From joly at punkcast.com Wed Mar 3 03:43:51 2021 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2021 03:43:51 -0500 Subject: [Governance] =?utf-8?q?WEBCAST_TODAY=3A_Telia_Carrier_Webinar_1_?= =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=93_Introduction_to_Routing_Security_=26_MANRS?= Message-ID: Kudos to Telia Carrier, one of ISOC's organization members , stepping up with this webinar series. The MANRS drum needs constant beating til everybody gets on board. Providers have the tools, they just need encouraging to implement them! REAL TIME TEXT https://bit.ly/3uP2dC5 ISOC Live posted: "On Wednesday 3 March 2021 at 10:00-11:00 CET (09:00-10:00 UTC) Telia Carrier, the Internet Society and MANRS present the first of two webinars to provide an introduction to routing security, including issues with the BGP global routing system. This webina" [image: livestream] On *Wednesday 3 March 2021* at *10:00-11:00 CET* (09:00-10:00 UTC) *Telia Carrier *, the *Internet Society * and *MANRS * present the first of two webinars to provide an introduction to routing security, including issues with the BGP global routing system. This webinar will introduce the *Mutually Agreed Norms for Routing Security * (MANRS) initiative that encourages basic routing security actions including filtering, anti-spoofing, coordination, and address prefix validation, plus resources for its implementation. It will also provide a brief demonstration of the *MANRS Observatory * tool. *SPEAKER* *Kevin Meynell*, Senior Manager, Technical and Operational Engagements, Internet Society *MODERATOR* *Paulina Tellebo*, Marketing Program Manager, Telia Carrier *LIVESTREAM* *http://livestream.com/internetsociety/telia1 * *PARTICIPATE VIA GOTOWEBINAR https://bit.ly/3sJ034X * *TWITTER #RoutingSecurity #MANRS @TeliaCarrier @routingMANRS @InternetSociety #StrongInternet @knmeynell* *SIMULCASTS* *https://youtu.be/iV2CENbttlY * *https://www.facebook.com/RoutingMANRS/live * *https://www.pscp.tv/ISOC_Live/ * *https://www.twitch.tv/isoclive * *ARCHIVE* *https://archive.org/details/telia1 * *Permalink* https://isoc.live/13799/ -- -------------------------------------- Joly MacFie +12185659365 -------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joly at punkcast.com Thu Mar 4 11:53:11 2021 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2021 11:53:11 -0500 Subject: [Governance] =?utf-8?q?WEBCAST_HOY_DIA_/_TODAY_=E2=80=93_Vinton_?= =?utf-8?q?Cerf=2C_pionero_de_la_Internet_/_Internet_Pioneer?= Message-ID: They say 'Start Big' and the first stream out of ISOC Canary Islands certainly does that. ISOC Live posted: "El 4 de marzo de 2021 a las 17: 00-18: 00 UTC el capítulo España-Islas Canarias de Internet Society presentará una conferencia virtual con Vinton Cerf, pionero de la Internet. On March 4, 2021 at 17:00-18:00 UTC, the Internet Society Spain - Cana" [image: Livestream Espanol] El *4 de marzo de 2021* a las *17: 00-18: 00 UTC* el *capítulo España-Islas Canarias de Internet Society * presentará una conferencia virtual con *Vinton Cerf*, pionero de la Internet. [image: Livestream (english)] On *March 4, 2021* at *17:00-18:00 UTC*, the *Internet Society Spain - Canary Islands Chapter * will present a virtual conference with *Vinton Cerf*, Internet Pioneer. *LIVESTREAM ESPAÑOL http://livestream.com/internetsociety/isoc-canarias-vint-cerf * *LIVESTREAM ENGLISH http://livestream.com/internetsociety2/isoc-canarias-vint-cerf * *PARTICIPATE VIA ZOOM https://bit.ly/2ZT9eTZ * (ES/EN Interpretation) *TWITTER #VintCerf @isoccanarias @vgcerf #EventosTICanarias* *SIMULCASTS* *https://www.pscp.tv/ISOC_Live/ * *https://www.twitch.tv/isoclive * *https://www.facebook.com/InternetSociety/live* (ES/EN | Subtítulos AI/AI Captions) *https://www.facebook.com/ISOCCANARIAS/live* (ES/EN | Subtítulos AI/AI Captions) *ARCHIVE* *https://archive.org/details/isoc-canarias-vint-cerf * https://isoc.live/13819/ - -- -------------------------------------- Joly MacFie +12185659365 -------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Mar 5 03:45:19 2021 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2021 14:15:19 +0530 Subject: [Governance] Big Tech governing Big Tech -- An open letter to UN SG to stop plans for a new High Level Multistakeholder Body Message-ID: <7795cc31-b355-8556-71d6-12e1d43e7ee9@itforchange.net> Dear All This is anopen letter to the UN Secretary General initiated by 16 global and national level civil society networks and organisations urging him to shelve plans for a High Level Multistakeholder Body which, if set up, can be expected to become the default apex global digital governance and policy body. This body is proposed to have a private funding model, with strong hints also at a 'pay to play' model. It is but obvious that Big Tech will come to dominate any such body. Quoting from the letter: ///Not only in developing countries but also in the US and EU, calls for stronger regulation of Big Tech are rising. At the precise point when we should be shaping global norms to regulate Big Tech, plans have emerged for an ‘empowered’ global digital governance body that will evidently be dominated by Big Tech. Adding vastly to its already overweening power, this new Body would help Big Tech resist effective regulation, globally and at national levels. Indeed, we face the unbelievable prospect of ‘*a Big Tech led body for Global Governance of Big Tech’*./  Two technical annexes to the open letter explain the background of the matter in considerable detail. *This letter is open for endorsements, *which can be done by writing an email to _secretariat at justnetcoalition.org _or filling _this form _before midnight PST (GMT-8) of the 7^th of March. Please also do circulate to other groups and networks where it may attract interest. * * The open letter may also be accessed at https://justnetcoalition.org/big-tech-governing-big-tech.pdf French text is at : https://justnetcoalition.org/big-tech-governing-big-tech-french.pdf and Spanish version at - https://justnetcoalition.org/big-tech-governing-big-tech-spanish.pdf ** Please let us know if you have any questions or comments regarding the above. Best, parminder -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Fri Mar 5 15:49:41 2021 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2021 12:49:41 -0800 Subject: [Governance] =?utf-8?q?Webinar_on_15_March=3A_=22The_future_of_E?= =?utf-8?q?urope=E2=80=99s_fight_against_child_sexual_abuse=22?= Message-ID: Dear all, As you may know, the European Commission currently has a consultation on "Fighting child sexual abuse: detection, removal and reporting of illegal content online,” which seeks public input on proposed new legislation that will require relevant online services providers to detect known child sexual abuse material and require them to report that material to public authorities, as well as on the possible creation of a European centre to prevent and counter child sexual abuse, which would provide holistic support to Member States in the fight against child sexual abuse, online and offline. To help provide participants with the background knowledge that they will need to know in order to respond to the consultation in a fully informed way, Prostasia Foundation is hosting a free webinar on 15 March, one month before the close of the consultation: https://prostasia.org/event/the-future-of-europes-fight-against-child-sexual-abuse/ Our multi-stakeholder panel includes Patrick Breyer MEP (German Pirate Party), Christian Dawson (i2Coalition Executive Director), Crystal Mundy (clinical psychologist and CSA prevention researcher), and myself (Prostasia Foundation Executive Director). Please register to attend, and spread the word! Many thanks and we hope to see you there. -- Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com Executive Director, Prostasia Foundation https://prostasia.org - +1 415 650 2557 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joly at punkcast.com Sun Mar 7 16:42:26 2021 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2021 16:42:26 -0500 Subject: [Governance] =?utf-8?q?WEBCAST_HOY_DIA_/_TODAY_=E2=80=93_Vinton_?= =?utf-8?q?Cerf=2C_pionero_de_la_Internet_/_Internet_Pioneer?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: This is now archived in both Spanish and English including video, audio, transcripts and slides at https://archive.org/details/isoc-canarias-vint-cerf Esto ahora está archivado en español e inglés, incluido video, audio, transcripciones y diapositivas en https://archive.org/details/isoc-canarias-vint-cerf > > > ISOC Live posted: "El 4 de marzo de 2021 a las 17: 00-18: 00 UTC el > capítulo España-Islas Canarias de Internet Society presentará una > conferencia virtual con Vinton Cerf, pionero de la Internet. On March 4, > 2021 at 17:00-18:00 UTC, the Internet Society Spain - Cana" > > [image: Livestream Espanol] > El *4 de > marzo de 2021* a las *17: 00-18: 00 UTC* el *capítulo España-Islas > Canarias de Internet Society * presentará una > conferencia virtual con *Vinton Cerf*, pionero de la Internet. > > > > [image: Livestream (english)] > On *March > 4, 2021* at *17:00-18:00 UTC*, the *Internet Society Spain - Canary > Islands Chapter * will present a virtual > conference with *Vinton Cerf*, Internet Pioneer. > > *LIVESTREAM ESPAÑOL > http://livestream.com/internetsociety/isoc-canarias-vint-cerf > * > > *LIVESTREAM ENGLISH > http://livestream.com/internetsociety2/isoc-canarias-vint-cerf > * > > *PARTICIPATE VIA ZOOM https://bit.ly/2ZT9eTZ * > (ES/EN Interpretation) > > *TWITTER #VintCerf @isoccanarias @vgcerf > #EventosTICanarias* > > *SIMULCASTS* > *https://www.pscp.tv/ISOC_Live/ * > *https://www.twitch.tv/isoclive * > *https://www.facebook.com/InternetSociety/live* > (ES/EN | Subtítulos AI/AI > Captions) > *https://www.facebook.com/ISOCCANARIAS/live* > (ES/EN | Subtítulos AI/AI > Captions) > > *ARCHIVE* > *https://archive.org/details/isoc-canarias-vint-cerf > * > > > https://isoc.live/13819/ > > > > - > > -- > -------------------------------------- > Joly MacFie +12185659365 > -------------------------------------- > - > -- -------------------------------------- Joly MacFie +12185659365 -------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From LB at lucabelli.net Mon Mar 8 06:29:24 2021 From: LB at lucabelli.net (LB at lucabelli.net) Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2021 04:29:24 -0700 Subject: [Governance] EU-Brazil Conference on Digital Economy and Innovation Message-ID: <20210308042924.2700328f4bbfc197480209526f2a1375.5c01e2fef5.mailapi@email07.godaddy.com> Dear colleagues, This Friday, 12 March, FGV, the EU Delegation to Brazil, the Portuguese Presidency of the Council of the EU, and EUBrasil will host the First EU-Brazil Conference on Digital Economy and Innovation https://portal.fgv.br/eventos/webinar-first-eu-brazil-conference-digital-economy-and-innovation Below you can find the agenda and the event's flyer, and here is the link to register https://evento.fgv.br/digitaeconomyandinnovation/ I hope this message will be useful. Please feel free to share this email through your networks! All the best Luca First EU-Brazil Conference on Digital Economy and Innovation New Perspectives on Emerging Technologies, Trade and Regulation 12 March 2021, from 10:00 to 12:30 (Brasilia, GMT-3) / 14:00 to 16:30 (Brussels, GMT+1) At the time of the Portuguese Presidency of the Council of the EU, this webinar aims at identifying areas for cooperation between the EU and Brazil, regarding digital economy and emerging technologies. Participants will explore key issues such as new digital infrastructures, 5G, cybersecurity, personal data protection, data-driven technologies, the Internet of Things and its applications, and Artificial Intelligence. Speakers and participants will offer their perspectives on these issues and will explore areas where trade and cooperation can be strengthened in the short and medium term. Welcome and Introductory Remarks Goret Pereira Paulo, Directress, FGV Office of Research and Innovation Khalil Rouhana, Deputy Director-General, DG CONNECT European Commission Luigi Gambardella, President EUBrasil Luca Belli, Professor FGV Law School A new agenda for innovation and digital cooperation between Europe and Brazil Marcos Galvão, Ambassador of Brazil to the EU Ignacio Ybanez, Ambassador of the EU to Brazil Ricardo Castanheira, Digital & Technology Counselor, Permanent Representation of Portugal to the EU Moderator: Luigi Gambardella, President EUBrasil EU-Brazil: A Dialogue on Digital Trade, Emerging Technologies and Regulation Carlos Oliveira, Minister Counselor for Digital Market, Delegation of the European Union to Brazil José Manuel Fernandes, President EU Brazil Delegation of the European Parliament Jorge Arbache, Vice President for Private Sector at the Development Bank of Latin America Tais Maldonado Niffinegger, Directress of International Affairs, ANATEL Andrea Renda, Senior Research Fellow and Head of Global Governance, Regulation, Innovation and the Digital Economy, CEPS Luiz Moncau,Public Policy Manager, NuBank Emily Rees, Senior Fellow, ECIPE & Director, Trade Strategies Moderator: Luca Belli, Professor FGV Law School Wrap-up and takeaways Paula Soprana, Folha de São Paulo Renato Flores, Director of FGV International Intelligence Unit and Professor at FGV Graduate School of Economics ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Luca Belli, PhD Professor of Internet Governance and Regulation, FGV Law School, Rio de Janeiro Chercheur Associé, Centre de Droit Public Comparé, Université Paris 2 www.cyberbrics.info | www.cpdp.lat | www.internet-governance.fgv.br t: @1lucabelli ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This message, as well as any attached document, may contain personal data and information that is confidential and privileged and is intended only for the use of the addressee named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying or distribution of this email or attached documents, or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Please contact the sender if you believe you have received this email by mistake. