Bill, all… what is it we need to do, then, in your view? Cheers Jordan Jordan Carter — .au Domain Administration +61-417-243-647 on Signal or iMessage ________________________________ From: William Drake via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> Sent: Saturday, March 8, 2025 8:43:04 AM To: Israel Rosas <rosas@isoc.org> Cc: wsis20@icann.org <wsis20@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] - [wsis20] Re: Data point: Shift in USG position regarding the SDGs Hi Isra Needless to say, this is more than a data point, it’s a new environment. Probably they’re just getting started and there’s lots more stuff laying around waiting to be broken. According to a State Dept report I read yesterday, as of FY 2022 the US pays 22% of the overall UN budget (not counting arrears) and over $21 billion to 179 international organizations and multilateral entities (85% voluntary funds, 15% assessed). As the cultural revolution’s march through the institutions proceeds, one has to assume the administration will claim to find lots more “woke/DEI/waste, fraud and abuse” in those budgets, as well as lots more treaties and agreements to abandon. Taking a "business as usual" approach to WSIS20 and related might lead to some surprises down the road... Cheers Bill On Mar 7, 2025, at 3:22 PM, Israel Rosas via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> wrote: Hi all, I'd like to bring your attention to the remarks delivered on 4 March by the US Minister Counselor to ECOSOC regarding the USG position about the Agenda 2030. This is a significant shift that can have serious implications in the WSIS+20 review, particularly in a context where many of us have advocated for the Internet as a force for good that helps advance global development. The remarks are located here: https://usun.usmission.gov/remarks-at-the-un-meeting-entitled-58th-plenary-m... A couple of concerning extracts: "We have a concern that this resolution is a reaffirmation of Agenda 2030 and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Although framed in neutral language, Agenda 2030 and the SDGs advance a program of soft global governance that is inconsistent with U.S. sovereignty and adverse to the rights and interests of Americans." "Put simply, globalist endeavors like Agenda 2030 and the SDGs lost at the ballot box. Therefore, the United States rejects and denounces the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Sustainable Development Goals, and it will no longer reaffirm them as a matter of course." Best, Isra Isra Rosas, Director, Partnerships and Internet Development Internet Society

Farzaneh, I appreciate this very thoughtful response. Best, Paul ________________________________ From: farzaneh badii via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> Sent: Sunday, March 9, 2025 8:12 AM To: Jordan Carter <jordan.carter@auda.org.au> Cc: wsis20@icann.org <wsis20@icann.org> Subject: [wsis20] Re: [EXTERNAL] - Re: Data point: Shift in USG position regarding the SDGs Well Jordan, I don't have a good answer but I think we should "panic responsibly" (I borrowed that from another field). In order to panic responsibly we should read the whole document and not excerpts. Also acknowledge that SDGs were always aspirational, even during Obama's. Budget cuts are already happening across the UN agencies. While it's concerning, we have to think about how Internet governance institutions can be affected. On the bright side, we don't operate in a multilateral fashion so is it too naive to think the multistakeholder bottom up model of the Internet could actually be a little more resilient? ICANN's multistakeholder model has reassured tech companies and users that it can weather geopolitical conflicts. We didn't remove .RU from the root zone. We don't get involved with content moderation and destabilize the root zone. I know I said we should read the whole document... but I naively think the beginning of this statement <https://usun.usmission.gov/remarks-at-the-un-meeting-entitled-58th-plenary-m...> can help us panic less: "We firmly support individual rights as expressed through freedoms of expression, association, peaceful assembly, and religion or belief. They are fundamental to America’s security and the promotion of tolerance, mutual respect, and peace around the world." Farzaneh On Sat, Mar 8, 2025 at 11:26 AM Jordan Carter via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org<mailto:wsis20@icann.org>> wrote: Bill, all… what is it we need to do, then, in your view? Cheers Jordan Jordan Carter — .au Domain Administration +61-417-243-647 on Signal or iMessage ________________________________ From: William Drake via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org<mailto:wsis20@icann.org>> Sent: Saturday, March 8, 2025 8:43:04 AM To: Israel Rosas <rosas@isoc.org<mailto:rosas@isoc.org>> Cc: wsis20@icann.org<mailto:wsis20@icann.org> <wsis20@icann.org<mailto:wsis20@icann.org>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] - [wsis20] Re: Data point: Shift in USG position regarding the SDGs Hi Isra Needless to say, this is more than a data point, it’s a new environment. Probably they’re just getting started and there’s lots more stuff laying around waiting to be broken. According to a State Dept report I read yesterday, as of FY 2022 the US pays 22% of the overall UN budget (not counting arrears) and over $21 billion to 179 international organizations and multilateral entities (85% voluntary funds, 15% assessed). As the cultural revolution’s march through the institutions proceeds, one has to assume the administration will claim to find lots more “woke/DEI/waste, fraud and abuse” in those budgets, as well as lots more treaties and agreements to abandon. Taking a "business as usual" approach to WSIS20 and related might lead to some surprises down the road... Cheers Bill On Mar 7, 2025, at 3:22 PM, Israel Rosas via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org<mailto:wsis20@icann.org>> wrote: Hi all, I'd like to bring your attention to the remarks delivered on 4 March by the US Minister Counselor to ECOSOC regarding the USG position about the Agenda 2030. This is a significant shift that can have serious implications in the WSIS+20 review, particularly in a context where many of us have advocated for the Internet as a force for good that helps advance global development. The remarks are located here: https://usun.usmission.gov/remarks-at-the-un-meeting-entitled-58th-plenary-m... A couple of concerning extracts: "We have a concern that this resolution is a reaffirmation of Agenda 2030 and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Although framed in neutral language, Agenda 2030 and the SDGs advance a program of soft global governance that is inconsistent with U.S. sovereignty and adverse to the rights and interests of Americans." "Put simply, globalist endeavors like Agenda 2030 and the SDGs lost at the ballot box. Therefore, the United States rejects and denounces the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Sustainable Development Goals, and it will no longer reaffirm them as a matter of course." Best, Isra Isra Rosas, Director, Partnerships and Internet Development Internet Society _______________________________________________ Learn more about the WSIS+20 Outreach Network and review relevant resources: https://go.icann.org/wsis20 Read the public archives for this mailing list: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/ _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. This email originated from outside the firm. Please use caution.

