<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
</head>
<body>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 26/11/21 1:03 pm, Suresh
Ramasubramanian wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:HK2PR04MB3524066122F2B4F2214C52D9A5639@HK2PR04MB3524.apcprd04.prod.outlook.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<div>
<div>
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: rgb(255,
255, 255);" dir="ltr">
The one thing I am opposed to is setting some sort of
qualification bar that is based on an individuals rank or
status in an organisation rather than their knowledge,
network of contacts across other policy and technical
groups, and contributions. Beyond that I agree with
Wolfgang. <br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>UN SG who makes the selection is very clear, this is a CEOs level
Panel .. it is part of the application criteria .. The Leadership
Panel will consist of CEOs -- that makes it absolute inappropriate
for a post office and messaging role.. <br>
</p>
<p><b>That fact alone counts for the present purpose of either
agreeing with or criticizing and opposing the IGF Leadership
Panel.</b></p>
<p>Other views, ideas, etc about the IGF, its success, failure, etc
are largely irrelevant to the issue at hand -- and a pressing and
very serious one. They serve to confuse the matter which actually
needs discussion, and forming a collective view on. <br>
</p>
<p>APC, ISOC, etc signed a letter earlier which makes clear that
they would NOT want the kind of Panel that has now been set up.</p>
<p>There is an email on the ISOC list that says UK ISOC was against
any such panel.</p>
<p>I have got numerous emails, from both top level people in the
civil society and tech community, who are all dismayed at the new
Leadership Panel. <br>
</p>
<p>But why no one stands up and opposes it openly and clearly ..
What is behind this collective failure?<br>
</p>
<p>Bec we have ended up with an IG civil society, and tech
community, which is wedded to protecting the status quo and not
rocking the boat and standing up ... That is the exact opposite of
what civil society is meant to do -- which is to 'speak to power'.</p>
<p>Lets discuss what brought things to such a pass. <br>
</p>
<p>And also perhaps what role MS ism and IGF has to play in
fostering a civil society whose leaders are more interested in
retaining favour of other powerful people in other sectors, than
being responsible to their constituencies, and raising their
issues, and bringing in their voices ... If they were still doing
what they are needed to, the civil society members, leaders and
groups would be discussing and writing letters opposing the
Leadership Panel, In my estimate, 80-90 percent of civil society
and also technical community actually oppose any CEO kind of IGF
Leadership Panel foisted over the IGF.</p>
<p> But why no one is discussing this and making their views and
opposition open. Is it because they want to protect their own
positions and embedding in the power structures? what else, one
wonder?</p>
<p>parminder<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:HK2PR04MB3524066122F2B4F2214C52D9A5639@HK2PR04MB3524.apcprd04.prod.outlook.com">
<div>
<div>
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: rgb(255,
255, 255);" dir="ltr">
<br>
</div>
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: rgb(255,
255, 255);" dir="ltr">
As for Evan’s email I don’t recall expressing an opinion on
it and you’ve been going on and on about that. Yes the igf
is a talk shop. Yes talk shops have a utility in bringing
disparate groups together and encouraging communication (and
I’ve said this since the first Athens meeting). The talk
doesn’t help as much if the same usual suspects attend IGF
and relevant stakeholders from other groups disengage or do
not attend at all.</div>
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: rgb(255,
255, 255);" dir="ltr">
<br>
</div>
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: rgb(255,
255, 255);" dir="ltr">
So the “building bridges” part certainly needs to be done at
a strategic level rather than piecemeal. Forming such a
committee is a good idea. Forming it with arbitrary criteria
and with no consensus sought from existing stakeholders is
not a good idea. And this is something MAG should have been
working towards already, so spinning this sort of thing up
as a sub committee of MAG rather than as a “leadership
group” might make more sense.</div>
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: rgb(255,
255, 255);" dir="ltr">
<br>
</div>
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: rgb(255,
255, 255);" dir="ltr">
<br>
</div>
</div>
<div id="ms-outlook-mobile-signature">
<div><br>
</div>
<div style="direction: ltr;">--srs</div>
</div>
</div>
<hr style="display:inline-block;width:98%" tabindex="-1">
<div id="divRplyFwdMsg" dir="ltr"><font style="font-size:11pt"
face="Calibri, sans-serif" color="#000000"><b>From:</b>
Governance <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:governance-bounces@lists.igcaucus.org"><governance-bounces@lists.igcaucus.org></a> on
behalf of parminder via Governance
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org"><governance@lists.igcaucus.org></a><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, November 26, 2021 12:51:27 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org"><governance@lists.igcaucus.org></a>; At-Large Worldwide
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org"><at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org></a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Governance] Fwd: [Internet Policy] Fwd:
[WG-Strategy] [At-Large] Seeking roll back of the IGF
Leadership Panel</font>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div>
<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="x_moz-cite-prefix">On 26/11/21 12:41 pm, parminder
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class="x_moz-forward-container"><br>
<br>
-------- Forwarded Message --------
<table class="x_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="x_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="x_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="x_moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:internetpolicy@elists.isoc.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">internetpolicy@elists.isoc.org</a>
<a class="x_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="x_moz-cite-prefix">On 26/11/21 11:44 am,
sivasubramanian muthusamy wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<div class="x_gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="x_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="x_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">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="x_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="x_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="x_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="x_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="x_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="x_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>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>