<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 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"><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"><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">internetpolicy@elists.isoc.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:internetpolicy@elists.isoc.org"><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>
</body>
</html>