Dear Anriette, I share entirely your view, and I think that Europe has a unique opportunity to move in this direction and start to look around for effective allies, beyond the US government. This is what we need to do each one in its own field of competence and of regional origin… One of the problem is that global south is not a monolithic entity and not all of its members have the same views on HR fundamentals. This could be a major obstacle. But as you said, we have no other way then continue to struggle for what we believe is the general interest and the common good. Giacomo PS: thank you Bill for the sincere analysis, directly inspired by Socrates views… “scio me nihil scire”… From: Anriette Esterhuysen via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org <mailto:wsis20@icann.org> > Sent: Sunday, March 9, 2025 9:58 PM To: wsis20@icann.org <mailto:wsis20@icann.org> Subject: [wsis20] Re: [EXTERNAL] - Re: Data point: Shift in USG position regarding the SDGs Things change, and governments change. This happens all the time, but of course it matters more when such a powerful state is involved. As Bill says, it is a new environment. That is precisely why we do need an international system, with internationally agreed norms and standards. That a powerful government like the US shows lack of support for this system and these norms just affirms the importance of having such a system, even if it does also challenge its sustainability. It might even create the opportunity for a more level multilateral playing field that - in a good case scenario - create new opportunities for global South/Majority member states and for new North/South alliances - particularly around topics like climate change/environmental sustainability/social inclusion/fair trade. In response to Jordan's question.... we continue doing what we have been doing, but smartly and creatively. We strengthen existing alliances and build new ones. There are still many member states - in the developed and developing worlds - that tech community and civil society people/organisations can work with collaboratively. As for the private sector.... the way in which US-based tech companies are shedding adherence to human rights (other than to a simplistic notion of so-called free speech) is creating an opportunity for businesses that do care about people and the planet to come forward, show leadership, and join forces with those who really care about inclusive multistakeholder approaches to tech governance. We work with governments that care about inclusion and rights and we challenge and hold accountable those who don't. And we remember that no government is monolithic.. it is almost always possible to find people within "hostile" governments to work with. We just have to do it with more nuance and sensitivity. It it is also not as if the US government has been the worlds greatest supporter of the WSIS goals, or of global development.... in fact the US has pretty consistently pushed back and tried to contain commitments to debt relief, access to knowledge, access to medicines, open source, net neutrality etc. Of course losing the US as an ally in the Human Rights Council, and in some of the WSIS negotiations on some aspects of the WSIS such as the renewal of the IGF's mandate, for example, will have a massive impact, but it might also galvanise other states to be more effective in countering this impact. In business and human rights discussions I don't think the US will be missed all that much.. but the human rights people can correct me on that :) Personally what I will miss most, should it come to that, are several of the individuals in US missions, the State Department and other US government agencies that we have been working with in this space over the past decades/years; people that I have learnt from and whom I value - even if I did not always agree with them. What about ICANN itself? Any risks to its autonomy as an institution? Or is the fact that it is incorporated under California State Law sufficient protection? Is it perhaps time to think of an IANA Transition 2.0? :) Anriette (in my personal capacity) Anriette Esterhuysen - anriette@apc.org//anriette@gmail.com <mailto:anriette@apc.org//anriette@gmail.com> Senior advisor global and regional internet governance Association for Progressive Communications www.apc.org//afrisig.org <http://www.apc.org/afrisig.org> On 2025/03/08 21:26, Jordan Carter via wsis20 wrote: Bill, all… what is it we need to do, then, in your view? Cheers Jordan Jordan Carter — .au Domain Administration +61-417-243-647 on Signal or iMessage _____ From: William Drake via wsis20 <mailto:wsis20@icann.org> <wsis20@icann.org> Sent: Saturday, March 8, 2025 8:43:04 AM To: Israel Rosas <mailto:rosas@isoc.org> <rosas@isoc.org> Cc: wsis20@icann.org <mailto:wsis20@icann.org> <mailto:wsis20@icann.org> <wsis20@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] - [wsis20] Re: Data point: Shift in USG position regarding the SDGs Hi Isra Needless to say, this is more than a data point, it’s a new environment. Probably they’re just getting started and there’s lots more stuff laying around waiting to be broken. According to a State Dept report I read yesterday, as of FY 2022 the US pays 22% of the overall UN budget (not counting arrears) and over $21 billion to 179 international organizations and multilateral entities (85% voluntary funds, 15% assessed). As the cultural revolution’s march through the institutions proceeds, one has to assume the administration will claim to find lots more “woke/DEI/waste, fraud and abuse” in those budgets, as well as lots more treaties and agreements to abandon. Taking a "business as usual" approach to WSIS20 and related might lead to some surprises down the road... Cheers Bill On Mar 7, 2025, at 3:22 PM, Israel Rosas via wsis20 <mailto:wsis20@icann.org> <wsis20@icann.org> wrote: Hi all, I'd like to bring your attention to the remarks delivered on 4 March by the US Minister Counselor to ECOSOC regarding the USG position about the Agenda 2030. This is a significant shift that can have serious implications in the WSIS+20 review, particularly in a context where many of us have advocated for the Internet as a force for good that helps advance global development. The remarks are located here: https://usun.usmission.gov/remarks-at-the-un-meeting-entitled-58th-plenary-m... A couple of concerning extracts: "We have a concern that this resolution is a reaffirmation of Agenda 2030 and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Although framed in neutral language, Agenda 2030 and the SDGs advance a program of soft global governance that is inconsistent with U.S. sovereignty and adverse to the rights and interests of Americans." "Put simply, globalist endeavors like Agenda 2030 and the SDGs lost at the ballot box. Therefore, the United States rejects and denounces the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Sustainable Development Goals, and it will no longer reaffirm them as a matter of course." Best, Isra Isra Rosas, Director, Partnerships and Internet Development Internet Society _______________________________________________ Learn more about the WSIS+20 Outreach Network and review relevant resources: https://go.icann.org/wsis20 Read the public archives for this mailing list: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/ _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. -- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com

