<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>IT for Change and Just Coalition sent the below email to ISOC's
CEO Andrew Sullivan urging him to <br>
</p>
<p>(1) protest UN SG's decision to set up a Leadership Panel, going
against the outcomes of UN SG's own public consultation on the
subject, <br>
</p>
<p>and</p>
<p>(2) ensure that ISOC does not associate with the nomination
process for constituting the Leadership Panel, which ISOC had so
strongly opposed during the consultation . <br>
</p>
<p>We also remind him of the time when ISOC had successfully opposed
setting up a similar high level body for Internet Governance at
the World Economic Forum. ISOC's stand on an issue cannot merely
depend on the chance of success. Thee are larger matters of
principles, and safeguarding long term public interest in the area
of global IG.</p>
<p>parminder</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>Calling for ISOC to not associate with the nomination
process for IGF Leadership Panel</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th valign="BASELINE" nowrap="nowrap" align="RIGHT">Date: </th>
<td>Mon, 29 Nov 2021 13:35:02 +0530</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th valign="BASELINE" nowrap="nowrap" align="RIGHT">From: </th>
<td>parminder <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net"><parminder@itforchange.net></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th valign="BASELINE" nowrap="nowrap" align="RIGHT">To: </th>
<td>Andrew Sullivan <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:sullivan@isoc.org"><sullivan@isoc.org></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th valign="BASELINE" nowrap="nowrap" align="RIGHT">CC: </th>
<td>Constance Bommelaer <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:bommelaer@isoc.org"><bommelaer@isoc.org></a>, Mark
Carvell <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:markhbcarvell@gmail.com"><markhbcarvell@gmail.com></a>, Milton L Mueller
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:mueller@syr.edu"><mueller@syr.edu></a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<br>
<br>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<p>Dear Andrew,</p>
<p>Please find enclosed a letter addressed to the UN Secretary
General that Milton Mueller's and my organization wrote recently
seeking the rollback of the decision to set up an IGF Leadership
Panel (LP). The letter also appeals to civil society and
technical community groups to not associate with nomination
process for the LP. </p>
<p>As you know, in the public consultations on the issue, most
civil society groups and technical community had opposed any
such new high level groups being formed outside the MAG.</p>
<p><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/93a-public-responses"> ISOC
was clear in asserting</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>"...as we have indicated in previous contributions to the UN
HLPDC process, ISOC is not convinced that a new higher-level
body of representatives needs to be established."</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/index.php?q=filedepot_download/11138/2490">official
summary of the responses</a> to the public consultation on
creation of a Multistakeholder High Level Body (MHLB) itself
says:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>"Broadly speaking, the option that seems to have received the
most support is to create the MHLB within the MAG."</p>
</blockquote>
<p>To put it in other words, creation of an MHLB outside the MAG
did not have much or enough support.</p>
<p>Soon after these public consultations, the UN Secretary General
goes right ahead and creates a MHLB outside the MAG, in the form
of a IGF Leadership Panel.</p>
<p>I do not see the point in doing a public consultation when one
is not going to go by its outcomes, and in any case impose one's
will on the public -- in this case in the form of IGF LP. <br>
</p>
<p>The announcement for establishing an LP has been received with
great dismay among civil society and technical community groups.
<br>
</p>
<p><b>A civil society nomination process, involving the main civil
society groups and networks most engaged with global IG
processes, which was set up with a clear declaration that it
did not amount to an endorsement of the LP, still collapsed
after a few days because there was not enough support from the
community. </b><br>
</p>
<p>Anyway, that is for the UN Secretary General to consider. <br>
</p>
<p>My appeal is to those who clearly opposed such a body during
the consultation, like ISOC did, to write to the UN SG, opposing
( on a procedural count) his decision to ignore the outcomes of
the public consultation, and (on a substantive count) his
decision to form the IGF Leadership Panel. <br>
</p>
<p> In fully ignoring the views of the 'stakeholder community',
the UN SG has clearly gone against the basic tenets of
multistakeholderism. Whether ISOC stands for multistakeholderism
or not depends on whether it is ready to stand up and speak
against such blatant violation of multistakeholder principles
and practice. Such a strong and well-respected body cannot
accept such things - with a fundamental impact on the future of
global IG ecosystem - just because they have now been ordained
by the powers-that-be. ISOC cannot allow itself to be cowed down
in such matters. The world is watching. <br>
</p>
<p align="left">The least that ISOC can do at this stage is to not
enter into a process of providing nominations for constituting
the IGF LP. At least not do it in the very first round of LP
processes itself, just a few months after it opposed the
formation of such a body. This would compromise ISOC's moral
authority and practical strength with respect to global IG. <br>
</p>
<p>There is after all no point in making a clamor for
multistakholderism if the involved groups and people cannot
speak up when the voice of multi-stakeholder community is
ignored, and new structures of Internet governance contrary to
its majority view are imposed on it. It would be an even bigger
travesty if the community then meekly begins to almost
immediately participate in providing nominations for the very
structures (LP) they spoke against. <br>
</p>
<p>I do not know whether ISOC is sending nominations for the LP,
but if it is, we would like to appeal to you to not do so. Even
if nominations have already been sent, we appeal to you to
withdraw them.</p>
<p><b>This is a good time to be reminded of the stellar role ISOC
played in a somewhat similar situation when an attempt was
made to put up a new IG body at the World Economic Forum, as
an extremely ill-advised follow-up to the Net Mundial
conference. ISOC had at that time stoutly opposed the
formation of any such new body, and it was considerably owing
to ISOC's opposition that the WEF based IG body eventually did
not come to pass. </b>I shudder to think where we would have
been now with the anchor of global IG being at the WEF. <b><br>
</b></p>
<p>I will like ISOC to once again employ its moral leadership in
the area of global IG ecosystem, and refuse to accept the new IG
body being foisted upon us in the face of clearly expressed
public opinion against it.</p>
<p>Happy to engage further on this issue.</p>
<p>Best regards, <br>
</p>
<p>Parminder</p>
<p>IT for Change, and Just Net Coalition</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
</div>
</body>
</html>