGF in practice has always listed the technical community separately. The differentiated presence of the technical community is indispensable and it cuts two ways - sometimes it has to say "no,, that thing you are imagining is not technically possible, or it is unreasonable, or it breaks the Internet" and sometimes it says to other parties "we can actually do better than you are thinking and maybe already are" - and sometimes, very often rather, we have to tell people, especiallly in governments, "no, it doesn' work that way" and enter long explanations.
Now picking on the second part of your statement: with fuzzy borders, we can say that one thing is the definition of the stakeholder groupings, as above, and another, complementary one, is the assignment of specific individuals to stakeholder groups at a given point in time. Also especially in developing countries we do continue to find that a small number of people fulfill many roles at the same time and thus can be simultaneously ascribed to more than one stakeholder group. Someone working in business (or even owining one) may come to Internet governance with that knowledge but acting through an organization like an NGO oriented to education or development or community networks, and or sit on an advisory committee to a telecoms or competition regulator. We have made progress in the last 20 years towards clearer roles and against conflicts of interest but this fluidity remains and also is very valuable.
We should convey this clearly to the skeptics and also know that it is a facetious argument invoked with ill intent while fully knowing the above.
Yours,
Alejandro Pisanty
On Wed, Feb 5, 2025 at 7:53 PM Mark W. Datysgeld via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org <mailto:wsis20@icann.org>> wrote:
One idea presented by the document that cannot just be waved away is that "stakeholder roles remain undefined". They do. I understand Pari's relevant answer to that point, but it does not address the fact that stakeholder identity is incredibly liquid. Take any set of IGF applications and you are likely to quickly find the same speaker submitted as 3 different stakeholders in different applications.
This is a subject that cannot be put aside in the upcoming discussion and the High-Level Event itself, because it is a weakness of our multistakeholder models that can and will be used against us by governments in their bid for increased control.
Regards,
On 5 Feb 2025 07:03, Pari Esfandiari via wsis20 wrote:
This review of the RCC’s submission in the lead-up to the WSIS+20 examines its call for a state-led approach to Internet governance and its implications for the multistakeholder model. It explores how the RCC frames its arguments around digital sovereignty, interoperability, and regulatory frameworks while assessing the potential impact on global Internet governance structures, innovation, and access. Additionally, the article considers the broader geopolitical context of the submission and its alignment—or divergence—with international efforts to maintain an open, inclusive, and secure digital environment. https://circleid.com/posts/rcc-pushes-for-state-led-internet-governance-ahea... Cheers, Pari
Good points William. I will pass that along to the co-facilitators of the UNGA WSIS process negotiations. We are expecting the zero draft of the resolution imminently. I'll send it along once I have it. Nick Ashton-Hart Senior Director, Digital Economy Policy APCO Worldwide Temporary Address: 275 Seventh Avenue, 21st Floor New York, NY 10001 USA (m) +1 202 779 1072<tel:+12027791072> nashtonhart@apcoworldwide.com<mailto:nashtonhart@apcoworldwide.com> @apcoworldwide<http://twitter.com/apcoworldwide> Celebrating 40 years of APCO Book time to meet with me here<https://outlook.office.com/bookwithme/user/ce911a0f9fa543dd9459b3a1392da25e@...> ________________________________ From: William Drake via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> Sent: Thursday, February 6, 2025 12:12:22 PM To: wsis20@icann.org <wsis20@icann.org> Subject: [wsis20] Access to WSIS+20 Review Documents Hi One of the nice ripple effects of the dynamics unleashed by WSIS has been the increasing openness of access to some ITU documents, such as those of the Council Working Group on WSIS & SDGs (the backlash to WCIT helped too). Hence we’re able to read the RCC’s missive and have this conversation elicited by Pari. However, the contributions made to the other WSIS+20 processes like the consultations for the High Level Event and the CSTD's review are not accessible. We went through this with the GDC process as well, and it was arguably consequential. The inability to see what states and stakeholders are inputting into these processes as they unfold limits dialogue, strategic cooperation and coalition building, and impactful responses. I’ve not noticed this issue being raised much in the submissions that have been shared thus far; transparency just gets flagged as something stakeholders favor and practice in ICANN etc., but would it not be useful to call for the WSIS+20 review to be as open as the WSIS process itself was? Cheers Bill PS: On Alex’s points on stakeholders, the TC and WGIG, if anyone’s interested there are nice pieces by Alex, Avri, Wolfgang on others on this nexus in this open access book https://www.apc.org/sites/default/files/IG_10_Final_0.pdf