Greetings, all: Many thanks for the perspectives provided so far! The only thing we know that is constant is change. As we witness changes in USG perspectives, we should not be surprised. I think Bill captured the dynamics pretty well and that has to do with USG interest in resource balancing across all spectrum of her interest. Let's not forget that the background of most of the USG actors is heavily in the private sector where interest primarily is in ROI. It does not mean disrespect for individual human rights but in what is fair and balanced. I could recall in 2018 at the twilight of the work of the CSTD WGEC, Saudi-Arabia insisted on the creation of a government only institution for Internet Governance and Digital Policy issues, (the reason WGEC failed) and as such never liked the idea of IGF. But with someone else (MBS) in power, they not only shifted their policy, they hosted the world to a lavish IGF2024 in Riyadh. Earlier, a US official once told me during the WG on IGF Improvement in 2012 that the USG "would never relinquish" her oversight of IANA during his life-time but by October 1, 2016, USG did (thanks to many here that made it happen when the change was first announced in 2014) and the rest is history. So, I do not see any issue with ICANN and I do not forsee any take-over by USG. It is commendable that ICANN has been playing its role well with balanced oversight by the global Internet Community (especially with regard to the request for the deactivation of .ru). What ICANN could probably do now if not yet done is to conduct an audit of its compliance with the terms of the Transition that saw its contract with NTIA expired without any move for renewal by NTIA. With that audit in hand, there can be no argument that would push a recourse to pre-October 2016 arrangement with NTIA as USG is not losing money after the end of its oversight stewardship. This audit may well be one of the highlights of a 10-year Review of the end of USG oversight of the IANA in October 2026. Cheers, Jimson On 2025-03-10 12:51, Alejandro Pisanty via wsis20 wrote:

Giacomo,

the flaw is a bit worse than "the global South governments have a variety of views on human rights" (paraphrasing.) We in civil society, academia, and the technical community are at odds - in the best of cases - or in frank opposition, persecuted, denied voices and participation, and in dire cases beaten silenced, repressed jailed by those governments. I am baffled (a bit, honestly) again by the recurrence of organizations that seek these exact governments' support for an Internet the governments try to tame, suppress, fragment, or shut off. If Europe is going to take the lead, it must look at the communities mentioned, and probably a large part of industry as well, directly and make sure space and voice are warranted. We were able to get into the governance space thanks to having first implemented and operated the Internet totally under the radar and against the opposition of those governments and I do not think we will give up the space easily.

Yours,

Alejandro Pisanty

On Sun, Mar 9, 2025 at 3:39 PM giacomo mazzone via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> wrote:

...

Dear Anriette,

I share entirely your view, and I think that Europe has a unique opportunity to move in this direction and start to look around for effective allies, beyond the US government. This is what we need to do each one in its own field of competence and of regional origin…

One of the problem is that global south is not a monolithic entity and not all of its members have the same views on HR fundamentals. This could be a major obstacle.

But as you said, we have no other way then continue to struggle for what we believe is the general interest and the common good.

Giacomo

PS: thank you Bill for the sincere analysis, directly inspired by Socrates views… “scio me nihil scire”…

From: Anriette Esterhuysen via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> Sent: Sunday, March 9, 2025 9:58 PM To: wsis20@icann.org Subject: [wsis20] Re: [EXTERNAL] - Re: Data point: Shift in USG position regarding the SDGs

Things change, and governments change. This happens all the time, but of course it matters more when such a powerful state is involved. As Bill says, it is a new environment.

That is precisely why we do need an international system, with internationally agreed norms and standards. That a powerful government like the US shows lack of support for this system and these norms just affirms the importance of having such a system, even if it does also challenge its sustainability. It might even create the opportunity for a more level multilateral playing field that - in a good case scenario - create new opportunities for global South/Majority member states and for new North/South alliances - particularly around topics like climate change/environmental sustainability/social inclusion/fair trade.

In response to Jordan's question.... we continue doing what we have been doing, but smartly and creatively. We strengthen existing alliances and build new ones. There are still many member states - in the developed and developing worlds - that tech community and civil society people/organisations can work with collaboratively. As for the private sector.... the way in which US-based tech companies are shedding adherence to human rights (other than to a simplistic notion of so-called free speech) is creating an opportunity for businesses that do care about people and the planet to come forward, show leadership, and join forces with those who really care about inclusive multistakeholder approaches to tech governance.

We work with governments that care about inclusion and rights and we challenge and hold accountable those who don't. And we remember that no government is monolithic.. it is almost always possible to find people within "hostile" governments to work with. We just have to do it with more nuance and sensitivity.

