<html>
  <head>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
  </head>
  <body>
    <p><font face="Liberation Sans">Sorry, Siva, i confused your email
        with that from Suresh .. responding to too many emails on the
        subject :) .. But the views stand otherwise  -- also the poser
        to those who seem agreeing with both Evan's and Wolfgang's views
        on the subject.. parminder</font></p>
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 26/11/21 12:41 pm, parminder wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote type="cite"
      cite="mid:1412e5a7-cd1d-c01b-3263-c9d22d0a119d@itforchange.net">
      <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
      <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>Re: [Internet Policy] Fwd: [WG-Strategy] [At-Large]
                Seeking roll back of the IGF Leadership Panel</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <th valign="BASELINE" nowrap="nowrap" align="RIGHT">Date:
              </th>
              <td>Fri, 26 Nov 2021 12:39:33 +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"
                  moz-do-not-send="true"><parminder.js@gmail.com></a></td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <th valign="BASELINE" nowrap="nowrap" align="RIGHT">To: </th>
              <td>sivasubramanian muthusamy <a
                  class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
                  href="mailto:6.internet@gmail.com"
                  moz-do-not-send="true"><6.internet@gmail.com></a></td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <th valign="BASELINE" nowrap="nowrap" align="RIGHT">CC: </th>
              <td><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
                  href="mailto:internetpolicy@elists.isoc.org"
                  moz-do-not-send="true">internetpolicy@elists.isoc.org</a>
                <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
                  href="mailto:internetpolicy@elists.isoc.org"
                  moz-do-not-send="true"><internetpolicy@elists.isoc.org></a></td>
            </tr>
          </tbody>
        </table>
        <br>
        <br>
        <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 26/11/21 11:44 am,
          sivasubramanian muthusamy wrote:<br>
        </div>
        <blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAKsgsGz3LZTpt4A+_U+LF9oSV857OTQ65GFUfLO1750fKz8-+Q@mail.gmail.com">
          <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;
            charset=UTF-8">
          <div dir="ltr">
            <div dir="ltr"><br>
            </div>
            <div class="gmail_quote">
              <div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at
                10:57 AM parminder via InternetPolicy <<a
                  href="mailto:internetpolicy@elists.isoc.org"
                  moz-do-not-send="true">internetpolicy@elists.isoc.org</a>>
                wrote:<br>
              </div>
              <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
                0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
                rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
                <div>
                  <p>Contrary to Evan's view, Wolfgang considers the IGF
                    to be extremely successful, and it is in this path
                    of its spectacular evolutionary success that the
                    Leadership Panel (LP) is placed as a kind of
                    necessary and very useful development .. <br>
                  </p>
                </div>
              </blockquote>
              <div>The view that IGF is removed from World's reality and
                the criticisms such as it is nothing more than a Talk
                shop --- all this comes from a general difficulty in
                measuring the immeasurable. It appeared to be a talk
                shop (Parminder is definitely among those who talked,
                wasn't he?), no decisions were made, no recommendations
                were formally made, but hasn't the IGF worked in ways we
                can't measure? How would anyone measure IGF's influence
                on Internet Policy? Because the effect of the IGF is not
                quantifiable, it is not quite unfair to comment in such
                adverse terms. IGF is indeed on a path of evolution, it
                is spectacular in its evolution because in such a short
                time as 15 years, the IGF has seated stakeholders inside
                the room where Policy used to be framed only on the
                basis of what Governments understood (or misunderstood).</div>
            </div>
          </div>
        </blockquote>
        <p>Very well, you have a right to these views. <br>
        </p>
        <p>I may just only remind you that to Evan's email where he
          called the IGF as a bubble removed from the society, an
          elitist talk shop, and having only created entropy in these
          last 15 years (that was almost all he said in the email about
          the IGF) ... <br>
        </p>
        <p>you responded yesterday on the At-Large elist in the
          following manner, and I quote</p>
        <blockquote>
          <blockquote>
            <p>> Dear all,<br>
              ><br>
              > I am by and large in agreement with Evan.<br>
            </p>
          </blockquote>
        </blockquote>
        <p>ENDs</p>
        <p>In this part of the email, I was just asking you - and others
          like you who seemed to be agreeing to both sides --  to make
          up your mind one way or the other .. Please stop confusing
          people. That would really raise the quality of the debate....
