<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p><br>
</p>
<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 09:46:58 +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>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 cure 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>
</div>
</body>
</html>