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: EU Brazil Digital Economy.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 125513 bytes Desc: not available URL: From joly at punkcast.com Tue Mar 9 11:16:59 2021 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2021 11:16:59 -0500 Subject: [Governance] WEBCAST TODAY: When the Web Goes Dark: State Control & the Internet Message-ID: ISOC CEO Andrew Sullivan has been quite vocal on this topic, for example https://youtu.be/HlDa2jzdnnY, and we have a new tracking tool https://pulse.internetsociety.org/shutdowns ISOC Live posted: "Today, Tuesday March 9 2021, at 12pm EST (17:00 UTC) Aspen Digital hosts a webinar 'When the Web Goes Dark: State Control & the Internet'. Autocrats around the world are manipulating access to the internet as a means of state control, especially in th" [image: livestream] Today, *Tuesday March 9 2021*, at *12pm EST* (17:00 UTC) *Aspen Digital * hosts a webinar '*When the Web Goes Dark: State Control & the Internet *'. Autocrats around the world are manipulating access to the internet as a means of state control, especially in the face of protests and dissent. >From Myanmar to Venezuela to Iran, we’ve seen a rise in blackouts cutting off critical channels of communication, an increasingly dangerous prospect in the middle of a pandemic. This public program will feature experts in human rights, technology, and cyber access to understand the implications of blocking freedom of information, and what can be done about it. *SPEAKERS* *Felicia Anthonio*, Campaigner, Access Now *Shayna Bauchner*, Researcher, Asia Division, Human Rights Watch *Sophie Schmidt*, Founder & CEO, Rest of World *Adrian Shahbaz*, Director, Technology and Democracy, Freedom House *MODERATOR* *Vivian Schiller*, Executive Director, Aspen Digital. *L**LIVESTREAM: https://livestream.com/internetsociety/aspenshutdowns * *PARTICIPATE VIA ZOOM https://bit.ly/38kCqbe * *REAL TIME TEXT https://bit.ly/2OgrBAb * *TWITTER* *#shutdowns @AspenDigital @FelAnthonio @AccessNow Shayna Bauchner @hrw Sophie Schmidt @restofworld @adrianshahbaz @freedomhouse @vivian @AspenInstitute #KeepItOn* *SIMULCASTS* *https://www.pscp.tv/ISOC_Live/ * *https://www.twitch.tv/isoclive * *ARCHIVE* *https://archive.org/details/aspenshutdowns * *Permalink* https://isoc.live/13843/ -- -------------------------------------- Joly MacFie +12185659365 -------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From judith at jhellerstein.com Tue Mar 9 15:42:23 2021 From: judith at jhellerstein.com (Judith Hellerstein) Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2021 15:42:23 -0500 Subject: [Governance] Invitation--Accessible Banking for the Blind in the 21st Century: Experience Sharing from the Developed and Developing Countries"--March 26 1300 UTC Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joly at punkcast.com Thu Mar 11 18:35:54 2021 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2021 18:35:54 -0500 Subject: [Governance] =?utf-8?q?WEBCAST_TODAY_=E2=80=93_Accessible_Virtua?= =?utf-8?q?l_Reality_for_People_with_Limited_Mobility_=E2=80=93_Mar?= =?utf-8?q?tez_Mott?= Message-ID: It's the first A11yVR meetup of 2021! If you've not tried Mozilla hubs, this is a good opportunity to get your feet wet. ISOC Live posted: "On Thursday Mar 11 2021 at 7pm EDT / 00:00 UTC / 9am JST (Fri) the Accessibility VR Meetup hosts 'Accessible Virtual Reality for People with Limited Mobility' on Mozilla Hubs. Presenter Martez Mott is a Senior Researcher in the Ability Group at Microsoft " [image: livestream] On *Thursday Mar 11 2021* at *7pm EDT* / 00:00 UTC / 9am JST (Fri) the *Accessibility VR Meetup * hosts '*Accessible Virtual Reality for People with Limited Mobility *' on Mozilla Hubs. Presenter *Martez Mott * is a Senior Researcher in the Ability Group at Microsoft Research. As VR technologies continue to mature, and as commercial VR systems continue to grow in popularity, an opportunity exists to understand how to incorporate accessibility as a fundamental component in the design of VR systems and applications. This talk will describe ongoing research to understand and eliminate accessibility barriers that prevent people with limited mobility from engaging with VR. The session will be webcast live via a partnership with the *Internet Society Accessibility SIG * (A11ySIG). *LIVESTREAM: https://livestream.com/internetsociety/a11yvr13 (open captions)* *PARTICIPATE: https://hubs.mozilla.com/G6edX79/a11yvr-project/ (open captions)* *REAL TIME TEXT: https://www.streamtext.net/player?event=a11yvr * *TWITTER: @a11yvr http://bit.ly/A11yVR @Martez_Mott #VR* *SIMULCASTS (open captions)* *https://www.pscp.tv/ISOC_Live/ https://www.twitch.tv/isoclive * *ARCHIVE https://archive.org/details/a11yvr13 * *Permalink* https://isoc.live/13805/ - -- -------------------------------------- Joly MacFie +12185659365 -------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nnenna75 at gmail.com Fri Mar 12 03:27:25 2021 From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma) Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2021 08:27:25 +0000 Subject: [Governance] Do you work with any of these #WebChampions? Message-ID: Hello here. On this 32nd anniversary of the web, we are shining light on 9 #WebChampions doing awesome work across the world. 1. *Arda Awais* and *Savena Surana* who formed Identity 2.0 2. *Avi Schiffmann* who created one of the world’s most popular information hubs tracking COVID-19 3. *Chelsea Slater* who leads InnovateHer , a UK-based social enterprise whose mission is ‘Get girls ready for the tech industry and the tech industry ready for girls’ 4. *Froilan Grate*, an environmental educator and zero-waste advocate. He is the Asia Pacific Coordinator for GAIA , president of Mother Earth Foundation in the Philippines, and a founding core member of the global movement Break Free From Plastic . 5. *Hera Hussain*, the founder of Chayn , an online volunteer community that creates intersectional resources for survivors of gender-based violence 6. *Ian Mangenga*, the founder and CEO of Digital Girl Africa , a women-focused digital hub 7. *Peter Okwoko* who founded Takataka Plastics , a social enterprise that transforms plastic waste into resources and 8. *Salvador Camacho Hernández*, an Intellectual Property Law attorney and self-described “hardcore gamer” dedicated to fighting gender inequality in the growing and lucrative esports and online gaming space. He is the founder of the GGWP Foundation , the first NGO in Mexico to take advantage of the esports and videogames industries as agents for society’s development Read the letter from Sir Tim Berners-Lee and the stories of these nine young people . If you can, give them a #webchampions shout out. Many thanks! Nnenna -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anrivanderspuy at gmail.com Fri Mar 12 11:55:17 2021 From: anrivanderspuy at gmail.com (Anri van der Spuy) Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2021 18:55:17 +0200 Subject: [Governance] b302 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <209B75A5-1670-4436-938F-1D9F904F2EF6@gmail.com> Thank you for your message. Please note that I’m out of office and won’t have access to my emails until 22 March 2021. On 12 Mar 2021, at 10:27, Nnenna Nwakanma via Governance wrote: > Hello here. > > On this 32nd anniversary of the web, we are shining light on 9 #WebChampions doing awesome work across the world. > 1. Arda Awais and Savena Surana  who formed Identity 2.0 > 2. Avi Schiffmann  who created one of the world’s most popular information hubs tracking COVID-19 > 3. Chelsea Slater  who leads InnovateHer, a UK-based social enterprise whose mission is ‘Get girls ready for the tech industry and the tech industry ready for girls’ > 4. Froilan Grate, an environmental educator and zero-waste advocate. He is the Asia Pacific Coordinator for GAIA, president of Mother Earth Foundation in the Philippines, and a founding core member of the global movement Break Free From Plastic. > 5. Hera Hussain, the founder of Chayn, an online volunteer community that creates intersectional resources for survivors of gender-based violence > 6. Ian Mangenga, the founder and CEO of Digital Girl Africa, a women-focused digital hub > 7. Peter Okwoko who  founded Takataka Plastics, a social enterprise that transforms plastic waste into resources and > 8. Salvador Camacho Hernández, an Intellectual Property Law attorney and self-described “hardcore gamer” dedicated to fighting gender inequality in the growing and lucrative esports and online gaming space. He is the founder of the GGWP Foundation, the first NGO in Mexico to take advantage of the esports and videogames industries as agents for society’s development > Read the letter from Sir Tim Berners-Lee and the stories of these nine young people.  If you can, give them a #webchampions  shout out. > > Many thanks! > > Nnenna > -- > Governance mailing list > Governance at lists.igcaucus.org > https://lists.igcaucus.org/mailman/listinfo/governance -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/enriched Size: 3361 bytes Desc: not available URL: From anrivanderspuy at gmail.com Fri Mar 12 11:57:05 2021 From: anrivanderspuy at gmail.com (Anri van der Spuy) Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2021 18:57:05 +0200 Subject: [Governance] cf7d In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <16FC781B-987C-4FB7-A6DE-294ACF834A0E@gmail.com> Thank you for your message. Please note that I’m out of office and won’t have access to my emails until 22 March 2021. On 09 Mar 2021, at 22:42, Judith Hellerstein via Governance wrote: > Dear All, > > Hope you can join Accessibility SIG in what looks to be a great event that our President Muhammad Shabbir has organized, titled: "Accessible Banking for the Blind in the 21st Century: Experience Sharing from the Developed and Developing Countries" >   > Date: 26th March 2021, 1300 to 1430 UTC > https://us02web.zoom.us/meeting/register/tZUude-grj8sHN0sDBiOa6WN5uolHUTnqqgw >   > Many banks offer a number of digital services that allow consumers to pay bills and shop online all from the comfort of home without visiting your bank in person. However, even in this day and age people with blindness in some countries despite knowledge, skills and willingness, have to physically go to the bank branch to do their business because of the stubbornness of the bankers and/or their Ignorance to add accessible digital technologies to their systems. >   > Join Internet Society Accessibility Special Interest Group (Accessibility-SIG) in this interesting webinar where people with blindness from developed and developing countries come together to share their experiences with the banking sector in the 21st century. >   > This discussion is a part of a series of webinars that ISOC Accessibility-SIG is organizing to spread the message of digital accessibility for Persons With Disabilities (PWDs). The current pandemic has highlighted the grave importance of increasing the awareness of how to make digital spaces accessible. During this current Pandemic, where everything is virtual many online platforms, digital environments and even conferences are just not accessible to people with disabilities. Through this series of webinars, we hope to increase the awareness so that the digital spaces can be made more accessible and inclusive to all irrespective of the disability. Our goal is to make sure that the Internet is really for everyone just as the ISOC tagline states. In the next webinar of this series, we are bringing experts and users from around different parts of the world together to discuss the challenges that people with visual impairment/blindness face particularly with regards to the banking system. >   > The English language webinar will be organized on Friday March 26th from 1300-1430 UTC on Zoom. Sign language is available upon request provided you notify us by March 15, 2021. Please email info at a11ysig.org >   > ·       Full agenda will be circulated closer to the event. > ·       Closed captioning will be provided at this link: https://www.streamtext.net/player?event=CFI-A11YSIG > ·       There will be a live webcast with open captions via ISOC.LIVE which will be archived, along with a transcript and any presentations >   > REGISTER ON ZOOM http://bit.ly/a11ysig6
