<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>