[Governance] NOTICE: CSCG nomination process for IGF Leadership Panel

Wed Dec 8 05:49:25 EST 2021

Dear Sheetal, Bruna-

Thank you for this update and for taking the time to capture the full range of sentiments expressed on this list. I support your proposed way forward. Thanks again.

Best wishes,

Ayden Férdeline

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Tuesday, December 7th, 2021 at 12:35, Sheetal Kumar via Governance <governance at lists.igcaucus.org> wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> (cc'ing Bruna, consulted) As the Leadership Panel nominations deadline has ended, I wanted to provide a sense of where we are in the discussion and a possible way forward. I recommend that we jointly monitor the Leadership Panel according to the criteria outlined in joint letters so far* (accountable, transparent, inclusive, participatory and effective) and commit to having a healthy debate in a few months time about whether the criteria are being met, and to withdrawing our support or taking other action if that is not the case.
>
> Having read the various statements and views that have been shared, it seems there this is an overall commitment to the IGF and to strengthening it. However, there are different views as to what 'strengthening' it means, and disagreement as to whether the LP will strengthen the IGF, or in fact undermine its bottom-up and inclusive mission. More specifically, it seems there are two overall views:
>
> - 1) Those that believe that the LP undermines the IGF, its bottom-up nature and will enforce corporate capture. For this reason, they do not want to try it.
> - 2) Those that have those concerns but are willing to 'give it a go' because of the potential (whether high or minimal) for it not to do the above, and strengthen the IGF in a way that will be beneficial to civil society and the constituencies we serve. This may include those who want to provide nominations because they are concerned that the civil society positions will not be occupied by those who would serve the public interest.
>
> It was pointed out that this joint letter was against the Leadership Panel perhaps because it states "It is our view that no separate new structure should be created outside of the IGF architecture that determines or shapes the IGF, its processes and procedures. Any body created should be structured as peer and complementary to the MAG and should not take decisions on behalf of the IGF community." It is possible to interpret the Leadership Panel as peer and complementary to the MAG. I know not everyone interprets it this way, but it is possible.
>
> I understand that the second view may be considered naive by some, even disingenuous by others, but it is a view that is held and it has been put on the record by some so far who have explained their position to provide nominations, without endorsing the mechanism. The scepticism is fully understood and the concern that the Panel will not work out as stated, and will do a disservice, is also understood, it seems to me by all.
>
> Among all the disagreement, there is something that unites us. Generally, from what I can gather, we want the IGF to not only be preserved but to be strengthened. Even among those who are concerned about the Leadership Panel making the IGF 'top-down' and changing it fundamentally.
>
> Therefore, as noted above, I suggest that whether we boycott the Panel or not, that we be committed to monitoring the Leadership Panel, including as Farzaneh suggested on another thread, by promoting information sharing and transparency from the civil society representatives to the wider civil society community. We can also commit to having a healthy debate in a few months time about whether the criteria that have been set by various groups and networks so far 'open, transparent, inclusive, participatory, effective' criteria are being met, we can commit to withdrawing our support or taking other action if that is not the case. This would require a strong level of trust and honesty, including among the civil society reps who are successful in their application. It helps, I believe, that so many have put their views and reservations on the record. It might be risky. But I would suggest it might at least lead to less of a fracturing and the potential to work together on whatever issues we commonly agree on in the future.
>
> Best
> Sheetal.
>
> *Joint letters/statements - (please add if I've missed any)
>
> - Internet Technical Collaboration Group (sent via a thread)
> - JNC and IGC (sent via a thread)
> - [APC](https://www.apc.org/en/pubs/association-progressive-communications-remains-committed-strengthening-internet-governance)
> - Email from ISOC CEO (sent via a thread)
>
> --
>
> Sheetal Kumar
> Head of Global Engagement and Advocacy | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| Time zone: GMT | M: +44 (0)7739569514 |
> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31|
>
> On Sun, 28 Nov 2021 at 17:30, Suresh Ramasubramanian via Governance <governance at lists.igcaucus.org> wrote:
>
>> I find myself wondering whether it actually is a mistake rather than a particular choice of wording. What motivated that choice of words is an interesting question.
>>
>> --srs
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> From: Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com>
>> Sent: Sunday, November 28, 2021 6:42:56 PM
>> To: Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net>
>> Cc: parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>; governance at lists.igcaucus.org <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>> Subject: Re: [Governance] NOTICE: CSCG nomination process for IGF Leadership Panel
>>
>> It seems to me that Suresh and Parminder have hit the nail on the head together.
>> The semantics and semiotics of the English language (and I expect of others as well) have been rudely interfered with in this new digital world. Computer programs reject shades of meaning. But those shades still exist inside people's understanding.
>> To call something a "Leadership" panel in a world where hierarchies are supposed to have been broken down, where the process purports to be flat and inclusive, is surely a mistake?
>> Stay safe
>> Deirdre
>>
>> On Sun, 28 Nov 2021 at 07:31, Suresh Ramasubramanian via Governance <governance at lists.igcaucus.org> wrote:
>>
>>> People who sit on committees appointed by the Indian government calling others “leadership class”?
>>>