> > 
> > Best Regards, > Judith Hellerstein > Accessibility SIG Secretary
> > > -- > _________________________________________________________________________ > Judith Hellerstein, Founder & CEO > Hellerstein & Associates > 3001 Veazey Terrace NW, Washington DC 20008 > Phone: (202) 362-5139 Skype ID: judithhellerstein > Mobile/Whats app: +1202-333-6517 > E-mail: Judith at jhellerstein.com Website: www.jhellerstein.com > Linked In: www.linkedin.com/in/jhellerstein/ > Opening Telecom & Technology Opportunities Worldwide > > -- > Governance mailing list > Governance at lists.igcaucus.org > https://lists.igcaucus.org/mailman/listinfo/governance -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/enriched Size: 6904 bytes Desc: not available URL: From digilexis.consulting at gmail.com Fri Mar 12 14:53:03 2021 From: digilexis.consulting at gmail.com (DigiLexis) Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2021 19:53:03 +0000 Subject: [Governance] SSI Use Case Competition Message-ID: Dear all, Please find attached the flyer for a competition on use cases of a particular type of digital identity - the Self-Sovereign Identity. Basic information for the competition is outlined as follows. *Sovrin SSI Use Case Competition Leaflet* Sovrin has launched an SSI Use-Case Competition to attract companies and organizations with use-cases that support the Principles of SSI . Prizes that are designed to help accelerate implementation of high value use-cases that support Sovrin’s vision of *Identity for All*. NOTE: we are extending the application deadline for this competition by one week. So, we can accept applications until 21 March. Please feel free to distribute this information to any people in your network, particularly but not exclusively in Africa and in Europe. And, if you or others you contact have questions, we’re happy to have a Zoom call to discuss. You may contact Sumiran (sumiran at sovrin.org), our Sovrin Membership Program Director, who is responsible for organizing this competition. Regards, Mawaki _____________________________________________ Mawaki Chango, PhD Founder & CEO, DigiLexis Consulting Website: https://digilexis.com Phone: (228) 92 14 22 22 Skype ID: digilexis -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Sovrin SSI Use Case Competition Leaflet v1 030121.pptx.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 373228 bytes Desc: not available URL: From digilexis.consulting at gmail.com Fri Mar 12 14:59:52 2021 From: digilexis.consulting at gmail.com (DigiLexis) Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2021 19:59:52 +0000 Subject: [Governance] EU-Brazil Conference on Digital Economy and Innovation In-Reply-To: <20210308042924.2700328f4bbfc197480209526f2a1375.5c01e2fef5.mailapi@email07.godaddy.com> References: <20210308042924.2700328f4bbfc197480209526f2a1375.5c01e2fef5.mailapi@email07.godaddy.com> Message-ID: Hi Luca, Thank you for this information, although I eventually couldn't make it. Please share the link to the recording of this conference whenever available, if there were any. Best, Mawaki On Mon, Mar 8, 2021 at 11:29 AM Luca Belli via Governance < governance at lists.igcaucus.org> wrote: > > > Dear colleagues, > > > > This Friday, 12 March, FGV, the EU Delegation to Brazil, the Portuguese > Presidency of the Council of the EU, and EUBrasil will host the *First > EU-Brazil Conference on Digital Economy and Innovation * > https://portal.fgv.br/eventos/webinar-first-eu-brazil-conference-digital-economy-and-innovation > > > > > Below you can find the agenda and the event’s flyer, and here is the link > to register https://evento.fgv.br/digitaeconomyandinnovation/ > > > > I hope this message will be useful. Please feel free to share this email > through your networks! > > All the best > > Luca > > > > *First EU-Brazil Conference on Digital Economy and Innovation * > > *New Perspectives on Emerging Technologies, Trade and Regulation * > > 12 March 2021, from 10:00 to 12:30 (Brasilia, GMT-3) / 14:00 to 16:30 > (Brussels, GMT+1) > > > > At the time of the *Portuguese Presidency of the Council of the EU*, this > webinar aims at identifying areas for cooperation between the EU and > Brazil, regarding digital economy and emerging technologies. Participants > will explore key issues such as *new digital infrastructures, 5G, > cybersecurity, personal data protection, data-driven technologies, the > Internet of Things and its applications, and Artificial Intelligence*. > Speakers and participants will offer their perspectives on these issues and > will explore areas where trade and cooperation can be strengthened in the > short and medium term. > > > > *Welcome and Introductory Remarks* > > *Goret Pereira Paulo*, Directress, FGV Office of Research and Innovation > > *Khalil Rouhana, *Deputy Director-General, DG CONNECT European Commission > > > *Luigi Gambardella*, President EUBrasil > > *Luca Belli*, Professor FGV Law School > > > > *A new agenda for innovation and digital cooperation between Europe and > Brazil * > > *Marcos Galvão*, Ambassador of Brazil to the EU > > *Ignacio Ybanez*, Ambassador of the EU to Brazil > > *Ricardo Castanheira*, Digital & Technology Counselor, Permanent > Representation of Portugal to the EU > > Moderator: *Luigi Gambardella*, President EUBrasil > > > > *EU-Brazil: A Dialogue on Digital Trade, Emerging Technologies and > Regulation * > > *Carlos Oliveira*, Minister Counselor for Digital Market, Delegation of > the European Union to Brazil > > *José Manuel Fernandes*, President EU Brazil Delegation of the European > Parliament > > *Jorge Arbache*, Vice President for Private Sector at the Development > Bank of Latin America > > *Tais Maldonado Niffinegger*, Directress of International Affairs, ANATEL > > > *Andrea Renda*, Senior Research Fellow and Head of Global Governance, > Regulation, Innovation and the Digital Economy, CEPS > > *Luiz Moncau*,Public Policy Manager, NuBank > > *Emily Rees*, Senior Fellow, ECIPE & Director, Trade Strategies > > Moderator: *Luca Belli*, Professor FGV Law School > > > > *Wrap-up and takeaways * > > *Paula Soprana*, Folha de São Paulo > > *Renato Flores*, Director of FGV International Intelligence Unit and > Professor at FGV Graduate School of Economics > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *Luca Belli*, PhD > Professor of Internet Governance and Regulation, FGV Law School, Rio de > Janeiro > Chercheur Associé, Centre de Droit Public Comparé, Université Paris 2 > www.cyberbrics.info | www.cpdp.lat | www.internet-governance.fgv.br > *t:* @1lucabelli > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > *CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE* > *This message, as well as any attached document, may contain personal data > and information that is confidential and privileged and is intended only > for the use of the addressee named above. If you are not the intended > recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying or > distribution of this email or attached documents, or taking any action in > reliance on the contents of this message or its attachments is strictly > prohibited and may be unlawful. Please contact the sender if you believe > you have received this email by mistake.* > > > -- > Governance mailing list > Governance at lists.igcaucus.org > https://lists.igcaucus.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > -- _____________________________________________ Mawaki Chango, PhD Founder & CEO, DigiLexis Consulting Website: https://digilexis.com Phone: (228) 92 14 22 22 Skype ID: digilexis -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: EU Brazil Digital Economy.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 125513 bytes Desc: not available URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Mar 13 00:30:15 2021 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2021 11:00:15 +0530 Subject: [Governance] 170 orgs send an open letter to UN SG to stop plans for a new High Level Multistakeholder Body In-Reply-To: <7795cc31-b355-8556-71d6-12e1d43e7ee9@itforchange.net> References: <7795cc31-b355-8556-71d6-12e1d43e7ee9@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <02f04869-79ee-2cfd-55c2-323c59bbed4d@itforchange.net> The open letter was sent to the official consultation process, signed by more than 170 organisations. It was titled "“More than 170 Civil Society Groups Worldwide Oppose Plans for a Big Tech Dominated Body for Global Digital Governance” . Please see the final statement and endorsements at https://justnetcoalition.org/big-tech-governing-big-tech.pdf  . It was also translated into Spanish, French, German and Dutch. All versions are linked from the enclosed document We had just 3 days to get sign ons, out of which 2 were weekend days. In the circumstances, the number is quite good. It shows the groundswell to opposition to this move. Thanks to everyone who supported this. We will now get this letter also sent directly to the UN SG and his new Tech Envoy. We will like to keep this campaign open for some time to get additional support and build awareness ... This ongoing campaign is just a start, much more needs to be done and will be done to stop this assault on democracy and on possibilities of effective regulation of Big Tech. We will be doing all it takes, including engaging with governments. We will follow a twin track: develop a powerful movement within civil society groups, and engage with governments and the UN. Will keep you posted. Best regards parminder On 05/03/21 2:15 pm, parminder via Governance wrote: > > Dear All > > This is anopen letter to the UN Secretary General > > initiated by 16 global and national level civil society networks and > organisations urging him to shelve plans for a High Level > Multistakeholder Body which, if set up, can be expected to become the > default apex global digital governance and policy body. This body is > proposed to have a private funding model, with strong hints also at a > 'pay to play' model. It is but obvious that Big Tech will come to > dominate any such body. > > Quoting from the letter: > > ///Not only in developing countries but also in the US and EU, > calls for stronger regulation of Big Tech are rising. At the > precise point when we should be shaping global norms to regulate > Big Tech, plans have emerged for an ‘empowered’ global digital > governance body that will evidently be dominated by Big Tech. > Adding vastly to its already overweening power, this new Body > would help Big Tech resist effective regulation, globally and at > national levels. Indeed, we face the unbelievable prospect of ‘*a > Big Tech led body for Global Governance of Big Tech’*./ > >  Two technical annexes to the open letter explain the background of > the matter in considerable detail. > > *This letter is open for endorsements, *which can be done by writing > an email to _secretariat at justnetcoalition.org > _or filling _this form > _before > midnight PST (GMT-8) of the 7^th of March. > > > Please also do circulate to other groups and networks where it may > attract interest. > > * > * > > The open letter may also be accessed at > https://justnetcoalition.org/big-tech-governing-big-tech.pdf > > > French text is at : > https://justnetcoalition.org/big-tech-governing-big-tech-french.pdf > and Spanish version at - > https://justnetcoalition.org/big-tech-governing-big-tech-spanish.pdf ** > > > Please let us know if you have any questions or comments regarding the > above. > > > Best, parminder > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joly at punkcast.com Sat Mar 13 07:02:59 2021 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2021 07:02:59 -0500 Subject: [Governance] WEBCAST TODAY: Problems around accessing Internet in Rural communities: Zimbabwe and Africa Context Message-ID: For their 3rd webinar of 2021, the Rural Dev Sig takes a look at the situation in Africa. ISOC Live posted: "On Saturday 13 March 2021 at 6pm-7pm IST (12:30-13:30 UTC) the Internet Society Rural Development Special Interest Group (ISOC RD SIG) presents a webinar ‘Problems around accessing Internet in Rural communities: Zimbabwe and Africa Context‘ featuring Ms. " [image: livestream] On *Saturday 13 March 2021* at *6pm-7pm IST* (12:30-13:30 UTC) the* Internet Society Rural Development Special Interest Group * (ISOC RD SIG) presents a webinar ‘*Problems around accessing Internet in Rural communities: Zimbabwe and Africa Context *‘ featuring *Ms. Wadzanai Chihombori-Ndlovu *, Vice-Chairperson and African Representative,* Internet Society Chapters Advisory Council Steering Committee * . *MODERATOR / HOST* *Adarsh B U*, Founder and President, ISOC RD SIG *LIVESTREAM https://livestream.com/internetsociety/ruralsig2021-3 * *REAL TIME TEXT https://bit.ly/3leW11D * *TWITTER: @IsocSig @wadziewawi #ruraldevelopment #zimbabwe* *SIMULCASTS* *https://www.pscp.tv/ISOC_Live/ * *https://www.twitch.tv/isoclive * *https://www.facebook.com/groups/ruralisocsig/ * *ARCHIVE* *https://archive.org/details/ruralsig2021-3 * *Permalink* https://isoc.live/13851/ -- -------------------------------------- Joly MacFie +12185659365 -------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joly at punkcast.com Sat Mar 13 07:09:27 2021 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2021 07:09:27 -0500 Subject: [Governance] POSTPONED: Problems around accessing Internet in Rural communities: Zimbabwe and Africa Context In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: UPDATE FROM RURAL DEV SIG: Due to some challenges, we are cancelling the today's webinar. We will keep you all updated with the next tentative date for the webinar with the same topic. Thank you all. On Sat, Mar 13, 2021 at 7:02 AM Joly MacFie wrote: > For their 3rd webinar of 2021, the Rural Dev Sig takes a look at the > situation in Africa. > > ISOC Live posted: "On Saturday 13 March 2021 at 6pm-7pm IST (12:30-13:30 > UTC) the Internet Society Rural Development Special Interest Group (ISOC RD > SIG) presents a webinar ‘Problems around accessing Internet in Rural > communities: Zimbabwe and Africa Context‘ featuring Ms. " > > > [image: livestream] > On *Saturday 13 > March 2021* at *6pm-7pm IST* (12:30-13:30 UTC) the* Internet Society > Rural Development Special Interest Group * > (ISOC RD SIG) presents a webinar ‘*Problems around accessing Internet in > Rural communities: Zimbabwe and Africa Context > *‘ featuring *Ms. Wadzanai > Chihombori-Ndlovu *, Vice-Chairperson and > African Representative,* Internet Society Chapters Advisory Council > Steering Committee > * > . > > *MODERATOR / HOST* > *Adarsh B U*, Founder and President, ISOC RD SIG > > *LIVESTREAM https://livestream.com/internetsociety/ruralsig2021-3 > * > > *REAL TIME TEXT https://bit.ly/3leW11D * > > *TWITTER: @IsocSig > @wadziewawi > #ruraldevelopment #zimbabwe* > > *SIMULCASTS* > *https://www.pscp.tv/ISOC_Live/ * > *https://www.twitch.tv/isoclive * > *https://www.facebook.com/groups/ruralisocsig/ > * > > *ARCHIVE* > *https://archive.org/details/ruralsig2021-3 > * > > > > > *Permalink* > https://isoc.live/13851/ > > > > -- > -------------------------------------- > Joly MacFie +12185659365 > -------------------------------------- > - > -- -------------------------------------- Joly MacFie +12185659365 -------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From 6.internet at gmail.com Sat Mar 13 13:30:59 2021 From: 6.internet at gmail.com (sivasubramanian muthusamy) Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2021 00:00:59 +0530 Subject: [Governance] 170 orgs send an open letter to UN SG to stop plans for a new High Level Multistakeholder Body In-Reply-To: <02f04869-79ee-2cfd-55c2-323c59bbed4d@itforchange.net> References: <7795cc31-b355-8556-71d6-12e1d43e7ee9@itforchange.net> <02f04869-79ee-2cfd-55c2-323c59bbed4d@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Dear Parminder, "It is in any case unacceptable that such an apex policy body will have corporation [ various stakholders, not just Corporations } and government nominees sitting as equals." -- Why? Isn't that what we call the Multi-stakeholder process? If this campaign is signed by 170 Orgs, what were these signatories told about the Secretary General's Initiative? Please be kind enough to point me to the home page calling for signatures. Thank you. Sivasubramanian M On Sat, Mar 13, 2021 at 11:00 AM parminder via Governance wrote: > > The open letter was sent to the official consultation process, signed by more than 170 organisations. > > It was titled "“More than 170 Civil Society Groups Worldwide Oppose Plans for a Big Tech Dominated Body for Global Digital Governance” . > > Please see the final statement and endorsements at > https://justnetcoalition.org/big-tech-governing-big-tech.pdf . > > It was also translated into Spanish, French, German and Dutch. All versions are linked from the enclosed document > > We had just 3 days to get sign ons, out of which 2 were weekend days. In the circumstances, the number is quite good. It shows the groundswell to opposition to this move. Thanks to everyone who supported this. > > We will now get this letter also sent directly to the UN SG and his new Tech Envoy. > > We will like to keep this campaign open for some time to get additional support and build awareness ... > > This ongoing campaign is just a start, much more needs to be done and will be done to stop this assault on democracy and on possibilities of effective regulation of Big Tech. We will be doing all it takes, including engaging with governments. > > We will follow a twin track: develop a powerful movement within civil society groups, and engage with governments and the UN. > > Will keep you posted. > > Best regards > parminder > > On 05/03/21 2:15 pm, parminder via Governance wrote: > > Dear All > > This is an open letter to the UN Secretary General initiated by 16 global and national level civil society networks and organisations urging him to shelve plans for a High Level Multistakeholder Body which, if set up, can be expected to become the default apex global digital governance and policy body. This body is proposed to have a private funding model, with strong hints also at a 'pay to play' model. It is but obvious that Big Tech will come to dominate any such body. > > Quoting from the letter: > > Not only in developing countries but also in the US and EU, calls for stronger regulation of Big Tech are rising. At the precise point when we should be shaping global norms to regulate Big Tech, plans have emerged for an ‘empowered’ global digital governance body that will evidently be dominated by Big Tech. Adding vastly to its already overweening power, this new Body would help Big Tech resist effective regulation, globally and at national levels. Indeed, we face the unbelievable prospect of ‘a Big Tech led body for Global Governance of Big Tech’. > > Two technical annexes to the open letter explain the background of the matter in considerable detail. > > This letter is open for endorsements, which can be done by writing an email to secretariat at justnetcoalition.org or filling this form before midnight PST (GMT-8) of the 7th of March. > > > Please also do circulate to other groups and networks where it may attract interest. > > > The open letter may also be accessed at https://justnetcoalition.org/big-tech-governing-big-tech.pdf > > > French text is at : https://justnetcoalition.org/big-tech-governing-big-tech-french.pdf and Spanish version at - https://justnetcoalition.org/big-tech-governing-big-tech-spanish.pdf > > > Please let us know if you have any questions or comments regarding the above. > > > Best, parminder > > -- > Governance mailing list > Governance at lists.igcaucus.org > https://lists.igcaucus.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From abscoco at gmail.com Sat Mar 13 13:43:21 2021 From: abscoco at gmail.com (Sylvain Baya) Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2021 19:43:21 +0100 Subject: [Governance] 170 orgs send an open letter to UN SG to stop plans for a new High Level Multistakeholder Body In-Reply-To: References: <7795cc31-b355-8556-71d6-12e1d43e7ee9@itforchange.net> <02f04869-79ee-2cfd-55c2-323c59bbed4d@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Dear All, Hope you are doing well! Le sam. 13 mars 2021 19:31, sivasubramanian muthusamy via Governance < governance at lists.igcaucus.org> a écrit : > Dear Parminder, > > [...] > > If this campaign is signed by 170 Orgs, what were these signatories > told about the Secretary General's Initiative? Please be kind enough > to point me to the home page calling for signatures. > Hi Sivasubramanian, ...you should start here: Shalom, --sb. > Thank you. > > Sivasubramanian M > > > [...] > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From suresh at hserus.net Sat Mar 13 14:34:57 2021 From: suresh at hserus.net (suresh) Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2021 01:04:57 +0530 Subject: [Governance] 170 orgs send an open letter to UN SG to stop plans for a new High Level Multistakeholder Body In-Reply-To: References: <7795cc31-b355-8556-71d6-12e1d43e7ee9@itforchange.net> <02f04869-79ee-2cfd-55c2-323c59bbed4d@itforchange.net>, Message-ID: <3E1E83D5-7816-6D4D-BEFC-E5328B8CFB0F@hxcore.ol> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From 6.internet at gmail.com Sat Mar 13 14:40:43 2021 From: 6.internet at gmail.com (sivasubramanian muthusamy) Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2021 01:10:43 +0530 Subject: [Governance] 170 orgs send an open letter to UN SG to stop plans for a new High Level Multistakeholder Body In-Reply-To: References: <7795cc31-b355-8556-71d6-12e1d43e7ee9@itforchange.net> <02f04869-79ee-2cfd-55c2-323c59bbed4d@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Dear Sylvain Baya, If the origin of this campaign is the link that you have provided, I have some observations, others in the list may correct me wherever I am wrong: "Not only in developing countries but also in the US and EU, calls for stronger regulation of Big Tech are rising." -- Correct. ... "plans have emerged for an ‘empowered’ global digital governance body that will evidently be dominated by Big Tech." -- The proposal is for a High Level body. If you understand "empowered" as the power to issue top down instructions to the IGF, then there is an enormous misunderstanding here. "dominated by Big Tech" -- where does the proposal say that the High Level body is to be "dominated" by Big Tech ? And "evidently" ??? How evidently ? "this new Body would help Big Tech resist effective regulation, globally and nationally. " -- Is there a secret document that you have accessed that says that the secret design is to secretly help the Big Tech overrule regulation, globally and nationally ? "Indeed, we face the unbelievable prospect of ‘a Big Tech led body for Global Governance of Big Tech’. " -- a fancy slogan, negatively imaginary. Please try and place the proposal for a High Level body, (intended to be a bridge between the IGF and the Heads of Government), a body that would accelerate all the intended good work by the IGF Community, a body that would cause forward and upward progress of the work of the IGF. Then ask for signatures. Thank you. Sivasubramanian M On Sun, Mar 14, 2021 at 12:13 AM Sylvain Baya wrote: > > Dear All, > > Hope you are doing well! > > Le sam. 13 mars 2021 19:31, sivasubramanian muthusamy via Governance a écrit : >> >> Dear Parminder, >> >> [...] >> >> If this campaign is signed by 170 Orgs, what were these signatories >> told about the Secretary General's Initiative? Please be kind enough >> to point me to the home page calling for signatures. > > > > Hi Sivasubramanian, > > ...you should start here: > > > > Shalom, > --sb. > > >> >> Thank you. >> >> Sivasubramanian M >> >> > [...] From abscoco at gmail.com Sat Mar 13 15:00:00 2021 From: abscoco at gmail.com (Sylvain Baya) Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2021 21:00:00 +0100 Subject: [Governance] 170 orgs send an open letter to UN SG to stop plans for a new High Level Multistakeholder Body In-Reply-To: References: <7795cc31-b355-8556-71d6-12e1d43e7ee9@itforchange.net> <02f04869-79ee-2cfd-55c2-323c59bbed4d@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Dear all, Le sam. 13 mars 2021 20:40, sivasubramanian muthusamy <6.internet at gmail.com> a écrit : > Dear Sylvain Baya, > > If the origin of this campaign is the link that you have provided, Hi Siva, Thanks for your email, brother. ...i was only trying to point you to a URI from where you would have had something to start with :-) ...let's see what Parminder will respond himself. Shalom, --sb. > I have some observations, others in the list may correct me wherever I > am wrong: > > [...] > > Please try and place the proposal for a High Level body, (intended to > be a bridge between the IGF and the Heads of Government), a body that > would accelerate all the intended good work by the IGF Community, a > body that would cause forward and upward progress of the work of the > IGF. Then ask for signatures. > > Thank you. > > Sivasubramanian M > > On Sun, Mar 14, 2021 at 12:13 AM Sylvain Baya wrote: > > > >> > >> > [...] > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joly at punkcast.com Mon Mar 15 09:54:06 2021 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2021 09:54:06 -0400 Subject: [Governance] =?utf-8?q?WEBCAST_TODAY_=E2=80=93_Measuring_Interne?= =?utf-8?q?t_Resilience_in_Africa_=7C_Mesurer_la_r=C3=A9silience_d?= =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=99Internet_en_Afrique_=28MIRA=29_=23WACREN2021?