It it is also not as if the US government has been the worlds greatest supporter of the WSIS goals, or of global development.... in fact the US has pretty consistently pushed back and tried to contain commitments to debt relief, access to knowledge, access to medicines, open source, net neutrality etc.

Of course losing the US as an ally in the Human Rights Council, and in some of the WSIS negotiations on some aspects of the WSIS such as the renewal of the IGF's mandate, for example, will have a massive impact, but it might also galvanise other states to be more effective in countering this impact. In business and human rights discussions I don't think the US will be missed all that much.. but the human rights people can correct me on that :)

Personally what I will miss most, should it come to that, are several of the individuals in US missions, the State Department and other US government agencies that we have been working with in this space over the past decades/years; people that I have learnt from and whom I value - even if I did not always agree with them.

What about ICANN itself? Any risks to its autonomy as an institution? Or is the fact that it is incorporated under California State Law sufficient protection?

Is it perhaps time to think of an IANA Transition 2.0?

:)

Anriette (in my personal capacity)

Anriette Esterhuysen - anriette@apc.org//anriette@gmail.com

Senior advisor global and regional internet governance

Association for Progressive Communications

www.apc.org//afrisig.org [1]

On 2025/03/08 21:26, Jordan Carter via wsis20 wrote:

Bill, all… what is it we need to do, then, in your view?

Cheers

Jordan

Jordan Carter — .au Domain Administration

+61-417-243-647 on Signal or iMessage

-------------------------

From: William Drake via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> Sent: Saturday, March 8, 2025 8:43:04 AM To: Israel Rosas <rosas@isoc.org> Cc: wsis20@icann.org <wsis20@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] - [wsis20] Re: Data point: Shift in USG position regarding the SDGs

Hi Isra

Needless to say, this is more than a data point, it’s a new environment. Probably they’re just getting started and there’s lots more stuff laying around waiting to be broken. According to a State Dept report I read yesterday, as of FY 2022 the US pays 22% of the overall UN budget (not counting arrears) and over $21 billion to 179 international organizations and multilateral entities (85% voluntary funds, 15% assessed). As the cultural revolution’s march through the institutions proceeds, one has to assume the administration will claim to find lots more “woke/DEI/waste, fraud and abuse” in those budgets, as well as lots more treaties and agreements to abandon.

Taking a "business as usual" approach to WSIS20 and related might lead to some surprises down the road...

Cheers

Bill

On Mar 7, 2025, at 3:22 PM, Israel Rosas via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> wrote:

Hi all,

I'd like to bring your attention to the remarks delivered on 4 March by the US Minister Counselor to ECOSOC regarding the USG position about the Agenda 2030. This is a significant shift that can have serious implications in the WSIS+20 review, particularly in a context where many of us have advocated for the Internet as a force for good that helps advance global development.

The remarks are located here:

https://usun.usmission.gov/remarks-at-the-un-meeting-entitled-58th-plenary-m...

...

A couple of concerning extracts:

"We have a concern that this resolution is a reaffirmation of Agenda 2030 and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Although framed in neutral language, Agenda 2030 and the SDGs advance a program of soft global governance that is inconsistent with U.S. sovereignty and adverse to the rights and interests of Americans."

"Put simply, globalist endeavors like Agenda 2030 and the SDGs lost at the ballot box. Therefore, the United States rejects and denounces the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Sustainable Development Goals, and it will no longer reaffirm them as a matter of course."

Best,

Isra

Isra Rosas, Director, Partnerships and Internet Development

Internet Society

_______________________________________________

Learn more about the WSIS+20 Outreach Network and review relevant resources: https://go.icann.org/wsis20

Read the public archives for this mailing list: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/

_______________________________________________

By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

[2] Virus-free.www.avast.com [2]

_______________________________________________

Learn more about the WSIS+20 Outreach Network and review relevant resources: https://go.icann.org/wsis20

Read the public archives for this mailing list: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/

_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

--

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Facultad de Química UNAM Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico +525541444475 Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Links: ------ [1] http://www.apc.org/afrisig.org [2] https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaig... _______________________________________________

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.

Jimson, I find this position hopelessly naïve. Enough has been written in this list in the last few days to at least make us keep our eyes open. Alejandro Pisanty On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 8:03 AM Dr Jimson Olufuye < jolufuye@kontemporary.net.ng> wrote:

Greetings, all:

Many thanks for the perspectives provided so far!

The only thing we know that is constant is change. As we witness changes in USG perspectives, we should not be surprised. I think Bill captured the dynamics pretty well and that has to do with USG interest in resource balancing across all spectrum of her interest. Let's not forget that the background of most of the USG actors is heavily in the private sector where interest primarily is in ROI. It does not mean disrespect for individual human rights but in what is fair and balanced.

I could recall in 2018 at the twilight of the work of the CSTD WGEC, Saudi-Arabia insisted on the creation of a government only institution for Internet Governance and Digital Policy issues, (the reason WGEC failed) and as such never liked the idea of IGF. But with someone else (MBS) in power, they not only shifted their policy, they hosted the world to a lavish IGF2024 in Riyadh. Earlier, a US official once told me during the WG on IGF Improvement in 2012 that the USG "would never relinquish" her oversight of IANA during his life-time but by October 1, 2016, USG did (thanks to many here that made it happen when the change was first announced in 2014) and the rest is history.