          parminder <br>
        </p>
        <p><br>
        </p>
        <blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAKsgsGz3LZTpt4A+_U+LF9oSV857OTQ65GFUfLO1750fKz8-+Q@mail.gmail.com">
          <div dir="ltr">
            <div class="gmail_quote">
              <div> If the past 15 years have given the IGF a frame, the
                leadership panel will breathe life into the IGF.</div>
              <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
                0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
                rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
                <div>
                  <p>Not just the past, but the two also fundamentally
                    disagree on there future expectations from the LP...
                    Evan thinks that the LP will somehow magically
                    address and solve pressing digital policy issues,
                    about solving which he (like me) is very eager.
                    Wolfgang is clear that the LP is "not the "new
                    Internet policy makers", they function like a "post
                    office", bringing the messages from the
                    multistakeholder IGF to the intergovernmental
                    negotiation table and vice versa".</p>
                  <p>Since whatever little support the LP has focuses on
                    this "messages" and "post office" and "bridge'
                    function, and it is also the crux of Wolfgang's
                    argument, let me focus on it.</p>
                  <p>It should be noted that UN SG wants a star cast for
                    the LP, and calls for only CEO and deputy CEO levels
                    to apply... </p>
                </div>
              </blockquote>
              <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
                0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
                rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
                <div>
                  <p>These are big-ego people very fond of expressing
                    and touting their views...</p>
                </div>
              </blockquote>
              <div> How is this characterization made here? <br>
              </div>
              <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
                0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
                rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
                <div>
                  <p> These are just not the people who act as message
                    carriers and post office - an archetypical
                    description of bureaucracy's function, enough of
                    which exists and links between the IGF and decision
                    making bodies. (If you want you can work on
                    improving that part which is what meets the role and
                    objective description you provide for the LP. Not a
                    group of CEOs.). Therefore there is a fundamental,
                    and in my view, fatal, dis-junction between the HR
                    description and institutional objectives sought. May
                    you please explain this. <br>
                  </p>
                  <p> I would invite you to expound your views with
                    clear practical examples. To help that, lets take
                    that a LP has been set up with an hypothetical
                    membership of the ministers of France and Indonesia,
                    a Senior VP of Microsoft and CEO of TCS (Indian
                    software major), and CEOs of ISOC and APNIC, and ok
                    let me not speculate on civil society leaders chosen
                    (but believe me, their egos can be bigger than those
                    of industry CEOs).</p>
                </div>
              </blockquote>
              <div>That is an over-simplified example.  <br>
              </div>
              <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
                0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
                rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
                <div>
                  <p>Lets say one of these IGF Leaders is at an
                    important global meeting, and is introduced as such
                    , as being a part of IGF's Leadership Group/ Panel.
                    Wolfgang, please try to give us some concrete
                    examples of what s/he might do, in nature of a "post
                    office" and carrier of messages from the IGF, and
                    back...<br>
                  </p>
                  <p>Would s/he hand over and describe, say the outcome
                    document of an IGF's Best Practices Forum... Lets
                    take the example of the BPF on data and new
                    technologies ... I dont see a minister or an
                    industry CEO (or ISOC CEO) setting aside her/ his
                    views on such a globally hot topic like data, and
                    share some lame as well as politically controversial
                    views from this <a
href="https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/filedepot_download/9655/2393"
                      target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">BFP's
                      outcome paper</a>. But I am happy to hear from you
                    your description of what would likely happen in such
                    a scenario, which is the embodiment of your main
                    argument in favour of LP. And if the LP person is
                    just to hand over the outcome paper to the meeting
                    or read its summary (which s/he cannot do other than
                    in a selective manner, given her/ his inevitable own
                    strong views on data etc), why is this function not
                    much better done by the bureaucracy, which does it
                    best (and knows where to stop). So if you may, just
                    add 2-3 more people to the IGF sect or the UNDESA's
                    IGF desk ... <br>
                  </p>
                  <p>But sure, Wolfgang, pl you illuminate us how such a
                    thing will actually fold out -- using a hypothetical
                    as above, or another of your own ... Speaking in
                    abstract in terms of messages and post offices and
                    bridges means nothing .. We are at a serious fork in
                    the evolution of institutions of digital governance.