= Message-ID: It's been a while since we last covered MIRA in July 2020 - it will be good to have an update.Be aware that ISOC's Insights platform has been rebranded as https://pulse.internetsociety.org/ Cela fait un moment que nous n'avons pas couvert MIRA pour la dernière fois en juillet 2020 - ce sera bien d'avoir une mise à jour Sachez que la plate-forme Insights de l'ISOC a été rebaptisée https://pulse.internetsociety.org/ ISOC Live posted: "On Monday March 15 2021 at 14:00-16:00 UTC, as part of the 6th Annual West and Central African Research and Education Network (WACREN) Conference the Internet Society and AFRINIC will present 'Measuring Internet Resilience in Africa (MIRA)' MIRA is a coll" [image: livestream] On *Monday March 15 2021 at 14:00-16:00 UTC*, as part of the *6th Annual West and Central African Research and Education Network * (WACREN) Conference the *Internet Society * and *AFRINIC * will present '*Measuring Internet Resilience in Africa (MIRA) *' MIRA is a collaborative project facilitating and carrying out sustained Internet measurements in the African region, part of the Internet Society’s work on *Measuring the Internet *, and a key component of the *Pulse Platform Internet Resilience * focus area. [image: livestream] Le *lundi 15 mars 2021 à 14: 00-16: 00 UTC*, dans le cadre de la *6e conférence annuelle du Réseau de recherche et d'éducation de l'Afrique de l'Ouest et du Centre* (WACREN), l'*Internet Society * et *AFRINIC * présenteront « *Mesurer la résilience de l'Internet en Afrique (MIRA) ». *' MIRA est un projet collaboratif facilitant et effectuant des mesures Internet soutenues dans la région africaine, une partie du travail de l'Internet Society sur la *mesure de l'Internet *, et un élément clé du domaine d'intervention de la *résilience Internet de Pulse Platform *. *PRESENTERS* *Kevin Chege*, Director, Internet Development, Internet Society *Amreesh Phokeer*, Research Manager, AFRINIC *LIVESTREAMS* *http://livestream.com/internetsociety/wacren-mira (ENGLISH)* *http://livestream.com/internetsociety2/wacren-mira (FRANÇAIS)* *PARTICIPATE https://bit.ly/3etohN0 * *TWITTER #WACREN2021 @isoc_pulse @afrinic @KevinGChege @amreesh #AfricanInternetResilience #Internetmeasurement @InternetSociety @WACREN* *SIMULCASTS* *https://www.pscp.tv/ISOC_Live/ * *https://www.twitch.tv/isoclive * *https://www.facebook.com/InternetSociety/live * *https://www.facebook.com/ISOCAfrica/live * *ARCHIVE* *https://archive.org/details/wacren-mira * *Permalink* https://isoc.live/13857/ - -- -------------------------------------- Joly MacFie +12185659365 -------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joly at punkcast.com Tue Mar 16 13:53:30 2021 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2021 13:53:30 -0400 Subject: [Governance] =?utf-8?q?WEBCAST_TODAY=3A_=23EURALO_Round_Table=3A?= =?utf-8?q?_Internet_Governance_=E2=80=93_EUROPE_vs_the_rest_of_the?= =?utf-8?q?_world?= Message-ID: Match of the day! ISOC Live posted: "On Tuesday, 16 March 2021 at 19:00-20:30 UTC the European Regional At-Large Organization (EURALO) hosts a roundtable 'Internet Governance - EUROPE vs the rest of the world' which will include a keynote 'Digital Cacaphony in a Splintering Cyberspace' from " [image: livestream] On *Tuesday, 16 March 2021* at *19:00-20:30 UTC* the *European Regional At-Large Organization * (EURALO) hosts a roundtable '*Internet Governance - EUROPE vs the rest of the world* ' which will include a keynote '*Digital Cacaphony in a Splintering Cyberspace *' from *Wolfgang Kleinwächter*. *HOST Sébastien Bacholle*t, EURALO Chair *GUEST SPEAKER* *Wolfgang Kleinwächter*, Professor Emeritus from the University of Aarhus *PANEL* *Fiona Alexander*, American University *Richard Hill*, President, Association for Proper Internet Governance *Lucien Castex*, AFNIC *MODERATOR* *Olivier Crépin-Leblond*, ISOC UK England *LIVESTREAM http://livestream.com/internetsociety/euralo3 * *AGENDA https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=159482474 * *PARTICIPATE VIA ZOOM http://bit.ly/30OnKgA * *REAL TIME TEXT https://bit.ly/2OvwNR1 * *TWITTER #euralo @icann Wolfgang Kleinwächter @fionamalexander Richard Hill @Olivier_CL @SebBach* *SIMULCASTS* *https://www.pscp.tv/ISOC_Live/ * *https://www.twitch.tv/isoclive * *ARCHIVE* *https://archive.org/details/euralo3 * *Permalink* https://isoc.live/13865/ -- -------------------------------------- Joly MacFie +12185659365 -------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From judith at jhellerstein.com Wed Mar 17 00:32:19 2021 From: judith at jhellerstein.com (Judith Hellerstein) Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2021 00:32:19 -0400 Subject: [Governance] Reminder--Invitation--Accessible Banking for the Blind in the 21st Century: Experience Sharing from the Developed and Developing Countries"--March 26 1300 UTC Message-ID: <46df53c2-4b17-7690-a42f-53b3fd9b4f69@jhellerstein.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From LB at lucabelli.net Wed Mar 17 05:42:57 2021 From: LB at lucabelli.net (LB at lucabelli.net) Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2021 02:42:57 -0700 Subject: [Governance] =?utf-8?b?VGhlIERpZ2l0YWwgU3RhdGUgfCBM4oCZw4l0YXQg?= =?utf-8?q?Digital?= Message-ID: <20210317024257.2700328f4bbfc197480209526f2a1375.18b1fa1d27.mailapi@email07.godaddy.com> Dear colleagues, I hope this mail finds you well despite the extremely complicated pandemic period. This email is to inform you that the conference on The Digital State | L'État Digital, will take place next week, from Monday 22 to Thursday 25 March, entirely online. The conference is jointly organised by the Center for Technology and Society of FGV Law School and the Center for Comparative Public Law of Paris 2 University, Panthéon-Assas. The full programme in English and French can be accessed here bit.ly/EtatDigital We will have an incredibly reach agenda, with 36 speakers from 15 countries (including several members of this list) who will explore national strategies, regulations, and concrete case studies of what is increasingly labelled “Digital Transformation” of the State. We will explore an ample range of topics, including the use of algorithmic and AI tools to automatise public services, digital identity initiatives, cybersecurity strategies, and digital sovereignty and data protection frameworks. Paper presentations will be in French (for Francophone authors) or English (for Anglophone authors) and final versions of the presented papers will be included in a volume to be published by the end of 2021. Given that one of the main outcomes of last week's First EU-Brazil Conference on Digital Economy and Innovation (you can check the recordings here) has been to call for further joint research projects in critical areas such as digital transformation, we are particularly proud to provide such a rapid and concrete response, fostering a constructive dialogue on how the state is responding to digital transformation and should proactively frame it. Below, the links to the livestream of each conference day Day 1 - Monday 22 March (13:00 -16:30 GMT+1) THE NEW DIGITAL DIMENSIONS OF THE STATE https://youtu.be/Yja0_qfVieY Day 2 - Tuesday 23 March (13:00 -16:30 GMT+1) DIGITAL DEMOCRACY, CYBERSECURITY AND DIGITAL IDENTITY https://youtu.be/_M3UTrpV6yQ Day 3 - Wednesday 24 March (13:00 -16:00 GMT+1) DIGITAL STRATEGIES AND ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE https://youtu.be/zW8KV-zjx7g Day 4 - Thursday 25 March (13:00 -16:45 GMT+1) DE-MATERIALIZATION OF LITIGATION AND NEW PERSONAL DATA FRAMEWORKS https://youtu.be/SEemkUtZsJg Please feel free to share this email through your networks! Kind regards Luca ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Luca Belli, PhD Professor of Internet Governance and Regulation, FGV Law School, Rio de Janeiro Chercheur Associé, Centre de Droit Public Comparé, Université Paris 2 www.cyberbrics.info | www.cpdp.lat | www.internet-governance.fgv.br t: @1lucabelli ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This message, as well as any attached document, may contain personal data and information that is confidential and privileged and is intended only for the use of the addressee named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying or distribution of this email or attached documents, or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Please contact the sender if you believe you have received this email by mistake. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From milton at gatech.edu Thu Mar 18 09:24:25 2021 From: milton at gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L) Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2021 13:24:25 +0000 Subject: [Governance] test Message-ID: Dr. Milton L Mueller Georgia Institute of Technology School of Public Policy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pwilson at apnic.net Thu Mar 18 21:44:01 2021 From: pwilson at apnic.net (Paul Wilson) Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2021 11:44:01 +1000 Subject: [Governance] test In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: It seems to be “testing season” on various mailing lists these days. Something to do with the Northern Spring? ________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC dg at apnic.net http://www.apnic.net @apnicdg On 18 Mar 2021, at 23:24, Mueller, Milton L via Governance wrote: > Dr. Milton L Mueller > Georgia Institute of Technology > School of Public Policy > -- > Governance mailing list > Governance at lists.igcaucus.org > https://lists.igcaucus.org/mailman/listinfo/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Fri Mar 19 03:53:16 2021 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (ian.peter at ianpeter.com) Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2021 18:53:16 +1100 Subject: [Governance] test In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <35aaf93720895fce7073660b20ab47fe@ianpeter.com> testing times for internet governance. test On 19/03/2021 12:44 pm, Paul Wilson via Governance wrote: > It seems to be "testing season" on various mailing lists these days. > > Something to do with the Northern Spring? > ________________________________________________________________________ > Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC dg at apnic.net > http://www.apnic.net @apnicdg > > On 18 Mar 2021, at 23:24, Mueller, Milton L via Governance wrote: > >> Dr. Milton L Mueller >> >> Georgia Institute of Technology >> >> School of Public Policy > >> -- >> Governance mailing list >> Governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> https://lists.igcaucus.org/mailman/listinfo/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From corinnecath at gmail.com Fri Mar 19 10:19:10 2021 From: corinnecath at gmail.com (Corinne Cath) Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2021 17:19:10 +0300 Subject: [Governance] test In-Reply-To: <35aaf93720895fce7073660b20ab47fe@ianpeter.com> References: <35aaf93720895fce7073660b20ab47fe@ianpeter.com> Message-ID: tried and tested field tho test On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 10:53 AM ian.peter--- via Governance < governance at lists.igcaucus.org> wrote: > testing times for internet governance. > > > test > > > > On 19/03/2021 12:44 pm, Paul Wilson via Governance wrote: > > It seems to be "testing season" on various mailing lists these days. > > Something to do with the Northern Spring? > > ________________________________________________________________________ > Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC dg at apnic.net > http://www.apnic.net @apnicdg > > On 18 Mar 2021, at 23:24, Mueller, Milton L via Governance wrote: > > > > > > Dr. Milton L Mueller > > Georgia Institute of Technology > > School of Public Policy > > > > > > -- > 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 > -- Corinne Cath - Speth Ph.D. Candidate, Oxford Internet Institute & Alan Turing Institute Web: www.oii.ox.ac.uk/people/corinne-cath Email: ccath at turing.ac.uk & corinnecath at gmail.com Twitter: @C_CS -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From abscoco at gmail.com Fri Mar 19 21:05:38 2021 From: abscoco at gmail.com (Sylvain Baya) Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2021 02:05:38 +0100 Subject: [Governance] test In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear all, Hope you are doing well! Le ven. 19 mars 2021 02:44, Paul Wilson via Governance < governance at lists.igcaucus.org> a écrit : > It seems to be “testing season” on various mailing lists these days. > :-) ...so, why not catch my opportunity to post on this mailinglist this year :-/ Having to read others every times without replying become really boring :'-( ...sometimes opportunities should not pass with no action ; today, i shall write too :-D btw, OoT, could we start a collaborative wiki•igcaucus.org ? ;-) ...or a collaborative blog•igcaucus.org like the APNIC's Labs [1] style blog :-/ __ [1]: Thanks & Blessed saturday! Shalom, --sb. Something to do with the Northern Spring? > > [...] > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From milton at gatech.edu Sun Mar 21 16:45:53 2021 From: milton at gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L) Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2021 20:45:53 +0000 Subject: [Governance] 170 orgs send an open letter to UN SG to stop plans for a new High Level Multistakeholder Body In-Reply-To: <02f04869-79ee-2cfd-55c2-323c59bbed4d@itforchange.net> References: <7795cc31-b355-8556-71d6-12e1d43e7ee9@itforchange.net> <02f04869-79ee-2cfd-55c2-323c59bbed4d@itforchange.net> Message-ID: I've looked over the letter and am not impressed; not with the argument it presents nor with the astroturfed list of 170 organizations. We at IGP have largely, and deliberately, ignored the UN's initiatives around so-called High Level Digital Cooperation. Not because we think it is leading in a bad