So, I do not see any issue with ICANN and I do not forsee any take-over by USG. It is commendable that ICANN has been playing its role well with balanced oversight by the global Internet Community (especially with regard to the request for the deactivation of .ru). What ICANN could probably do now if not yet done is to conduct an audit of its compliance with the terms of the Transition that saw its contract with NTIA expired without any move for renewal by NTIA. With that audit in hand, there can be no argument that would push a recourse to pre-October 2016 arrangement with NTIA as USG is not losing money after the end of its oversight stewardship. This audit may well be one of the highlights of a 10-year Review of the end of USG oversight of the IANA in October 2026.

Cheers,

Jimson

On 2025-03-10 12:51, Alejandro Pisanty via wsis20 wrote:

...

Giacomo,

the flaw is a bit worse than "the global South governments have a variety of views on human rights" (paraphrasing.) We in civil society, academia, and the technical community are at odds - in the best of cases - or in frank opposition, persecuted, denied voices and participation, and in dire cases beaten silenced, repressed jailed by those governments. I am baffled (a bit, honestly) again by the recurrence of organizations that seek these exact governments' support for an Internet the governments try to tame, suppress, fragment, or shut off. If Europe is going to take the lead, it must look at the communities mentioned, and probably a large part of industry as well, directly and make sure space and voice are warranted. We were able to get into the governance space thanks to having first implemented and operated the Internet totally under the radar and against the opposition of those governments and I do not think we will give up the space easily.

Yours,

Alejandro Pisanty

On Sun, Mar 9, 2025 at 3:39 PM giacomo mazzone via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> wrote:

...

Dear Anriette,

I share entirely your view, and I think that Europe has a unique opportunity to move in this direction and start to look around for effective allies, beyond the US government. This is what we need to do each one in its own field of competence and of regional origin…

One of the problem is that global south is not a monolithic entity and not all of its members have the same views on HR fundamentals. This could be a major obstacle.

But as you said, we have no other way then continue to struggle for what we believe is the general interest and the common good.

Giacomo

PS: thank you Bill for the sincere analysis, directly inspired by Socrates views… “scio me nihil scire”…

From: Anriette Esterhuysen via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> Sent: Sunday, March 9, 2025 9:58 PM To: wsis20@icann.org Subject: [wsis20] Re: [EXTERNAL] - Re: Data point: Shift in USG position regarding the SDGs

Things change, and governments change. This happens all the time, but of course it matters more when such a powerful state is involved. As Bill says, it is a new environment.

That is precisely why we do need an international system, with internationally agreed norms and standards. That a powerful government like the US shows lack of support for this system and these norms just affirms the importance of having such a system, even if it does also challenge its sustainability. It might even create the opportunity for a more level multilateral playing field that - in a good case scenario - create new opportunities for global South/Majority member states and for new North/South alliances - particularly around topics like climate change/environmental sustainability/social inclusion/fair trade.

In response to Jordan's question.... we continue doing what we have been doing, but smartly and creatively. We strengthen existing alliances and build new ones. There are still many member states - in the developed and developing worlds - that tech community and civil society people/organisations can work with collaboratively. As for the private sector.... the way in which US-based tech companies are shedding adherence to human rights (other than to a simplistic notion of so-called free speech) is creating an opportunity for businesses that do care about people and the planet to come forward, show leadership, and join forces with those who really care about inclusive multistakeholder approaches to tech governance.

We work with governments that care about inclusion and rights and we challenge and hold accountable those who don't. And we remember that no government is monolithic.. it is almost always possible to find people within "hostile" governments to work with. We just have to do it with more nuance and sensitivity.

It it is also not as if the US government has been the worlds greatest supporter of the WSIS goals, or of global development.... in fact the US has pretty consistently pushed back and tried to contain commitments to debt relief, access to knowledge, access to medicines, open source, net neutrality etc.

Of course losing the US as an ally in the Human Rights Council, and in some of the WSIS negotiations on some aspects of the WSIS such as the renewal of the IGF's mandate, for example, will have a massive impact, but it might also galvanise other states to be more effective in countering this impact. In business and human rights discussions I don't think the US will be missed all that much.. but the human rights people can correct me on that :)

Personally what I will miss most, should it come to that, are several of the individuals in US missions, the State Department and other US government agencies that we have been working with in this space over the past decades/years; people that I have learnt from and whom I value - even if I did not always agree with them.

What about ICANN itself? Any risks to its autonomy as an institution? Or is the fact that it is incorporated under California State Law sufficient protection?

Is it perhaps time to think of an IANA Transition 2.0?

:)

Anriette (in my personal capacity)

Anriette Esterhuysen - anriette@apc.org//anriette@gmail.com

Senior advisor global and regional internet governance

Association for Progressive Communications

www.apc.org//afrisig.org [1]

On 2025/03/08 21:26, Jordan Carter via wsis20 wrote:

Bill, all… what is it we need to do, then, in your view?

Cheers

Jordan

Jordan Carter — .au Domain Administration

+61-417-243-647 on Signal or iMessage

-------------------------

From: William Drake via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> Sent: Saturday, March 8, 2025 8:43:04 AM To: Israel Rosas <rosas@isoc.org> Cc: wsis20@icann.org <wsis20@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] - [wsis20] Re: Data point: Shift in USG position regarding the SDGs

Hi Isra

Needless to say, this is more than a data point, it’s a new environment. Probably they’re just getting started and there’s lots more stuff laying around waiting to be broken. According to a State Dept report I read yesterday, as of FY 2022 the US pays 22% of the overall UN budget (not counting arrears) and over $21 billion to 179 international organizations and multilateral entities (85% voluntary funds, 15% assessed). As the cultural revolution’s march through the institutions proceeds, one has to assume the administration will claim to find lots more “woke/DEI/waste, fraud and abuse” in those budgets, as well as lots more treaties and agreements to abandon.