                    So, please lets get real. <br>
                  </p>
                  <p>Currently, the MAG Chair at a global meeting limits
                    herself to describing the process functions and the
                    greatness of the IGF .. Show us a picture of IGF
                    leaders getting 'substantive' in their outside
                    communication, and I'd show what is fatally wrong
                    with the LP idea. <br>
                  </p>
                  <p>Let us know how a groups of Leaders will actually
                    perform the function you lay out, and why that
                    function is not better performed by strengthening
                    the bucreaucracy link between IGF and others, it
                    being to my mind an archetypical bureacracy
                    function.</p>
                </div>
              </blockquote>
              <div>It is just the opposite of a design of bureaucracy.</div>
              <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
                0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
                rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
                <div>
                  <p> <br>
                  </p>
                  <p>parminder<br>
                  </p>
                  <p><br>
                  </p>
                  <p>On 26/11/21 9:46 am, parminder wrote:<br>
                  </p>
                  <blockquote type="cite">
                    <p>I have views on both Wolfgang's and Evan's
                      responses to our letter, and their position vis a
                      vis the new IGF Leadership Panel.</p>
                    <p>What however completely passes me is how anyone
                      can agree with both Evan's and Wolfgang's
                      positions, as some have some... Unless, of
                      offense, but one is just desperate to somehow
                      agree with whatever is happening, and looks
                      difficult to change.</p>
                    <p>Evan's and Wolfgang's positions come from
                      fundamentally opposed premises, and have
                      fundamentally different expectations from the
                      Leadership Panel. In fact there positions like in
                      two opposite extremes from mine, or in other words
                      mine is actually somewhere in the middle. I
                      therefore find it difficult to in the same email
                      argue against the two positions.</p>
                    <p>Meanwhile, I'd request those supporting both
                      positions to help me understand how both can be
                      right. Thanks.</p>
                    <p>Evan considers the IGF to a bubble removed from
                      world's reality, something which has entirely
                      failed. It is so dead or nearly so, that Even is
                      happy if it can be given a last squeeze,
                      everything being otherwise so dismal, that
                      something good may come out.. He himself says he
                      is not sure, and I am paraphrasing, if his
                      medicine is worse than the cure. He just thinks
                      that the IGF is all talk, ineffective, etc, and
                      anything outcome- oriented is better than that. He
                      seems to have applied no mind to what that
                      outcome- oriented would be, how it would work, and
                      what kind of outcomes can be expected (obviously,
                      not all outcomes are describable.) I consider it
                      kind of desperate kind of view, which, my
                      apologies, but does not deserve any serious
                      consideration among people who concern themselves
                      with long term nature and implications of
                      governance institutions. It is quite like, and as
                      desperate as, crying out, all this bloody liberal
                      democracy just doesn't work, bring in a good
                      dictator inside, we would at least see some
                      action! <br>
                    </p>
                    <p>This is despite that I normally have quite
                      respected Evan's views, agree with him that the
                      IGF has become an insiders bubble, and had a
                      disease needing cure, etc. He is completely wrong
                      that in indicated that we as letter writers have
                      any intention to perpetuate the status quo, live
                      off it, etc, which I think he need to know more
                      about how much we fight the status quo every day,
                      including the IGFs. He is also wrong that no
                      alternatives are offered; we so regularly offer
                      them, and we were also one of the most active
                      members of the CSTD WG on IGF improvements. <br>
                    </p>
                    <p>To sum; I take Evan's critique to be of an
                      outsider, who has rightly seem a lot of problems
                      with the IGF, but not been invested enough, nor
                      thought through the new Leadership Panel's nature
                      and likely implications, whereby his statement of
                      the problem is fine, but accepting the Leadership
                      Panel as a solution to try out way off .. Since he
                      himself says he isnt sure if the sure is better
                      than the disease, I think he confirms my summing
                      of his position. I read it as genuine expression
                      of desperation with the current IGF, which I
                      considerably share, and nothing more -- nothing
                      that can really be taken serious about the actual
                      discussion here, about the new Leadership Panel ..