direction or is part of an evil capitalist plot, nor do we think the people promoting it are badly motivated. We just think it is mostly irrelevant. It is founded on model of governance that is unrealistic and unlikely to have any impact on the internet (or platforms, which is not the same as the internet). The Internet consists of 70,000 autonomous systems using a common layer 3 and 4 protocol to communicate. Key elements of the internet infrastructure are governed by what we call the Organically Developed Internet institutions, such as IETF (standards), ICANN (domain names) the Regional Internet Registries (IP addressing) and cooperative action among network operators (routing, interconnection). Because the internet has created a globalized space for communication, many new problems and new forms of governance are evolving at the transnational layer that go well beyond critical internet resources. They affect issues areas such as cybersecurity, content moderation, and privacy. Some of these transnational initiatives are, in our opinion, praiseworthy; others are not. But it is both unlikely and undesirable for them to be consolidated or centralized in the hands of a single global body, whether it is called "multistakeholder" or "intergovernmental." No such body is going to be able to have the power or the expertise or the widespread legitimacy and participation to address all these areas. Only a dialogue forum is possible at the IGF level. Worse, increasingly, national governments are trying to interfere with or control usage of the internet at the application layer. This is leading to an increasingly fragmented, costly, and repressive environment. One could call this tech nationalism, jurisdictional alignment, fragmentation or a digital neo-mercantilism. IGP has published numerous critiques of these pathologies. In this context, for JustNet and its partners to portray "regulation of big tech" as the salvation of the internet, and the UN's attempt to create a High Level MS Body as an entity with "overweening power" that "would help Big Tech resist effective regulation" is just laughable. I do not see how anyone with any deep knowledge of IG can take it seriously. It has very little relevance to contemporary problems of IG. Insofar as it has any substance, it seems to call for more nation-state based regulation of internet operations and content. But this is something that, from Trump's Great Firewall of America, to Russia's "sovereign" Internet, to Europe's NIS2, to India's app blocking and censorship, to China's insulated internet, we already have plenty of. And we are getting more and it seems to be making things worse. By the way, has anyone at JustNet noticed that Facebook is joining them in their call for more internet regulation at the national level? Think about the implications of that for a moment: https://about.fb.com/regulations/ If you read the letter, you can see that they obtained the support of all these organization - very few of whom actually focus on Internet or ICT governance - by equating the UN HLDC with the World Economic Forum. This is factually wrong, but it does succeed at throwing red meat in front of the anti-globalization activists from two decades ago. Internet governance needs to be accomplished from the bottom up, and rely heavily on networked, non-hierarchical forms of governance. We need to protect and strengthen, not destroy or undermine, the organically developed internet institutions. When state-based, hierarchical interventions are necessary, they need to be carefully circumscribed and focused to address real problems that cannot be handled in any other way, such as crime, fraud, and coercion. The UN should stop trying to become a centerpoint of global internet governance and continue to serve as a place for dialogue and network building. Dr. Milton L Mueller Georgia Institute of Technology School of Public Policy [IGP_logo_gold block] From: Governance On Behalf Of parminder via Governance Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2021 12:30 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [Governance] 170 orgs send an open letter to UN SG to stop plans for a new High Level Multistakeholder Body The open letter was sent to the official consultation process, signed by more than 170 organisations. It was titled ""More than 170 Civil Society Groups Worldwide Oppose Plans for a Big Tech Dominated Body for Global Digital Governance" . Please see the final statement and endorsements at https://justnetcoalition.org/big-tech-governing-big-tech.pdf . It was also translated into Spanish, French, German and Dutch. All versions are linked from the enclosed document We had just 3 days to get sign ons, out of which 2 were weekend days. In the circumstances, the number is quite good. It shows the groundswell to opposition to this move. Thanks to everyone who supported this. We will now get this letter also sent directly to the UN SG and his new Tech Envoy. We will like to keep this campaign open for some time to get additional support and build awareness ... This ongoing campaign is just a start, much more needs to be done and will be done to stop this assault on democracy and on possibilities of effective regulation of Big Tech. We will be doing all it takes, including engaging with governments. We will follow a twin track: develop a powerful movement within civil society groups, and engage with governments and the UN. Will keep you posted. Best regards parminder On 05/03/21 2:15 pm, parminder via Governance wrote: Dear All This is an open letter to the UN Secretary General initiated by 16 global and national level civil society networks and organisations urging him to shelve plans for a High Level Multistakeholder Body which, if set up, can be expected to become the default apex global digital governance and policy body. This body is proposed to have a private funding model, with strong hints also at a 'pay to play' model. It is but obvious that Big Tech will come to dominate any such body. Quoting from the letter: Not only in developing countries but also in the US and EU, calls for stronger regulation of Big Tech are rising. At the precise point when we should be shaping global norms to regulate Big Tech, plans have emerged for an 'empowered' global digital governance body that will evidently be dominated by Big Tech. Adding vastly to its already overweening power, this new Body would help Big Tech resist effective regulation, globally and at national levels. Indeed, we face the unbelievable prospect of 'a Big Tech led body for Global Governance of Big Tech'. Two technical annexes to the open letter explain the background of the matter in considerable detail. This letter is open for endorsements, which can be done by writing an email to secretariat at justnetcoalition.org or filling this form before midnight PST (GMT-8) of the 7th of March. Please also do circulate to other groups and networks where it may attract interest. The open letter may also be accessed at https://justnetcoalition.org/big-tech-governing-big-tech.pdf French text is at : https://justnetcoalition.org/big-tech-governing-big-tech-french.pdf and Spanish version at - https://justnetcoalition.org/big-tech-governing-big-tech-spanish.pdf Please let us know if you have any questions or comments regarding the above. Best, parminder -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 18807 bytes Desc: image001.png URL: From david_allen_ab63 at post.harvard.edu Sun Mar 21 19:06:23 2021 From: david_allen_ab63 at post.harvard.edu (david_allen_ab63 at post.harvard.edu) Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2021 19:06:23 -0400 Subject: [Governance] 170 orgs send an open letter to UN SG to stop plans for a new High Level Multistakeholder Body In-Reply-To: References: <7795cc31-b355-8556-71d6-12e1d43e7ee9@itforchange.net> <02f04869-79ee-2cfd-55c2-323c59bbed4d@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Back in the history, two groups split off from the original governance list. These reflected two separate views on Internet governance. One of the groups continues today, the Just Net Coalition. When the other group eventually dissolved, this current incarnation of the governance list was effectively re-instituted, as a forum where views – sometimes quite differing – might find a civil ground. Where discussion could go forward to useful purpose. The co-co moderators of this present list, please take note. The whole prospect for useful discussion, when views may differ radically, turns on avowedly civil exchange. Most certainly ad hominem attacks vitiate any possibility. Personal attacks, with language "just laughable" “how anyone … can take it seriously" "throwing red meat" destroy any real possibility for productive exchange. We potentially can benefit and like to hear views, particularly when well informed, offered by those who see it differently from ourselves. No civil exchange can tolerate inflammatory, bullying, derogatory behavior. Co-cos please take note. David Allen > On Mar 21, 2021, at 4:45 PM, Mueller, Milton L via Governance wrote: > > > I’ve looked over the letter and am not impressed; not with the argument it presents nor with the astroturfed list of 170 organizations. > > We at IGP have largely, and deliberately, ignored the UN’s initiatives around so-called High Level > Digital Cooperation. Not because we think it is leading in a bad direction or is part of an evil capitalist plot, nor do we think the people promoting it are badly motivated. We just think it is mostly irrelevant. It is founded on model of governance that is unrealistic and unlikely to have any impact on the internet (or platforms, which is not the same as the internet). > > The Internet consists of 70,000 autonomous systems using a common layer 3 and 4 protocol to communicate. Key elements of the internet infrastructure are governed by what we call the Organically Developed Internet institutions, such as IETF (standards), ICANN (domain names) the Regional Internet Registries (IP addressing) and cooperative action among network operators (routing, interconnection). > > Because the internet has created a globalized space for communication, many new problems and new forms of governance are evolving at the transnational layer that go well beyond critical internet resources. They affect issues areas such as cybersecurity, content moderation, and privacy. Some of these transnational initiatives are, in our opinion, praiseworthy; others are not. But it is both unlikely and undesirable for them to be consolidated or centralized in the hands of a single global body, whether it is called “multistakeholder” or “intergovernmental.” No such body is going to be able to have the power or the expertise or the widespread legitimacy and participation to address all these areas. Only a dialogue forum is possible at the IGF level. > > Worse, increasingly, national governments are trying to interfere with or control usage of the internet at the application layer. This is leading to an increasingly fragmented, costly, and repressive environment. One could call this tech nationalism, jurisdictional alignment, fragmentation or a digital neo-mercantilism. IGP has published numerous critiques of these pathologies. > > In this context, for JustNet and its partners to portray “regulation of big tech” as the salvation of the internet, and the UN’s attempt to create a High Level MS Body as an entity with “overweening power” that “would help Big Tech resist effective regulation” is just laughable. I do not see how anyone with any deep knowledge of IG can take it seriously. It has very little relevance to contemporary problems of IG. > > Insofar as it has any substance, it seems to call for more nation-state based regulation of internet operations and content. But this is something that, from Trump’s Great Firewall of America, to Russia’s “sovereign” Internet, to Europe’s NIS2, to India’s app blocking and censorship, to China’s insulated internet, we already have plenty of. And we are getting more and it seems to be making things worse. > > By the way, has anyone at JustNet noticed that Facebook is joining them in their call for more internet regulation at the national level? Think about the implications of that for a moment:https://about.fb.com/regulations/ > > If you read the letter, you can see that they obtained the support of all these organization – very few of whom actually focus on Internet or ICT governance – by equating the UN HLDC with the World Economic Forum. This is factually wrong, but it does succeed at throwing red meat in front of the anti-globalization activists from two decades ago. > > Internet governance needs to be accomplished from the bottom up, and rely heavily on networked, non-hierarchical forms of governance. We need to protect and strengthen, not destroy or undermine, the organically developed internet institutions. When state-based, hierarchical interventions are necessary, they need to be carefully circumscribed and focused to address real problems that cannot be handled in any other way, such as crime, fraud, and coercion. The UN should stop trying to become a centerpoint of global internet