<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>In the below email is my report back on the issue to the Just Net
Coalition group ..</p>
<p>Since it involves comments on my disappointment with how the
overall IG civil society has engaged with this issue, I thought to
share it here. This disappointment is not so much about
differences of views, which is expected and fine, but more about
how civil society groups have conducted themselves even as per
their own declared views. <br>
</p>
<p>It astonishes me how groups that have closely involved themselves
with these processes chose to stay completely mum when the UN SG
holds a public consultation about a new structure -- that
represents a very significant shift in the global IG system -- and
then soon after acts against the outcomes from his own public
consultation. This is even apart from the what views a person/
group may have on the specific idea of an LP .. Although I must
mention it here that <b>I saw no civil society or technical
community group support the idea of LP before or after the
consultation and its formation</b>, only just a very few
freelancers... The latter are of course also entitled to their
view, but the larger observation I make in this regard is
important to take note of.<br>
</p>
<p>There is nothing personal here .. It is in my understanding the
main task of civil society people and groups is to openly express
and discuss their views on the conduct of public actors -- not
just governments and corporations but when needed also civil
society groups and persons. <br>
</p>
<div class="moz-forward-container">parminder <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>[JNC - Forum] Fwd: [Governance] Fwd: 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>Wed, 1 Dec 2021 09:36:50 +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">Reply-To:
</th>
<td>Internet governance related discussions
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:forum@justnetcoalition.org"><forum@justnetcoalition.org></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th valign="BASELINE" nowrap="nowrap" align="RIGHT">To: </th>
<td>Forum@Justnetcoalition. Org
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:forum@justnetcoalition.org"><forum@justnetcoalition.org></a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<br>
<br>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Please refer to the enclosed letter that the Just Net Coalition
(and Internet Governance Project) addressed to the UN Secretary
General denouncing his setting up of an (Internet Governance
Forum) IGF Leadership Panel. It also appealed to civil society
groups and the technical community to not associate with the
nomination process that will give the LP undue legitimacy. </p>
<p>ISOC is the anchor body for the technical community in the
Internet/ digital governance system. We are happy to report that
ISOC has now declared that it wont associate with the nomination
process, which it thinks gives undue legitimacy to the IGF
Leadership Panel. Please<b> see the below email from ISOC's CEO
</b>in this regard.</p>
<p>We are also happy to report that a process involving key civil
society groups set up to consider nominations for the LP has
collapsed because it did not find enough support in the
community.</p>
<p>This is wonderful. It strongly makes the point that public
interest groups cant be played around with, and that if the UN
Secretary General undertakes a public consultation, where the LP
idea did not find support, he cant then go ahead in any case and
set up an LP. Public interest groups will speak up, and not go
along!<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-forward-container">We are however disappointed
that other than JNC and the Internet Governance Project , civil
society groups, unlike ISOC, have not made public their dismay
and opposition to the setting up of a LP. In fact, one would
normally expect such 'speaking out' much more and louder from
civil society groups even than the technical community. Indeed,
some groups/ individuals seem to have meekly joined in the
nominatin process, now seeking seats on a body that they had
earlier opposed, and which did not find the favour of public
opnion in the UN SG's own public consultation. <br>
</div>
<div class="moz-forward-container"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-forward-container">There however are a (very) few
others, almost all free-lancers ( I did not see any group
actualy support the LP, before or after its setting it up), that
may always have been supporting the LP idea. It seems that many
of them are also among the nominations for the LP panel. It is
fine if there are genuine differences in views in the civil
society. But what is odd is that this LP will have people/
groups from a very very small minority that either always
supported the LP, or post LP formation dumped their positons and
agreed to get into the nomination process; and the vast majority
which remained opposed to the LP will not be in the Panel ..