                      <br>
                    </p>
                    <p>parminder <br>
                    </p>
                    <div>On 25/11/21 5:37 pm, Winthrop Yu via
                      InternetPolicy wrote:<br>
                    </div>
                    <blockquote type="cite">
                      <p>Not that i disagree with what Wolfgang is
                        saying here, but i am more fully in accord with
                        the comments on this by Evan and Roberto on the
                        At-Large list. (We have a forked discussion.) <br>
                      </p>
                      <p>WYn<br>
                        <br>
                      </p>
                      <div>On 25 Nov 2021 7:18 pm, Carlos Afonso via
                        InternetPolicy wrote:<br>
                      </div>
                      <blockquote type="cite">Careful and relevant
                        considerations by Wolfgang. <br>
                        <br>
                        A lot is still on the discussion table regarding
                        how this HL will work and relate to the overall
                        IGF community. One option is to discard it,
                        another is to keep it and make sure we
                        participate in the process from the beginning. <br>
                        <br>
                        []s fraternos <br>
                        <br>
                        --c.a. <br>
                        <br>
                        On 24/11/2021 16:47, Wolfgang Kleinwächter
                        wrote: <br>
                        <blockquote type="cite">Hi, <br>
                          <br>
                          I disagree with the letter, signed by
                          Parminder and Milton. I do not share their
                          arguments. I believe, that Parminders and
                          Miltons proposal, to "urge civil society and
                          technical community, to refrain from sending
                          any nominations for the IGF Leadership Panel"
                          is very counterproductive, undermines the
                          future role of the IGF and weakens civil
                          society engagement in Internet related public
                          policy making at the global level. <br>
                          <br>
                          The IGF is indeed a unique experiment in the
                          UN system. Its key purpose is to broaden the
                          participatory base of digital policy making.
                          Since 2006 it has enabled a broad variety of
                          voices to be heard, including those voices
                          otherwise marginalized.It was (and is) a
                          kitchen to cook new ideas. Discussion without
                          barriers. Bottom Up. This was the intention.
                          It has worked, but it did have also its
                          limits. <br>
                          <br>
                          As a member of the UN Working Group on
                          Internet Governance (WGIG), which proposed the
                          establishment of the IGF in 2005, I think we
                          were very right to create the IGF as a
                          "discussion plattform" (forum function)
                          without any decision making capacity. The fear
                          was, that if the IGF becomes a negotiation
                          body, this will kill free and frank
                          discussions. And indeed, the informal nature
                          of the IGF did open "mouths and minds" of all
                          stakeholders. <br>
                          <br>
                          I was also a member of the UNCSTD IGF
                          Improvement Working Group (2012). In this
                          group we agreed that the IGF should continue
                          as a discussion platform, but needs more
                          tangible outputs. <br>
                          <br>
                          The outcome of the IGF are its (sometimes
                          controversial) "messages". There are no "IGF
                          positions": some stakeholders say so, others
                          say so. It is a bottom up process. And this is
                          good for a discussion platform., <br>
                          <br>
                          However, the digital world has moved forward
                          in the last 17 years. Internet Governance
                          isn´t anymore a "technical issue with
                          political implications", it is a "political
                          issue with a technical component". For many
                          Internet related public policy issues new
                          bodies have been created outside the WSIS
                          process and dislinked from the IGF. In the
                          2020s, there are more than a dozen global
                          negotiation bodies where issues like
                          cybersecurity, digital economy, sustainable
                          development or human rights in the digital age
                          are disucssed. Those issues are on the agenda
                          of the IGF since its beginning. But the
                          reality is, that the policy makers in the new
                          negotiation bodies, which are primarily
                          intergovernmental bodies, are in many cases
                          not informed about the IGF discussions. They
                          even have very often no clue what was
                          discussed at the IGF. There is neither a
                          formal nor an informal linkage between the
                          "discussion layer" (the multistakeholder IGF)