governance and continue to serve as a place for dialogue and network building. > > > Dr. Milton L Mueller > Georgia Institute of Technology > School of Public Policy > > > > > > On Mar 13, 2021, at 2:34 PM, suresh via Governance wrote: > > How many of the signatory organisations other than IT for change and just net coalition are active in internet governance issues, by the way? > > --srs > > From: Governance on behalf of sivasubramanian muthusamy via Governance > Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2021 12:01 AM > To: parminder > Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [Governance] 170 orgs send an open letter to UN SG to stop plans for a new High Level Multistakeholder Body > > Dear Parminder, > > "It is in any case unacceptable that such an apex policy body will > have corporation [ various stakholders, not just Corporations } and > government nominees sitting as equals." -- Why? Isn't that what we > call the Multi-stakeholder process? > > If this campaign is signed by 170 Orgs, what were these signatories > told about the Secretary General's Initiative? Please be kind enough > to point me to the home page calling for signatures. > > Thank you. > > Sivasubramanian M > > From: Governance On Behalf Of parminder via Governance > Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2021 12:30 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: [Governance] 170 orgs send an open letter to UN SG to stop plans for a new High Level Multistakeholder Body > > The open letter was sent to the official consultation process, signed by more than 170 organisations. > > It was titled "“More than 170 Civil Society Groups Worldwide Oppose Plans for a Big Tech Dominated Body for Global Digital Governance” . > > Please see the final statement and endorsements at > https://justnetcoalition.org/big-tech-governing-big-tech.pdf . > > It was also translated into Spanish, French, German and Dutch. All versions are linked from the enclosed document > > We had just 3 days to get sign ons, out of which 2 were weekend days. In the circumstances, the number is quite good. It shows the groundswell to opposition to this move. Thanks to everyone who supported this. > > We will now get this letter also sent directly to the UN SG and his new Tech Envoy. > > We will like to keep this campaign open for some time to get additional support and build awareness ... > > This ongoing campaign is just a start, much more needs to be done and will be done to stop this assault on democracy and on possibilities of effective regulation of Big Tech. We will be doing all it takes, including engaging with governments. > > We will follow a twin track: develop a powerful movement within civil society groups, and engage with governments and the UN. > > Will keep you posted. > > Best regards > parminder > On 05/03/21 2:15 pm, parminder via Governance wrote: > Dear All > This is an open letter to the UN Secretary General initiated by 16 global and national level civil society networks and organisations urging him to shelve plans for a High Level Multistakeholder Body which, if set up, can be expected to become the default apex global digital governance and policy body. This body is proposed to have a private funding model, with strong hints also at a 'pay to play' model. It is but obvious that Big Tech will come to dominate any such body. > Quoting from the letter: > Not only in developing countries but also in the US and EU, calls for stronger regulation of Big Tech are rising. At the precise point when we should be shaping global norms to regulate Big Tech, plans have emerged for an ‘empowered’ global digital governance body that will evidently be dominated by Big Tech. Adding vastly to its already overweening power, this new Body would help Big Tech resist effective regulation, globally and at national levels. Indeed, we face the unbelievable prospect of ‘a Big Tech led body for Global Governance of Big Tech’. > Two technical annexes to the open letter explain the background of the matter in considerable detail. > This letter is open for endorsements, which can be done by writing an email tosecretariat at justnetcoalition.org or filling this form before midnight PST (GMT-8) of the 7th of March. > > Please also do circulate to other groups and networks where it may attract interest. > > The open letter may also be accessed at https://justnetcoalition.org/big-tech-governing-big-tech.pdf > > French text is at : https://justnetcoalition.org/big-tech-governing-big-tech-french.pdf and Spanish version at - https://justnetcoalition.org/big-tech-governing-big-tech-spanish.pdf > > Please let us know if you have any questions or comments regarding the above. > > Best, parminder > > > -- > Governance mailing list > Governance at lists.igcaucus.org > https://lists.igcaucus.org/mailman/listinfo/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From suresh at hserus.net Sun Mar 21 19:49:40 2021 From: suresh at hserus.net (suresh) Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2021 05:19:40 +0530 Subject: [Governance] 170 orgs send an open letter to UN SG to stop plans for a new High Level Multistakeholder Body In-Reply-To: References: <7795cc31-b355-8556-71d6-12e1d43e7ee9@itforchange.net> <02f04869-79ee-2cfd-55c2-323c59bbed4d@itforchange.net> , Message-ID: <986DB421-4E05-A240-A8A1-F7112FC39093@hxcore.ol> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From david_allen_ab63 at post.harvard.edu Sun Mar 21 23:01:39 2021 From: david_allen_ab63 at post.harvard.edu (david_allen_ab63 at post.harvard.edu) Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2021 23:01:39 -0400 Subject: [Governance] 170 orgs send an open letter to UN SG to stop plans for a new High Level Multistakeholder Body In-Reply-To: <986DB421-4E05-A240-A8A1-F7112FC39093@hxcore.ol> References: <7795cc31-b355-8556-71d6-12e1d43e7ee9@itforchange.net> <02f04869-79ee-2cfd-55c2-323c59bbed4d@itforchange.net> <986DB421-4E05-A240-A8A1-F7112FC39093@hxcore.ol> Message-ID: We do not figure out if anyone is ‘right’ – when the position taken is mudslinging. We have prospect for such common views only when facts and logic, offered by differing views, can track along in civil exchange. The disagreement here is as old as these discussions, back to the original WSIS events at least. One side promotes multi-stakeholder ‘innovations’ in governance. Others view democratic requirements for representation to be fundamental. This governance caucus, itself, is useful as a forum to the extent there is respectful exchange among the views. David Allen > On Mar 21, 2021, at 7:49 PM, suresh wrote: > > Milton has expressed his views strongly but he is in essence right. > > That letter advocates a dangerous point of view and has been endorsed by a clutch of organisations that have, in general, no internet governance background except for just net and it’s constituents. > > While claiming to be multistakeholder it denies “big tech” (the technical community at large) from having a stake. And then it asks for a place on what looks set to turn a multilateral body in short order. > > --srs > > From: Governance on behalf of david_allen_ab63--- via Governance > Sent: Monday, March 22, 2021 4:36 AM > To: Governance > Subject: Re: [Governance] 170 orgs send an open letter to UN SG to stop plans for a new High Level Multistakeholder Body > > Back in the history, two groups split off from the original governance list. These reflected two separate views on Internet governance. One of the groups continues today, the Just Net Coalition. > > When the other group eventually dissolved, this current incarnation of the governance list was effectively re-instituted, as a forum where views – sometimes quite differing – might find a civil ground. Where discussion could go forward to useful purpose. > > The co-co moderators of this present list, please take note. The whole prospect for useful discussion, when views may differ radically, turns on avowedly civil exchange. Most certainly ad hominem attacks vitiate any possibility. > > Personal attacks, with language > > "just laughable" > > “how anyone … can take it seriously" > > "throwing red meat" > > destroy any real possibility for productive exchange. > > We potentially can benefit and like to hear views, particularly when well informed, offered by those who see it differently from ourselves. No civil exchange can tolerate inflammatory, bullying, derogatory behavior. > > Co-cos please take note. > > David Allen > > >> On Mar 21, 2021, at 4:45 PM, Mueller, Milton L via Governance > wrote: >> >> >> I’ve looked over the letter and am not impressed; not with the argument it presents nor with the astroturfed list of 170 organizations. >> >> We at IGP have largely, and deliberately, ignored the UN’s initiatives around so-called High Level >> Digital Cooperation. Not because we think it is leading in a bad direction or is part of an evil capitalist plot, nor do we think the people promoting it are badly motivated. We just think it is mostly irrelevant. It is founded on model of governance that is unrealistic and unlikely to have any impact on the internet (or platforms, which is not the same as the internet). >> >> The Internet consists of 70,000 autonomous systems using a common layer 3 and 4 protocol to communicate. Key elements of the internet infrastructure are governed by what we call the Organically Developed Internet institutions, such as IETF (standards), ICANN (domain names) the Regional Internet Registries (IP addressing) and cooperative action among network operators (routing, interconnection). >> >> Because the internet has created a globalized space for communication, many new problems and new forms of governance are evolving at the transnational layer that go well beyond critical internet resources. They affect issues areas such as cybersecurity, content moderation, and privacy. Some of these transnational initiatives are, in our opinion, praiseworthy; others are not. But it is both unlikely and undesirable for them to be consolidated or centralized in the hands of a single global body, whether it is called “multistakeholder” or “intergovernmental.” No such body is going to be able to have the power or the expertise or the widespread legitimacy and participation to address all these areas. Only a dialogue forum is possible at the IGF level. >> >> Worse, increasingly, national governments are trying to interfere with or control usage of the internet at the application layer. This is leading to an increasingly fragmented, costly, and repressive environment. One could call this tech nationalism, jurisdictional alignment, fragmentation or a digital neo-mercantilism. IGP has published numerous critiques of these pathologies. >> >> In this context, for JustNet and its partners to portray “regulation of big tech” as the salvation of the internet, and the UN’s attempt to create a High Level MS Body as an entity with “overweening power” that “would help Big Tech resist effective regulation” is just laughable. I do not see how anyone with any deep knowledge of IG can take it seriously. It has very little relevance to contemporary problems of IG. >> >> Insofar as it has any substance, it seems to call for more nation-state based regulation of internet operations and content. But this is something that, from Trump’s Great Firewall of America, to Russia’s “sovereign” Internet, to Europe’s NIS2, to India’s app blocking and censorship, to China’s insulated internet, we already have plenty of. And we are getting more and it seems to be making things worse. >> >> By the way, has anyone at JustNet noticed that Facebook is joining them in their call for more internet regulation at the national level? Think about the implications of that for a moment:https://aboutfb.com/regulations/ >> >> If you read the letter, you can see that they obtained the support of all these organization – very few of whom actually focus on Internet or ICT governance – by equating the UN HLDC with the World Economic Forum. This is factually wrong, but it does succeed at throwing red meat in front of the anti-globalization activists from two decades ago. >> >> Internet governance needs to be accomplished from the bottom up, and rely heavily on networked, non-hierarchical forms of governance. We need to protect and strengthen, not destroy or undermine, the organically developed internet institutions. When state-based, hierarchical interventions are necessary, they need to be carefully circumscribed and focused to address real problems that cannot be handled in any other way, such as crime, fraud, and coercion. The UN should stop trying to become a centerpoint of global internet governance and continue to serve as a place for dialogue and network building. >> >> >> Dr. Milton L Mueller >> Georgia Institute of Technology >> School of Public Policy >> >> >> >> >> > >> On Mar 13, 2021, at 2:34 PM, suresh via Governance > wrote: >> >> How many of the signatory organisations other than IT for change and just net coalition are active in internet governance issues, by the way? >> >> --srs >> >> From: Governance > on behalf of sivasubramanian muthusamy via Governance > >> Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2021 