What does it say about what is supposed to the Leadership Panel
with respect to the public engaged with digital policy
processes? What legitimacy does it have?<br>
</div>
<div class="moz-forward-container"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-forward-container">In any case, we will remain
doggedly watchful ... Thanks to all who worked on our joint
letter that made an impact. <br>
</div>
<div class="moz-forward-container"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-forward-container">parminder <br>
</div>
<div class="moz-forward-container"><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: [Governance] Fwd: 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>Tue, 30 Nov 2021 10:37:05 -0500</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th valign="BASELINE" nowrap="nowrap" align="RIGHT">From:
</th>
<td>Andrew Sullivan via Governance <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org"
moz-do-not-send="true"><governance@lists.igcaucus.org></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th valign="BASELINE" nowrap="nowrap" align="RIGHT">Reply-To:
</th>
<td>Andrew Sullivan <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:sullivan@isoc.org" moz-do-not-send="true"><sullivan@isoc.org></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th valign="BASELINE" nowrap="nowrap" align="RIGHT">To: </th>
<td><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<br>
<br>
Dear colleagues,<br>
<br>
In reply to Parminder's email, I have sent the following. I
forward it here because, since his note was effectively an open
letter, I think it requires an open reply:<br>
<br>
Dear Parminder,<br>
<br>
Thanks for your note. I had already seen the letter you and
Milton sent to the UN Secretary General, but I appreciate you
bringing it to my attention specifically.<br>
<br>
You are quite correct that the Internet Society previously
opposed a proposal to create a panel like the one that has been
announced, and that we oppose this Leadership Panel. The
Internet Society will not, as the Internet Society, nominate
anyone to the panel. In addition, no staff members shall
participate in the panel. There is a semi-formal group called
the Internet Technical Collaboration Group, which has George
Sadowsky (in his personal capacity) as its chair, and for which
we provide minimal secretariat services. It is possible that
group will nominate someone, but it will not be a nomination
from the Internet Society as such.<br>
<br>
Given the clear expressions made during the public comment and
the UN decision to proceed anyway, I am sad to say I think it is
a waste of time to appeal to the Secretary General again, so I
will not be writing. It seems to me we have to accommodate
ourselves to this change in the nature of the Internet
Governance Forum. That does not mean supporting or nominating
potential members. We will of course monitor the group's
activity, especially if it seems likely to threaten the
Internet.<br>
<br>
Some would argue that it would be better to try to join this
panel and influence it from the inside. My view is that such
participation would convey a kind of legitimacy to the
Leadership Panel that I do not believe it can have. Let me
explain.<br>
<br>
When the Internet emerged as a large-scale social phenomenon in
the 1990s, there was a great deal of contention about who would
be in charge. This is to be expected with a large,
transformative technology. Moreover, the early history of the
Internet may have tended to encourage the idea of someone being
"in charge", since of course the earliest Internet sites were
all under the supervision of the US DoD.<br>
<br>
Over time, however, everyone seemed to come to realize that, in
a network of networks, it is not really possible to establish
who is in charge: since there is no centre, there is no centre
of control. Instead, we had to work out always-contingent
consensus approaches, using forums like the IGF to identify
issues and figure out who might be able to address them. This,
of course, is a parallel to the fundamental operational
realities of the Internet's design. And it tended, I think, to
be reinforced by the nature of the burgeoning Internet: there
were just so many players that ruling by authority would be
impractical.<br>
<br>
Something has become gradually more apparent, however: with
consolidation and concentration on the Internet, it becomes
logistically realistic to get "the important players" into a
room. Realistically, when the number of firms with overwhelming
traffic dominance on the Internet falls to perhaps 20 or fewer,
it is tempting to squeeze those firms and just treat everything
else as mostly unimportant noise. And this is, of course, a
pattern that is discernable in various acts both by governments,
and by very large firms who are clamoring for regulation.
Industrial history teaches us that, when a large incumbent
insists it needs regulation, it is unlikely to be an effort to
ensure the market is open to new players.<br>
<br>
So, those of us who believe in the open, globally-connected,
secure, and trustworthy Internet are now engaged in the fight of
our lives. Our vision of the Internet is being supplanted,
really, by a giant corporatist enclosure movement. It aims to
turn the Internet into a well-controlled, sanitized utility,
operated overwhelmingly by a few large, trustworthy
organizations at the behest of this or that government. Probably
such a utility would have different properties in different
places and would interoperate in the more-awkward, more
geopolitically-oriented manner of the old telephone system than
like the Internet we are used to. It would likely not be the
infrastructure of empowered edges that we have known in the
opening stages of the Internet. It wouldn't, really, be an
internet at all, even though people will probably still call it
"internet". I do not believe we are too late to stop this from
coming true, but we are definitely at a late hour.<br>
<br>
Under these circumstances, I think it would be dangerous to
participate in—or support in any way—a Leadership Panel that is
practically tailor-made for Internet-enclosure thinking. As
designed, it is a group of Important People, where the selection
criteria are opaque and the remit is vague. It will inevitably
be under pressure to support Internet enclosure, and given the
political sensitivity of many of the panelists' "day jobs" the
panel as a whole will almost certainly have to bow to that
pressure. This will be true, in my opinion, no matter how worthy
and independent-minded I think are many of the nominees I have
heard suggested. The institutional design is fundamentally
wrong, and I cannot support it.<br>
<br>
I have a number of thoughts about how the IGF could more
effectively pursue the useful job it has. I have shared those
previously with people who I thought might be in a position to
try to undertake some of it, and I won't reproduce it here,
except to note ruefully that I was apparently not convincing
enough.<br>
<br>
Best regards,<br>
<br>
Andrew<br>
<br>
On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 01:35:02PM +0530, parminder wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Dear Andrew,
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.
