<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p><font face="Liberation Sans"><br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Liberation Sans">Sent the below to the ISOC list ...
I think this leadership group over the top of MAG and the IGF is
completely needless, and dangerous, and </font><font
face="Liberation Sans">also</font><font face="Liberation Sans">
as per my best understanding does not correspond to what came
out of the pubic consultations on the subject</font></p>
<p><font face="Liberation Sans">Any comments? <br>
</font></p>
<font face="Liberation Sans">parminder </font>
<div class="moz-forward-container"><br>
<br>
-------- Forwarded Message --------
<table class="moz-email-headers-table" cellspacing="0"
cellpadding="0" border="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th valign="BASELINE" nowrap="nowrap" align="RIGHT">Subject:
</th>
<td>UN SG interjects a completely unnecessary leadership
group on the top of IGF's MAG</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th valign="BASELINE" nowrap="nowrap" align="RIGHT">Date: </th>
<td>Wed, 10 Nov 2021 20:56:16 +0530</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th valign="BASELINE" nowrap="nowrap" align="RIGHT">From: </th>
<td>parminder <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:parminder.js@gmail.com"><parminder.js@gmail.com></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th valign="BASELINE" nowrap="nowrap" align="RIGHT">To: </th>
<td>parminder via InternetPolicy
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:internetpolicy@elists.isoc.org"><internetpolicy@elists.isoc.org></a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<br>
<br>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<p>Please see <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.intgovforum.org/en/content/terms-of-reference-for-the-igf-leadership-panel"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.intgovforum.org/en/content/terms-of-reference-for-the-igf-leadership-panel</a></p>
<p>The UN Internet Governance Forum was created by the World
Summit on the Information Society as, and only as, a forum for
policy dialogue, ...Policy making or shaping, or even nudging
was never its job. The current Multi stakeholder Advisory Group
(MAG) is already an over-bloated body as an annual program
development system..... Why does MAG and IGF need a leadership
group on the top of it. It is not only highly unnecessary, but
quite dangerous, as an international group that I am a member of
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://justnetcoalition.org/big-tech-governing-big-tech.pdf">argued
in its response to UNSG's consultation</a> on developing some
such new body . <br>
</p>
<p>ISOC's response to the consultation also argued against the
need for any such new body, and certainly not outside the
existing MAG and kind of overseeing it, as it has now been
created . See ISOC's response at <a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/93a-public-responses"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/93a-public-responses</a> </p>
<p>The leadership group would apparently be promoting some policy
options as 'IGF views' ('promote IGF outputs' is one function of
this new body), which is a very dangerous over-reach .... I can
see some senior Big Tech executives promoting, well, the IGF
community wants this and this, and not that..... Are we ready to
live in such a world? <br>
</p>
<p>I wonder if ISOC has any plans to oppose this move by the UN
SG. </p>
<p>I am sure we will hear: tch, tch, you are completely wrong,
this is not what this new body is supposed to do.. It is quite
an innocent one .. But just look at its name ' The IGF
Leadership Panel'. what does a leadership group do ... </p>
<p>Sorry, we do not want some Big Tech CEO's calling themselves
IGF leaders.. we do not accept them as IGF leaders. In fact, we
want IGF turned to the task of examining and exploring how best
to regulate Big Tech, about which there is a serious public and
political clamor today, not for the IGF to be led by Big Tech. <br>
</p>
<p>parminder<br>
</p>
<p>PS: Unfortunately, the UN Secretary General seems to have made
it his agenda to inject corporate elements into key policy
levels in all areas of global governance, through such
multistakeholder panels... Similar happened at the recent UN
Food Systems Summit (UNFSS) . Grassroots groups involved with
right to food, and working with small farmers and peasants, made
the following observation, and I quote:</p>
<blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap=""><font size="+1"><b>The implications of the UN FSS follow-up on the existing Global Food Governance Architecture </b>
The description of follow-up plans in the latest draft of the UN Secretary General’s (UNSG) Statement of Action (14 September) is deeply worrying, as is the public statement by FAO Director General (15 September) on how the FAO intends to follow up on the Food System Summit.
The UNSG does not have a mandate to establish follow up mechanisms for this Summit. Member States are the decision makers in the UN system. Member States did not request or agree to put these new structures and mechanisms in place.
We do not recognize the multistakeholder national food systems pathways without emphasis on the differentiated responsibilities. Most of the Summit’s national and independent dialogues largely excluded the groups most affected by hunger and malnutrition, and key food system actors such as small-scale food producers and workers. Most dialogues were as opaque as the whole Summit.
Further, the FSS organizers - the Deputy Secretary General (DSG) in particular – committed to not creating new structures. Yet the announcement that the Rome-based Agencies - FAO, IFAD, WFP - will jointly lead a “coordination hub” that draws on wider UN system capacities to support follow-up to the Food Systems Summit, points to significantly altering the existing global governance of food and agriculture with far reaching implications. This Rome based hub and a newly established “Advisory Group” are supposed to strengthen linkages to other priority global and intergovernmental processes relating for example to the Environment, Climate, Food Security, Health and Nutrition, as well as key intergovernmental fora such as the High-level Political Forum (HLPF), and Financing for Development Forum.
Such a change in the existing governance architecture without any intergovernmental deliberation and mandate is completely illegitimate and unacceptable.
Such a “coordination hub” and its newly created “Advisory Group” would encroach into the functions of the CFS, which is precisely the UN Committee mandated to ensure inclusive policy development, coherence, coordination, and convergence across the UN systems on issues of food security and nutrition.
This proposal of change in global food governance architecture bypasses Member States and the CFS, and has the potential to destroy the CFS and its unique mandate and processes. The UNSG as well as the heads of the Rome-based agencies, if they support such suggestions, are clearly acting outside their mandates.
Third, there is no need to conduct a global stock-taking in two years to review progress in implementing the outcomes of a Summit which did not have the mandate to make any formal commitments.
The public statement released by the DG of FAO is also quite alarming. FAO is unduly diverging from its mandate in the direction of a corporate-driven agenda very much aligned with the FSS agenda. Prioritizing technology, innovation and data will clearly fail its mandate that is grounded in attaining the right to food for all, and redirect financing towards corporate private sector at the cost of public programmes. As a UN agency, FAO is bound by the international human rights framework, and must serve public interest and give centrality to the weakest – yet essential – actors of food systems: small-scale food producers and
workers.
Excerpt taken from <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.csm4cfs.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/EN-Policy-Brief-on-FSS-1.pdf" moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.csm4cfs.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/EN-Policy-Brief-on-FSS-1.pdf</a>
</font>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</div>
</body>
</html>