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

[Arsène Tungali]

+1

2021-12-10 10:26 UTC+02:00, Sheetal Kumar via Governance
<governance at lists.igcaucus.org>:
> 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|
>


-- 
------------------------
***Arsène Tungali**
*I am a social entrepreneur running both a non profit
<https://rudiinternational.org/>and a business
<https://www.smart-kitoko.com/>!*
Link up with me on LinkedIn
<https://www.linkedin.com/in/arsene-tungali-34482540/>, Twitter
<https://twitter.com/arsenebaguma> and Facebook
<https://web.facebook.com/atungali>