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

[Sheetal Kumar]

Thank you, Ayden!

On Wed, 8 Dec 2021 at 14:49, Ayden Férdeline <ayden at ferdeline.com> wrote:

> 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|
>
>
>
>
>

-- 

*Sheetal Kumar*
Head of Global Engagement and Advocacy | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| Time zone: GMT+4 | 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/20211210/8210ff19/attachment.htm>