<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<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 10:57:21 +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><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" 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><br>
</p>
<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 .. </p>
<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... These are
big-ego people very fond of expressing and touting their
views... 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). <br>
</p>
<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
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/filedepot_download/9655/2393">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.
<br>
</p>
<p>parminder<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>On 26/11/21 9:46 am, parminder wrote:<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:95d433a7-f9c0-490b-cf21-f9098100f6c1@gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=UTF-8">
<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, no 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 uure 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 class="moz-cite-prefix">On 25/11/21 5:37 pm, Winthrop Yu
via InternetPolicy wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:3e937059-5034-627c-4de5-3525e19a19fd@gmx.net">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=UTF-8">
<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 class="moz-cite-prefix">On 25 Nov 2021 7:18 pm, Carlos
Afonso via InternetPolicy wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:c1c18366-11e5-940f-4d1c-ef50a275b1e7@cafonso.ca">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 class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://circleid.com/posts/20210304-framing-the-internet-governance-debate-long-road-to-wsis-2025"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://circleid.com/posts/20210304-framing-the-internet-governance-debate-long-road-to-wsis-2025</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="https://circleid.com/posts/20210304-framing-the-internet-governance-debate-long-road-to-wsis-2025"
moz-do-not-send="true"><https://circleid.com/posts/20210304-framing-the-internet-governance-debate-long-road-to-wsis-2025></a>
<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://circleid.com/posts/20200426-cross-pollination-in-cyberspace-internet-governance-spaghetti-ball"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://circleid.com/posts/20200426-cross-pollination-in-cyberspace-internet-governance-spaghetti-ball</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="https://circleid.com/posts/20200426-cross-pollination-in-cyberspace-internet-governance-spaghetti-ball"
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
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org"
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 class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large</a>
At-Large Official Site: <a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://atlarge.icann.org" 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 class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy</a>)
and the website Terms of Service (<a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos"
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 class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:WG-Strategy@intgovforum.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">WG-Strategy@intgovforum.org</a> <br>
To unsubscribe or manage your options please go to <a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-strategy_intgovforum.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-strategy_intgovforum.org</a>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
To manage your Internet Society subscriptions
or unsubscribe, log into the Member Portal at
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://admin.internetsociety.org/622619/User/Login" 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 class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.internetsociety.org/become-a-member/code-of-conduct/" moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.internetsociety.org/become-a-member/code-of-conduct/</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</div>
</body>
</html>