On Feb 5, 2025, at 9:27 PM, Alejandro Pisanty via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> wrote: Mark, good point re the definition of stakeholders. You may know that I was in the WGIG (as a few others in this list.) WGIG was the Working Group on Internet Governance created by the first phase of WSIS in 2003, charged with producing a report with a definition of Internet Governance and some proposals to move forward, for the second phase in 2005. The definition of stakeholder groupings was a major issue then and we settled into government, business ("private sector" has different meanings in the US and elsewhere), civil society and the technical community. Unfortunately we couldn't get the final documents to list the technical community as a separate stakeholder, not the least because at the same time it was recognized that the people in the technical community may have their jobs indistinctly in government (say, research laboratories, computing, IT and telecommunications departments in government, standards organizations, even universities if they are public), industry both large and small, and organizations classified as civil society (their techies among others.) Later on the IGF in practice has always listed the technical community separately. The differentiated presence of the technical community is indispensable and it cuts two ways - sometimes it has to say "no,, that thing you are imagining is not technically possible, or it is unreasonable, or it breaks the Internet" and sometimes it says to other parties "we can actually do better than you are thinking and maybe already are" - and sometimes, very often rather, we have to tell people, especiallly in governments, "no, it doesn' work that way" and enter long explanations. Now picking on the second part of your statement: with fuzzy borders, we can say that one thing is the definition of the stakeholder groupings, as above, and another, complementary one, is the assignment of specific individuals to stakeholder groups at a given point in time. Also especially in developing countries we do continue to find that a small number of people fulfill many roles at the same time and thus can be simultaneously ascribed to more than one stakeholder group. Someone working in business (or even owining one) may come to Internet governance with that knowledge but acting through an organization like an NGO oriented to education or development or community networks, and or sit on an advisory committee to a telecoms or competition regulator. We have made progress in the last 20 years towards clearer roles and against conflicts of interest but this fluidity remains and also is very valuable. We should convey this clearly to the skeptics and also know that it is a facetious argument invoked with ill intent while fully knowing the above. Yours, Alejandro Pisanty On Wed, Feb 5, 2025 at 7:53 PM Mark W. Datysgeld via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org<mailto:wsis20@icann.org>> wrote: One idea presented by the document that cannot just be waved away is that "stakeholder roles remain undefined". They do. I understand Pari's relevant answer to that point, but it does not address the fact that stakeholder identity is incredibly liquid. Take any set of IGF applications and you are likely to quickly find the same speaker submitted as 3 different stakeholders in different applications. This is a subject that cannot be put aside in the upcoming discussion and the High-Level Event itself, because it is a weakness of our multistakeholder models that can and will be used against us by governments in their bid for increased control. Regards, On 5 Feb 2025 07:03, Pari Esfandiari via wsis20 wrote: This review of the RCC’s submission in the lead-up to the WSIS+20 examines its call for a state-led approach to Internet governance and its implications for the multistakeholder model. It explores how the RCC frames its arguments around digital sovereignty, interoperability, and regulatory frameworks while assessing the potential impact on global Internet governance structures, innovation, and access. Additionally, the article considers the broader geopolitical context of the submission and its alignment—or divergence—with international efforts to maintain an open, inclusive, and secure digital environment. https://circleid.com/posts/rcc-pushes-for-state-led-internet-governance-ahea... Cheers, Pari ________________________________ DATA HANDLING For data handling questions, please view our Privacy Policy<https://apcoworldwide.com/privacy-policy/> or contact us at privacy@apcoworldwide.com<https://%20privacy@apcoworldwide.com/> with any inquiries. CONFIDENTIALITY This email may contain material that is confidential, privileged and/or work product for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, reliance or distribution by others or forwarding without express permission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
participants (17)
-
Alejandro Pisanty -
Ashton-Hart, Nick -
Chafic Chaya -
Dr Jimson Olufuye -
Dr. Joseph Lorenzo Hall -
Fiona Alexander -
Israel Rosas -
Judith Hellerstein -
Mark W. Datysgeld -
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond -
Pari Esfandiari -
Paul McGrady -
Remmy Nweke -
Shin Yamasaki -
Veni Markovski -
William Drake -
Wolfgang Kleinwächter