Taking a "business as usual" approach to WSIS20 and related might lead to some surprises down the road...

Cheers

Bill

On Mar 7, 2025, at 3:22 PM, Israel Rosas via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> wrote:

Hi all,

I'd like to bring your attention to the remarks delivered on 4 March by the US Minister Counselor to ECOSOC regarding the USG position about the Agenda 2030. This is a significant shift that can have serious implications in the WSIS+20 review, particularly in a context where many of us have advocated for the Internet as a force for good that helps advance global development.

The remarks are located here:

https://usun.usmission.gov/remarks-at-the-un-meeting-entitled-58th-plenary-m...

...

...

A couple of concerning extracts:

"We have a concern that this resolution is a reaffirmation of Agenda 2030 and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Although framed in neutral language, Agenda 2030 and the SDGs advance a program of soft global governance that is inconsistent with U.S. sovereignty and adverse to the rights and interests of Americans."

"Put simply, globalist endeavors like Agenda 2030 and the SDGs lost at the ballot box. Therefore, the United States rejects and denounces the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Sustainable Development Goals, and it will no longer reaffirm them as a matter of course."

Best,

Isra

Isra Rosas, Director, Partnerships and Internet Development

Internet Society

_______________________________________________

Learn more about the WSIS+20 Outreach Network and review relevant resources: https://go.icann.org/wsis20

Read the public archives for this mailing list: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/

_______________________________________________

By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

[2] Virus-free.www.avast.com [2]

_______________________________________________

Learn more about the WSIS+20 Outreach Network and review relevant resources: https://go.icann.org/wsis20

Read the public archives for this mailing list: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/

_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

--

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Facultad de Química UNAM Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico +525541444475 Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Links: ------ [1] http://www.apc.org/afrisig.org [2]

https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaig...

...

_______________________________________________

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

Good Morning looking at the remarks by Edward Heartney Minister Counselor to ECOSOC Looking at the 5 Principles of Peaceful Coexistence am sure they need to be looked into <http://ir.china-embassy.gov.cn/eng/dtxw/201407/t20140702_1894012.htm> The Five Principles of Peaceful Co-Existence are: 1. mutual respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity, 2. mutual non-aggression, 3. non- interference in each other's internal affairs, 4. equality and mutual benefit, 5. peaceful coexistence. These ideas were first put forward by then Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai on 31 December 1953 when he met an Indian Government Delegation. In June 1954, Premier Zhou visited India and Burma (now Myanmar). The joint Statement of the Prime Ministers of China and India issued on 28 June and the Joint Statement of the Prime Ministers of China and Burma issued on 29 June both affirmed that the Five Principles of Peaceful Co-Existence as guiding principles in their bilateral relations and then the Five Principles were formally proposed as the norms for handling international relations. In 1955 the Asian-African Conference convened in Bandung, Indonesia adopted Ten Principles for conducting international relations, inside which the Five Principles of Peaceful Co-Existence were included. Hereafter, in the process of the third world countries seeking for a fairer international political and economic order, the Five Principles of Peaceful Co-Existence have been accepted and adopted by the overwhelming majority of the developing countries, and have an increasing impact all over the world. In 1970, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted the "Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations". This declaration included the content of the Five Principles of Peaceful Co-Existence, marking these principles have been widely accepted by the international community. Kind Regards *Winnie Kamau* *+254721754349* *If you do not take care of nature... then nature will take care of you: Wangari Maathai* On Sat, Mar 8, 2025 at 10:26 PM Jordan Carter via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> wrote:

Bill, all… what is it we need to do, then, in your view?

Cheers Jordan

Jordan Carter — .au Domain Administration +61-417-243-647 on Signal or iMessage ------------------------------ *From:* William Drake via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> *Sent:* Saturday, March 8, 2025 8:43:04 AM *To:* Israel Rosas <rosas@isoc.org> *Cc:* wsis20@icann.org <wsis20@icann.org> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] - [wsis20] Re: Data point: Shift in USG position regarding the SDGs

Hi Isra

Needless to say, this is more than a data point, it’s a new environment. Probably they’re just getting started and there’s lots more stuff laying around waiting to be broken. According to a State Dept report I read yesterday, as of FY 2022 the US pays 22% of the overall UN budget (not counting arrears) and over $21 billion to 179 international organizations and multilateral entities (85% voluntary funds, 15% assessed). As the cultural revolution’s march through the institutions proceeds, one has to assume the administration will claim to find lots more “woke/DEI/waste, fraud and abuse” in those budgets, as well as lots more treaties and agreements to abandon.

Taking a "business as usual" approach to WSIS20 and related might lead to some surprises down the road...

Cheers

Bill

On Mar 7, 2025, at 3:22 PM, Israel Rosas via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> wrote:

Hi all,

I'd like to bring your attention to the remarks delivered on 4 March by the US Minister Counselor to ECOSOC regarding the USG position about the Agenda 2030. This is a significant shift that can have serious implications in the WSIS+20 review, particularly in a context where many of us have advocated for the Internet as a force for good that helps advance global development.

The remarks are located here: https://usun.usmission.gov/remarks-at-the-un-meeting-entitled-58th-plenary-m...

A couple of concerning extracts:

"We have a concern that this resolution is a reaffirmation of Agenda 2030 and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Although framed in neutral language, Agenda 2030 and the SDGs advance a program of soft global governance that is inconsistent with U.S. sovereignty and adverse to the rights and interests of Americans."