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.
ISOC was clear in asserting
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="https://us-west-2.protection.sophos.com?d=intgovforum.org&u=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuaW50Z292Zm9ydW0ub3JnL211bHRpbGluZ3VhbC85M2EtcHVibGljLXJlc3BvbnNlcw==&i=NjExZDIyY2Q4NzUzZDIwZjVkYWQ4Njdi&t=bldUaFRKZklrdnB5elVuZTNjaUhBeThEQUZ5ZXBOSVo3SHFHcHFHZFVJdz0=&h=741ce0e2bd2e433ebe564fe3d4d0708d" moz-do-not-send="true"><https://us-west-2.protection.sophos.com?d=intgovforum.org&u=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuaW50Z292Zm9ydW0ub3JnL211bHRpbGluZ3VhbC85M2EtcHVibGljLXJlc3BvbnNlcw==&i=NjExZDIyY2Q4NzUzZDIwZjVkYWQ4Njdi&t=bldUaFRKZklrdnB5elVuZTNjaUhBeThEQUZ5ZXBOSVo3SHFHcHFHZFVJdz0=&h=741ce0e2bd2e433ebe564fe3d4d0708d></a>:
"...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."
The official summary of the responses
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="https://us-west-2.protection.sophos.com?d=intgovforum.org&u=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuaW50Z292Zm9ydW0ub3JnL211bHRpbGluZ3VhbC9pbmRleC5waHA_cT1maWxlZGVwb3RfZG93bmxvYWQvMTExMzgvMjQ5MA==&i=NjExZDIyY2Q4NzUzZDIwZjVkYWQ4Njdi&t=Vll2QmVUVVM2RUlObit5VU90djY4L2NaMmx1clh0SVprSlZVZ0ZmVVNYZz0=&h=741ce0e2bd2e433ebe564fe3d4d0708d" moz-do-not-send="true"><https://us-west-2.protection.sophos.com?d=intgovforum.org&u=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuaW50Z292Zm9ydW0ub3JnL211bHRpbGluZ3VhbC9pbmRleC5waHA_cT1maWxlZGVwb3RfZG93bmxvYWQvMTExMzgvMjQ5MA==&i=NjExZDIyY2Q4NzUzZDIwZjVkYWQ4Njdi&t=Vll2QmVUVVM2RUlObit5VU90djY4L2NaMmx1clh0SVprSlZVZ0ZmVVNYZz0=&h=741ce0e2bd2e433ebe564fe3d4d0708d></a>
to the public consultation on creation of a Multistakeholder High Level
Body (MHLB) itself says:
"Broadly speaking, the option that seems to have received the most
support is to create the MHLB within the MAG."
To put it in other words, creation of an MHLB outside the MAG did not
have much or enough support.
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.
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.
The announcement for establishing an LP has been received with great
dismay among civil society and technical community groups.
*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. *
Anyway, that is for the UN Secretary General to consider.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
*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.
*I shudder to think where we would have been now with the anchor of
global IG being at the WEF. *
*
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.
Happy to engage further on this issue.
Best regards,
Parminder
IT for Change, and Just Net Coalition
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature">--
Andrew Sullivan
President & CEO, Internet Society
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:sullivan@isoc.org" moz-do-not-send="true">sullivan@isoc.org</a>
+1 416 731 1261
<pre class="moz-signature">--
Andrew Sullivan
President & CEO, Internet Society
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:sullivan@isoc.org" moz-do-not-send="true">sullivan@isoc.org</a>
+1 416 731 1261
<pre class="moz-signature">--
Governance mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Governance@lists.igcaucus.org" moz-do-not-send="true">Governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.igcaucus.org/mailman/listinfo/governance" moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.igcaucus.org/mailman/listinfo/governance</a>
</pre></pre></pre>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>