>>> Global south buzzwords fit some people Parminder but you least of all
>>>
>>> --srs
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> From: Governance <governance-bounces at lists.igcaucus.org> on behalf of parminder via Governance <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>>> Sent: Sunday, November 28, 2021 3:26:40 PM
>>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>>> Subject: Re: [Governance] NOTICE: CSCG nomination process for IGF Leadership Panel
>>>
>>> Dear Nnenna and Jovan, and indeed, Wolfgang,
>>>
>>> I know things may look different to leadership class people like you :)
>>>
>>> But the view from the streets is quite a bit different.
>>>
>>> My best wishes in any case, parmidner
>>>
>>> On 26/11/21 7:22 pm, Nnenna Nwakanma via Governance wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thanks, Jovan, for this apt articulation.
>>>>
>>>> You represent my thoughts
>>>>
>>>> Best
>>>>
>>>> Nnenna
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, 26 Nov 2021, 13:36 Jovan Kurbalija via Governance, <governance at lists.igcaucus.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Dear colleagues,
>>>>>
>>>>> This discussion is important not only for IGF Leadership Panel, but for the future of the IGF as a whole. Civil society and other non-state actors should be particularly concerned about the future of IGF as it is a rare space in which we can all participate equally.
>>>>>
>>>>> For almost ten years, reform of the IGF has been in the works in various iterations.It is not new.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Leadership Panel should be seen as part of a broader attempts to reform IGF.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think that the Leadership Panel is a timely and relevant steps in the right direction of strengthening the IGF.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, these steps should be taken with necessary caution as outlined in the following text: https://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/5-reasons-and-5-concerns-for-the-igf-leadership-panel/
>>>>>
>>>>> -  [5 REASONS for the IGF Leadership Panel](https://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/5-reasons-and-5-concerns-for-the-igf-leadership-panel/#5_REASONS_for_the_IGF_Leadership_Panel)
>>>>>
>>>>> -  [1. Policy footprint: increasing the relevance of IGF as a space to address digital policy](https://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/5-reasons-and-5-concerns-for-the-igf-leadership-panel/#1_Policy_footprint_increasing_the_relevance_of_IGF_as_a_space_to_address_digital_policy)
>>>>> -  [2. Louder voices: amplify IGF messages and expertise](https://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/5-reasons-and-5-concerns-for-the-igf-leadership-panel/#2_Louder_voices_amplify_IGF_messages_and_expertise)
>>>>> -  [3. Policy conveyor belt: linking the IGF to other policy spaces](https://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/5-reasons-and-5-concerns-for-the-igf-leadership-panel/#3_Policy_conveyor_belt_linking_the_IGF_to_other_policy_spaces)
>>>>> -  [4. Genuine inclusion: from nominal to substantive participation](https://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/5-reasons-and-5-concerns-for-the-igf-leadership-panel/#4_Genuine_inclusion_from_nominal_to_substantive_participation)
>>>>> -  [5. Policy efficiency: reducing forum shopping](https://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/5-reasons-and-5-concerns-for-the-igf-leadership-panel/#5_Policy_efficiency_reducing_forum_shopping)
>>>>> -
>>>>>
>>>>> -  [5 CONCERNS for the IGF Leadership Panel](https://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/5-reasons-and-5-concerns-for-the-igf-leadership-panel/#5_CONCERNS_for_the_IGF_Leadership_Panel)
>>>>>
>>>>> -  [1. The Leadership Panel is only one aspect of IGF Plus](https://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/5-reasons-and-5-concerns-for-the-igf-leadership-panel/#1_The_Leadership_Panel_is_only_one_aspect_of_IGF_Plus)
>>>>> -  [2. IGF and Digital Compact](https://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/5-reasons-and-5-concerns-for-the-igf-leadership-panel/#2_IGF_and_Digital_Compact)
>>>>> -  [3. Preserving IGF as a space for vibrant discussions](https://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/5-reasons-and-5-concerns-for-the-igf-leadership-panel/#3_Preserving_IGF_as_a_space_for_vibrant_discussions)
>>>>> -  [4. Avoid capturing by vested interest](https://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/5-reasons-and-5-concerns-for-the-igf-leadership-panel/#4_Avoid_capturing_by_vested_interest)
>>>>> -  [5. Solve terminological confusion](https://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/5-reasons-and-5-concerns-for-the-igf-leadership-panel/#5_Solve_terminological_confusion)
>>>>> -
>>>>>
>>>>> -  [In sum….](https://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/5-reasons-and-5-concerns-for-the-igf-leadership-panel/#In_sum%E2%80%A6)
>>>>>
>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Jovan
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 10:52 AM Sheetal Kumar via Governance <governance at lists.igcaucus.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We did not receive a requisite number of eligible nominations for this process launched last week. We are therefore unable to proceed with the nomination process for the Leadership Panel as CSCG.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> While this does not constitute a boycott, we understand that the level of doubt and concerns around the Leadership Panel may indicate that there isn't the support required.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We will continue to follow the process and to demand the transparency and diversity required in all areas of the IGF, and to work towards strengthening it in the coming years with the view to realising the true spirit of the IGF's multistakeholder mission. More on our previous/relevant position here: https://www.apc.org/en/pubs/open-letter-interpretation-paragraph-93a-un-secretary-generals-roadmap-digital-cooperation. There we say "Multistakeholderism, diversity and inclusion should guide any new structure, building on the IGF legacy thus far and be the basis for putting the structure in function of shaping the global internet governance agenda in a way that effectively addresses the persistent, exacerbated and new challenges derived from the pandemic situation, including the increasing power of some parts of the industry, in particular the large technology companies, and the lack of voices from more vulnerable and marginalised groups."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We do not want this to be seen as discouragement to anyone planning to nominate themselves. However, as a network, it is clear that we don't have the support or interest to continue with this specific nomination process.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best