                          and the the "decision making layer" (new
                          intergovernmental negotiation bodies). <br>
                          <br>
                          There is a need to bring the expertise,
                          knowledge and ideas from the multistakeholder
                          IGF to the intergovernmental negotiation
                          table. And the IGF will benefit, if the
                          diplomats report back - formally or informally
                          - to the IGF sessions. The idea of the
                          Multistakeholder Leadership Panel (MLP) is
                          driven by this idea to build bridges. <br>
                          <br>
                          The proposal for the Multistakeholder IGF
                          Leadership Panel is the result of a years long
                          multistakeholder discussion process, where all
                          pros and cons of such a new unit were
                          critically evaluated and considered by many
                          different groups, including many civil society
                          organisations. It was inspired by the UNCSTD
                          work. It started with the UNSG High Level
                          Panel on Digital Cooperation (2018). It was
                          developed by the Option Paper 5A&B (2019)
                          and further specified in the UNSG Roadmap
                          (2020). <br>
                          <br>
                          Risks, which were articulated in various
                          statements of civil society organisations,
                          that a new unit will emerge outside the IGF
                          and could lead to a competitive situation,
                          duplication or overlapping of functions, with
                          the potential to weaken the IGF, has been
                          heard by the UNSG. My understanding of the
                          multistakeholder leadership panel - with its
                          very limited mandate - is, that it is part of
                          the general IGF structure and rooted in the
                          (broader) MAG. It is like an executive
                          committee for the MAG and will make the work
                          of the whole MAG more efficent and effective. 
                          It makes the IGF stronger, more visible on the
                          international scene and will open the door for
                          a more enhanced bottom up cooperation among
                          all stakeholders in global Internet policy
                          making.  It is an IGF+. Members of the new
                          Panel will act as ambassadors between the
                          discussion and decision-making layers. They
                          are not the "new Internet policy makers", they
                          function like a "post office", bringing the
                          messages from the multistakeholder IGF to the
                          intergovernmental negotiation table and vice
                          versa. <br>
                          <br>
                          This is a unique opportunity for civil
                          society. And civil society organisations, in
                          particular from the Global South, should make
                          use of it. Strong civil society representation
                          in the multistakeholder leadership panel will
                          contribute to build a human centric
                          information society, based on the Civil
                          Society WSIS Declaration (2003), the Tunis
                          Agenda (2005) and the Multistakeholder
                          NetMundial Statement (2014). And it will pave
                          the way for a strong civil society voice in
                          the process towards a "Global Digital Compact"
                          (2023). <br>
                          <br>
                          Best wishes <br>
                          <br>
                          Wolfgang <br>
                          <br>
                          Below are links to our "multistakeholder
                          statement" for the Option Paper 5A&B
                          (2020) and the outcome from a multistakeholder
                          expert seminar (2021) where a lot of civil
                          society organisations where represented. <br>
                          <br>
                          <a
href="https://circleid.com/posts/20210304-framing-the-internet-governance-debate-long-road-to-wsis-2025"
                            target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://circleid.com/posts/20210304-framing-the-internet-governance-debate-long-road-to-wsis-2025</a>
                          <a
href="https://circleid.com/posts/20210304-framing-the-internet-governance-debate-long-road-to-wsis-2025"
                            target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"><https://circleid.com/posts/20210304-framing-the-internet-governance-debate-long-road-to-wsis-2025></a>
                          <br>
                          <br>
                          <a
href="https://circleid.com/posts/20200426-cross-pollination-in-cyberspace-internet-governance-spaghetti-ball"
                            target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://circleid.com/posts/20200426-cross-pollination-in-cyberspace-internet-governance-spaghetti-ball</a>
                          <a
href="https://circleid.com/posts/20200426-cross-pollination-in-cyberspace-internet-governance-spaghetti-ball"
                            target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"><https://circleid.com/posts/20200426-cross-pollination-in-cyberspace-internet-governance-spaghetti-ball></a>
                          <br>
                          <br>