"Put simply, globalist endeavors like Agenda 2030 and the SDGs lost at the ballot box. Therefore, the United States rejects and denounces the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Sustainable Development Goals, and it will no longer reaffirm them as a matter of course."

Best, Isra

Isra Rosas, Director, Partnerships and Internet Development Internet Society

_______________________________________________

Learn more about the WSIS+20 Outreach Network and review relevant resources: https://go.icann.org/wsis20

Read the public archives for this mailing list: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/

_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

Hello Alex, We do live in interesting times. In my opinion, the USG’s Agenda 2030 comments are likely just the tip of the iceberg. In fact, if I were a betting person (which I am not), I see various scenarios in which the Trump administration reasserts a legal right to the IANA contract/functions in the near foreseeable future. While there is no specific mention of ICANN in Project 2025, I would like to share with the list the following two data points that I think are relevant. Stephen Miller, who has played a prominent role in both Trump administrations, made the following statement in 2016 before the IANA contract/functions transition. “Donald J. Trump is committed to preserving Internet freedom for the American people and citizens all over the world. The U.S. should not turn control of the Internet over to the United Nations and the international community,” Another interesting data point is the current nominee to head NTIA. Arielle Roth is the current policy director of telecommunications for Senator Cruz. As you may recall Senator Cruz was supportive of the litigation that sought to block the Obama transition of the IANA functions to ICANN, see https://www.brookings.edu/articles/u-s-government-should-not-reverse-course-..., https://www.cruz.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sen-cruz-and-rep-duffy-i..., and https://domainincite.com/21139-states-drop-iana-transition-block-lawsuit Alex, you and I have seen first-hand most of the “existential” threats to the ICANN multistakeholder model over the past 26 plus years. The next couple of years will probably be the most tumultuous in ICANN’s history IMHO. Best regards, Michael From: Alejandro Pisanty via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> Date: Saturday, March 8, 2025 at 2:43 PM To: William Drake <williamdrake.lists@gmail.com> Cc: wsis20@icann.org <wsis20@icann.org> Subject: [wsis20] Re: Data point: Shift in USG position regarding the SDGs Bill, Isra, thanks. Indeed the signal Isra has detected is most likely only the start. The points Bill makes also point to things to watch. The greatest concern might be less related to budgets and to leaving multilateral organizations and more to a reassertion of nationalism and the recurrence, intensified, of the "the Internet is American" mantra. "Americans made it and the US should own it"... Panama Canal anyone? Over the years, those calls did not succeed in stopping the multistakeholder, Internet-native organizations and mechanisms, but sure were extremely disruptive at times. "Anti-globalist" and nationalist concerted action against ICANN or its principals, with weird allies from the Global South, were really tough during, say, the debate around the adult-oriented gTLD and other periods. I see all the signs that once it gets sparked it will be orders of magnitude more ferocious. And, I already see some people who have been long-time solid supporters of ICANN and the multistakeholder approach siding with the hard-line nationalism in issues like cutting aid and other international expenses and activities of the US. The discourse on sovereignty, digital sovereignty in particular, may be turned around 180 degrees and start to bite supporters of a diluted or networked concept of sovereignty or the brilliant (IMO) approach of transitioning from digital sovereignty to digital agency as per Akash Kapur's paper. We should be actively assessing scenarios for ICANN, the I* based in the US and those not, other multistakeholder organizations like APWG and M3AAWG, the IGF and WSIS+20, and of course Internet and AI Governance more broadly. Isra's note is a clarion call we should not ignore. Alejandro Pisanty On Sat, Mar 8, 2025 at 10:43 AM William Drake via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org<mailto:wsis20@icann.org>> wrote: Hi Isra Needless to say, this is more than a data point, it’s a new environment. Probably they’re just getting started and there’s lots more stuff laying around waiting to be broken. According to a State Dept report I read yesterday, as of FY 2022 the US pays 22% of the overall UN budget (not counting arrears) and over $21 billion to 179 international organizations and multilateral entities (85% voluntary funds, 15% assessed). As the cultural revolution’s march through the institutions proceeds, one has to assume the administration will claim to find lots more “woke/DEI/waste, fraud and abuse” in those budgets, as well as lots more treaties and agreements to abandon. Taking a "business as usual" approach to WSIS20 and related might lead to some surprises down the road... Cheers Bill On Mar 7, 2025, at 3:22 PM, Israel Rosas via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org<mailto:wsis20@icann.org>> wrote: Hi all, I'd like to bring your attention to the remarks delivered on 4 March by the US Minister Counselor to ECOSOC regarding the USG position about the Agenda 2030. This is a significant shift that can have serious implications in the WSIS+20 review, particularly in a context where many of us have advocated for the Internet as a force for good that helps advance global development. The remarks are located here: https://usun.usmission.gov/remarks-at-the-un-meeting-entitled-58th-plenary-m... A couple of concerning extracts: "We have a concern that this resolution is a reaffirmation of Agenda 2030 and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Although framed in neutral language, Agenda 2030 and the SDGs advance a program of soft global governance that is inconsistent with U.S. sovereignty and adverse to the rights and interests of Americans." "Put simply, globalist endeavors like Agenda 2030 and the SDGs lost at the ballot box. Therefore, the United States rejects and denounces the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Sustainable Development Goals, and it will no longer reaffirm them as a matter of course." Best, Isra Isra Rosas, Director, Partnerships and Internet Development Internet Society _______________________________________________ Learn more about the WSIS+20 Outreach Network and review relevant resources: https://go.icann.org/wsis20 Read the public archives for this mailing list: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/ _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 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 