>>>>>> Sheetal and Bruna
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 19 Nov 2021 at 16:25, Sheetal Kumar <sheetal at gp-digital.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is a polite reminder to share your nominations to the CSCG for the IGF's leadership panel, as per the process outlined below. We request this is done by COB November 22 so that we are able to submit by the deadline of November 29.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We look forward to receiving your nomination/s.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Best   Sheetal
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, 15 Nov 2021 at 13:51, Sheetal Kumar <sheetal at gp-digital.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As you may have seen, the IGF Secretariat has launched the nomination process at the request of the Executive Office of the United Nations Secretary-General for the [inaugural Leadership Panel of the 2022 and 2023 Internet Governance Forum (IGF) cycles](https://www.intgovforum.org/en/content/internet-governance-forum-leadership-panel-call-for-nominations).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Following several rounds of open consultations, the Leadership Panel is a response to the Secretary-General’s [Roadmap for Digital Cooperation](https://undocs.org/A/74/821), which calls for strengthening of the IGF through, among other aspects, ’’creating a strategic and empowered multi-stakeholder high-level body, building on the experience of the existing multi-stakeholder advisory group, which would address urgent issues, coordinate follow-up action on Forum discussions and relay proposed policy approaches and recommendations from the Forum to the appropriate normative and decision-making forums.’’
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> CSCG, and for this process, this includes APC and IGC, will run a nomination process to identify nominees for the two categories:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - Two [2] at-large members (distinguished or prominent persons who do not fall under above stakeholder groups) and
>>>>>>>> - Two [2] CEO-level (or deputy-level) representatives from each of the other three stakeholder groups (civil society)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Please note, this does not mean we endorse the process or the mechanism itself. We will send a letter with the nominations that clearly reiterates our previous publicly stated positions (such as this [Open letter on the interpretation of paragraph 93(a) of the UNSG's Roadmap on Digital Cooperation](https://www.apc.org/en/pubs/open-letter-interpretation-paragraph-93a-un-secretary-generals-roadmap-digital-cooperation) and this on the [future of the IGF](https://www.apc.org/en/pubs/why-inclusive-transparent-and-accessible-global-digital-governance-more-crucial-ever)[on the Leadership Panel/Higher-level MAG](https://www.apc.org/en/pubs/why-inclusive-transparent-and-accessible-global-digital-governance-more-crucial-ever)), including the importance of maintaining the MAG's current role and not supplanting it, the importance of diversity and inclusion, transparency etc and make clear that our submission of nominees should not be read as endorsement.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We intend that our nominations reflect the above criteria. Please note that to receive a CSCG nomination for the IGF leadership panel you'll need to send us (me and Valeria and Bruna cc'd) the information required on the [online form](https://www.intgovforum.org/en/content/leadership-panel-nomination-2022). We request this is done by COB November 22 so that we are able to submit by the deadline of November 29.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We look forward to receiving your nomination/s.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Best
>>>>>>>> Sheetal
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sheetal Kumar
>>>>>>>> Head of Global Engagement and Advocacy | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
>>>>>>>> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| Time zone: GMT | M: +44 (0)7739569514 |
>>>>>>>> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31|
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sheetal Kumar
>>>>>>> Head of Global Engagement and Advocacy | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
>>>>>>> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| Time zone: GMT | M: +44 (0)7739569514 |
>>>>>>> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31|
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sheetal Kumar
>>>>>> Head of Global Engagement and Advocacy | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
>>>>>> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| Time zone: GMT | M: +44 (0)7739569514 |
>>>>>> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31|
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Governance mailing list
>>>>>> Governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>>>> https://lists.igcaucus.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Governance mailing list
>>>>> Governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>>> https://lists.igcaucus.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>>>
>>> --
>>> Governance mailing list
>>> Governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> https://lists.igcaucus.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>>
>> --
>>
>> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
>> --
>> Governance mailing list
>> Governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> https://lists.igcaucus.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>
> --
>
> Sheetal Kumar
> Head of Global Engagement and Advocacy | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| Time zone: GMT | M: +44 (0)7739569514 |
> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31|
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20211208/8ec1be66/attachment.htm>