                          <br>
                          <br>
                          <blockquote type="cite">parminder via At-Large
                            <a
                              href="mailto:at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org"
                              target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"><at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org></a>
                            hat am 24.11.2021 16:12 geschrieben: <br>
                            <br>
                            <br>
                            Dear All, <br>
                            <br>
                            Please find enclosed a letter addressed to
                            the UN Secretary General appealing to him to
                            roll back the decision for an IGF Leadership
                            Panel. <br>
                            <br>
                            The letter is co-signed by Dr Milton
                            Mueller, on behalf  of the Internet
                            Governance Project, Georgia Institute of
                            Technology School of Public Policy, and
                            Parmider Jeet Singh, for IT for Change, and
                            the Just Net Coalition. <br>
                            <br>
                            It is cc-ed to representatives of civil
                            society and technical community groups
                            requesting them to refrain from sending
                            nominations for the IGF Leadership Panel,
                            and thus legitimizing it. <br>
                            <br>
                            The letter argues how the IGF Leadership
                            Panel militates against the basic idea,
                            objectives and structure of the IGF, and
                            will weaken it. <br>
                            <br>
                            Best, parminder <br>
                            <br>
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list <a
href="mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org" target="_blank"
                              moz-do-not-send="true">At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org</a>
                            <a
                              href="https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large"
                              target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large</a>
                            At-Large Official Site: <a
                              href="http://atlarge.icann.org"
                              target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">http://atlarge.icann.org</a>
_______________________________________________ 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 (<a
                              href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy"
                              target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy</a>)
                            and the website Terms of Service (<a
                              href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos"
                              target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos</a>).
                            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. </blockquote>
                          <br>
_______________________________________________ <br>
                          WG-Strategy mailing list <br>
                          <a href="mailto:WG-Strategy@intgovforum.org"
                            target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">WG-Strategy@intgovforum.org</a>
                          <br>
                          To unsubscribe or manage your options please
                          go to <a
href="http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-strategy_intgovforum.org"
                            target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-strategy_intgovforum.org</a>
                          <br>
                          <br>
                        </blockquote>
                        <br>
                      </blockquote>
                      <br>
                      <fieldset></fieldset>
                      <pre>_______________________________________________
To manage your Internet Society subscriptions
or unsubscribe, log into the Member Portal at
<a href="https://admin.internetsociety.org/622619/User/Login" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://admin.internetsociety.org/622619/User/Login</a>
and go to the Preferences tab within your profile.
-
View the Internet Society Code of Conduct: <a href="https://www.internetsociety.org/become-a-member/code-of-conduct/" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.internetsociety.org/become-a-member/code-of-conduct/</a>
</pre>
                    </blockquote>
                  </blockquote>
                </div>
                _______________________________________________<br>
                To manage your Internet Society subscriptions<br>
                or unsubscribe, log into the Member Portal at<br>
                <a
                  href="https://admin.internetsociety.org/622619/User/Login"
                  rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"
                  moz-do-not-send="true">https://admin.internetsociety.org/622619/User/Login</a><br>
                and go to the Preferences tab within your profile.<br>
                -<br>
                View the Internet Society Code of Conduct: <a
                  href="https://www.internetsociety.org/become-a-member/code-of-conduct/"
                  rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"
                  moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.internetsociety.org/become-a-member/code-of-conduct/</a><br>
              </blockquote>
            </div>
          </div>
        </blockquote>
      </div>
    </blockquote>
  </body>
</html>