Wolfgang, I believe that the U.S. concept of "digital sovereignty" and the link you shared are inevitable results of a long-standing, unresolved digital conflict between the U.S. and the EU. By the end of 2022, the total amount of fines imposed on various U.S. companies under GDPR exceeded €1.6 billion. While this demonstrates the EU's commitment to enforcing data protection laws and holding companies accountable for data privacy violations, so i assuem this is the primary reason behind this U.S. vs. EU digital conflict. I think this clash has recently been intensified by issues related to AI development approaches. EU countries tend to be more conservative and focused on ethical AI, whereas the U.S. emphasizes freedom and rapid development with fewer restrictions . Overall, this illustrates two different mindsets that will likely continue to be in conflict over digital issues. Best regards Nabeel Yasin Tel/WhatsApp: +967 777006885 ________________________________ From: Wolfgang Kleinwächter via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> Sent: Saturday, March 8, 2025 11:35 PM To: Alejandro Pisanty <apisanty@gmail.com>; Alejandro Pisanty via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org>; William Drake <williamdrake.lists@gmail.com> Subject: [wsis20] Re: Data point: Shift in USG position regarding the SDGs The new US concept of "digital sovereignity" can be found here: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/02/defending-american-c... Is this the beginning of the US-EU digital war? The ÈU-US-TTC is dead, isn´t it? What the Europeans should do? Remove all the laws, they have adopted during the last five years? Von der Leyen was proud, that the EU is not a "Norm Taker", but a "Norm Maker". Now they have the digital rulebook with more than 1 500 pages of legal text (which pushes private companies to hire law firms to understand all the complexities), but they do not have European champions. Henna Virkkunen, the new EU Commissioner, understands this and she argued in the European Parliament for a "simplification of regulation". I asked her at the Munich Security Conference last month weather J.D. Vance call for "digital re-regulation" and her concept of "simplification of digital EU regulation" could converge. Her answer was lala. "We want to clear our digital rule book from duplications, contradictions and not needed details, but de-regulation is not an option." Interesting times. Wolfgang Alejandro Pisanty via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org> hat am 08.03.2025 20:43 CET geschrieben: Bill, Isra, thanks. Indeed the signal Isra has detected is most likely only the start. The points Bill makes also point to things to watch. The greatest concern might be less related to budgets and to leaving multilateral organizations and more to a reassertion of nationalism and the recurrence, intensified, of the "the Internet is American" mantra. "Americans made it and the US should own it"... Panama Canal anyone? Over the years, those calls did not succeed in stopping the multistakeholder, Internet-native organizations and mechanisms, but sure were extremely disruptive at times. "Anti-globalist" and nationalist concerted action against ICANN or its principals, with weird allies from the Global South, were really tough during, say, the debate around the adult-oriented gTLD and other periods. I see all the signs that once it gets sparked it will be orders of magnitude more ferocious. And, I already see some people who have been long-time solid supporters of ICANN and the multistakeholder approach siding with the hard-line nationalism in issues like cutting aid and other international expenses and activities of the US. The discourse on sovereignty, digital sovereignty in particular, may be turned around 180 degrees and start to bite supporters of a diluted or networked concept of sovereignty or the brilliant (IMO) approach of transitioning from digital sovereignty to digital agency as per Akash Kapur's paper. We should be actively assessing scenarios for ICANN, the I* based in the US and those not, other multistakeholder organizations like APWG and M3AAWG, the IGF and WSIS+20, and of course Internet and AI Governance more broadly. Isra's note is a clarion call we should not ignore. Alejandro Pisanty On Sat, Mar 8, 2025 at 10:43 AM William Drake via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org<mailto:wsis20@icann.org>> wrote: Hi Isra Needless to say, this is more than a data point, it’s a new environment. Probably they’re just getting started and there’s lots more stuff laying around waiting to be broken. According to a State Dept report I read yesterday, as of FY 2022 the US pays 22% of the overall UN budget (not counting arrears) and over $21 billion to 179 international organizations and multilateral entities (85% voluntary funds, 15% assessed). As the cultural revolution’s march through the institutions proceeds, one has to assume the administration will claim to find lots more “woke/DEI/waste, fraud and abuse” in those budgets, as well as lots more treaties and agreements to abandon. Taking a "business as usual" approach to WSIS20 and related might lead to some surprises down the road... Cheers Bill On Mar 7, 2025, at 3:22 PM, Israel Rosas via wsis20 <wsis20@icann.org<mailto:wsis20@icann.org>> wrote: Hi all, I'd like to bring your attention to the remarks delivered on 4 March by the US Minister Counselor to ECOSOC regarding the USG position about the Agenda 2030. This is a significant shift that can have serious implications in the WSIS+20 review, particularly in a context where many of us have advocated for the Internet as a force for good that helps advance global development. The remarks are located here: https://usun.usmission.gov/remarks-at-the-un-meeting-entitled-58th-plenary-m... A couple of concerning extracts: "We have a concern that this resolution is a reaffirmation of Agenda 2030 and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Although framed in neutral language, Agenda 2030 and the SDGs advance a program of soft global governance that is inconsistent with U.S. sovereignty and adverse to the rights and interests of Americans." "Put simply, globalist endeavors like Agenda 2030 and the SDGs lost at the ballot box. Therefore, the United States rejects and denounces the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Sustainable Development Goals, and it will no longer reaffirm them as a matter of course." Best, Isra Isra Rosas, Director, Partnerships and Internet Development Internet Society _______________________________________________ Learn more about the WSIS+20 Outreach Network and review relevant resources: https://go.icann.org/wsis20 Read the public archives for this mailing list: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wsis20/ _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _______________________________________________ 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.