12:01 AM >> To: parminder >> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Subject: Re: [Governance] 170 orgs send an open letter to UN SG to stop plans for a new High Level Multistakeholder Body >> >> Dear Parminder, >> >> "It is in any case unacceptable that such an apex policy body will >> have corporation [ various stakholders, not just Corporations } and >> government nominees sitting as equals." -- Why? Isn't that what we >> call the Multi-stakeholder process? >> >> If this campaign is signed by 170 Orgs, what were these signatories >> told about the Secretary General's Initiative? Please be kind enough >> to point me to the home page calling for signatures. >> >> Thank you. >> >> Sivasubramanian M >> > >> From: Governance > On Behalf Of parminder via Governance >> Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2021 12:30 AM >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Subject: [Governance] 170 orgs send an open letter to UN SG to stop plans for a new High Level Multistakeholder Body >> >> The open letter was sent to the official consultation process, signed by more than 170 organisations. >> >> It was titled "“More than 170 Civil Society Groups Worldwide Oppose Plans for a Big Tech Dominated Body for Global Digital Governance” . >> >> Please see the final statement and endorsements at >> https://justnetcoalition.org/big-tech-governing-big-tech.pdf . >> >> It was also translated into Spanish, French, German and Dutch. All versions are linked from the enclosed document >> >> We had just 3 days to get sign ons, out of which 2 were weekend days. In the circumstances, the number is quite good. It shows the groundswell to opposition to this move. Thanks to everyone who supported this. >> >> We will now get this letter also sent directly to the UN SG and his new Tech Envoy. >> >> We will like to keep this campaign open for some time to get additional support and build awareness ... >> >> This ongoing campaign is just a start, much more needs to be done and will be done to stop this assault on democracy and on possibilities of effective regulation of Big Tech. We will be doing all it takes, including engaging with governments. >> >> We will follow a twin track: develop a powerful movement within civil society groups, and engage with governments and the UN. >> >> Will keep you posted. >> >> Best regards >> parminder >> On 05/03/21 2:15 pm, parminder via Governance wrote: >> Dear All >> This is an open letter to the UN Secretary General initiated by 16 global and national level civil society networks and organisations urging him to shelve plans for a High Level Multistakeholder Body which, if set up, can be expected to become the default apex global digital governance and policy body. This body is proposed to have a private funding model, with strong hints also at a 'pay to play' model. It is but obvious that Big Tech will come to dominate any such body. >> Quoting from the letter: >> Not only in developing countries but also in the US and EU, calls for stronger regulation of Big Tech are rising. At the precise point when we should be shaping global norms to regulate Big Tech, plans have emerged for an ‘empowered’ global digital governance body that will evidently be dominated by Big Tech. Adding vastly to its already overweening power, this new Body would help Big Tech resist effective regulation, globally and at national levels. Indeed, we face the unbelievable prospect of ‘a Big Tech led body for Global Governance of Big Tech’. >> Two technical annexes to the open letter explain the background of the matter in considerable detail. >> This letter is open for endorsements, which can be done by writing an email tosecretariat at justnetcoalition.org or filling this form before midnight PST (GMT-8) of the 7th of March >> >> Please also do circulate to other groups and networks where it may attract interest. >> >> The open letter may also be accessed at https://justnetcoalition.org/big-tech-governing-big-tech.pdf >> >> French text is at : https://justnetcoalition.org/big-tech-governing-big-tech-french.pdf and Spanish version at - https://justnetcoalition.org/big-tech-governing-big-tech-spanish.pdf >> >> Please let us know if you have any questions or comments regarding the above. >> >> Best, parminder >> >> >> -- >> Governance mailing list >> Governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> https://lists.igcaucus.org/mailman/listinfo/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Mar 22 07:50:30 2021 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2021 17:20:30 +0530 Subject: [Governance] 170 orgs send an open letter to UN SG to stop plans for a new High Level Multistakeholder Body In-Reply-To: References: <7795cc31-b355-8556-71d6-12e1d43e7ee9@itforchange.net> <02f04869-79ee-2cfd-55c2-323c59bbed4d@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <1559bbe8-369e-e603-066d-128368f15b3e@itforchange.net> On 22/03/21 2:15 am, Mueller, Milton L wrote: > >   > > I’ve looked over the letter and am not impressed; > Milton, thanks for responding, even though you find the Digital Cooperation initiative irrelevant. This is certainly much better than what many here who are actively engaged with shaping and pushing this initiative have bothered to do. I hope they also express their response and views. > not with the argument it presents nor with the astroturfed list of 170 > organizations. > So you find the active involvement and support of global organisations that are, for instance, the primary global networks of grassroots organisations in areas like health, education, food security, and conservation;top global trade unions; top global organisations working on gender justice, and global trade; some of the most prominent global development NGOs; as astroturfing? The most prominent among these, if not members of Just Net Coalition, are actually in active partnerships with the JNC on Internet/ digital governance issues. And mind you, this is the support we got over just 3 days which unfortunately included a weekend -- owing to a deadline for submitting comments to the UN process. You dismiss them as some irrelevant anti-globalisation organisations and activists from two decades ago; losers, perhaps, who lap up any global campaign letter thrown at them for getting their names printed on it! I reckon then that real people's perspectives and representation in Internet/digital governance matters should come from from a certain professorial chair at Syracuse University in the US, or it is that you have now shifted to somewhere in Georgia. A group of around 20 prominent global organisations and networks, having prepared this letter, are currently collaborating over an e-list for follow-ups, including establishing contacts with people inside the UN, government delegates etc, apart from spreading the message wider among CS groups and engaging them.. And this is outside the Just Net Coalition, JNC being just a participant in this collaboration.  This should puncture the pompous arrogance with which you typically come to such matters, and we can move now to more substantive matters. See in-line. >   > > We at IGP have largely, and deliberately, ignored the UN’s initiatives > around so-called High Level > > Digital Cooperation. Not because we think it is leading in a bad > direction or is part of an evil capitalist plot, nor do we think the > people promoting it are badly motivated. We just think it is mostly > irrelevant. It is founded on model of governance that is unrealistic > and unlikely to have any impact on the internet (or platforms, which > is not the same as the internet). > >   > > The Internet consists of 70,000 autonomous systems using a common > layer 3 and 4 protocol to communicate. Key elements of the internet > infrastructure are governed by what we call the Organically Developed > Internet institutions, such as IETF (standards), ICANN (domain names) > the Regional Internet Registries (IP addressing) and cooperative > action among network operators (routing, interconnection). > >   > > Because the internet has created a globalized space for communication, > many new problems and new forms of governance are evolving at the > transnational layer that go well beyond critical internet resources. > They affect issues areas such as cybersecurity, content moderation, > and privacy. > So, you have defined Internet/ digital governance to be the technical governance of the Internet plus largely these three areas involving a digital version of libertarian minimal state. You do not consider, for instance, data, AI or platform regulation, especially the distributive issues involved therein, as Internet/digital governance, right. You have the right to your definitions of Internet/ digital governance, but it is evident that the world overwhelming disagrees with you, including the IGF (see its program). > Some of these transnational initiatives are, in our opinion, > praiseworthy; others are not. But it is both unlikely and undesirable > for them to be consolidated or centralized in the hands of a single > global body, whether it is called “multistakeholder” or > “intergovernmental.” No such body is going to be able to have the > power or the expertise or the widespread legitimacy and participation > to address all these areas. Only a dialogue forum is possible at the > IGF level.   > Two responses to this: One, lets consider the WHO; It really cannot be considered as global health governance being 'consolidated or centralized in the hands of a single global body' . But it still does very useful norms and standards setting work, develops global legal instruments, as required and possible, develops and coordinates frameworks of responses and other programmatic action, does neutral public interest global research and capacity development, and so on. WHO's existence has been extremely useful, and has not impeded other transnational initiatives This is true of UN global governance bodies in all areas. Digital is more inherently global than any other sector. So, why would a similar body for Internet/ digital governance not also be useful. Second: But if in any case you still remain absolutely opposed to a cross-sectoral, apex, digital policy and governance body, and I have been raising this same issue for at least 12-13 years now, why you never oppose the OECD's Committee on Digital Economy Policy (CDEP)? In the name of the body, 'Economy'  is there only for forms sake. This committee shapes digital policy in all areas, from principles for tech architecture, to platforms and content, to data and AI. Why do OECD needs a transnational, single digital governance body, when you so strongly oppose such a body at the global level. I have raised this issue often, and at one time when you could not avoid responding, you dismissed this body as a capacity building body, which is of course an untruth. OECD committees do go as far as developing legal instruments . The latest initiative of the CDEP is on government access to data held by the private sector . The likely outcomes could be a document of policy principles but it could even be a legal instrument. Since digital policy making is a cross-sectoral work, CDEP often works in collaboration with other OECD Committees towards different ends. For instance, it worked with the Committee on Health to develop Health Data Principles . A very appropriate kind of output, and done in the right way too. Similarly a UN body on digital governance -- while all countries and not just the richest ones are represented  -- should work with the WHO to develop global Health Data Principles. In default of an UN Internet/ digital governance body, OECD's norms, principles and policies become the default global one. But here you develop cold feet... OECD committees should keep functioning and rolling out global governance norms, principles and policies, but not any UN body. That is not needed, any such thing is completely relevant. This is plainly a colonial attitude. It is a pity that in the global Internet/ digital governance space one can openly do such a thing. It normally does not happen elsewhere, in global civil society spaces. You are from the US, why dont you advocate to the OECD, where your gov sits,  to cede its one-point cross-sectoral digital norms/ policy work, and abolish the body specifically made for this purpose? What right do you have to tell the rest of the world to not do it? I repeat, it is plain and simple colonialism. >   > > Worse, increasingly, national governments are trying to interfere with > or control usage of the internet at the application layer. This is > leading to an increasingly fragmented, costly, and repressive > environment. One could call this tech nationalism, jurisdictional > alignment, fragmentation or a digital neo-mercantilism. IGP has > published numerous critiques of these pathologies. > >   > > In this context, for JustNet and its partners to portray “regulation > of big tech” as the salvation of the internet, and the UN’s attempt to > create a High Level MS Body as an entity with “overweening power” that > “would help Big Tech resist effective regulation” is just laughable. > First, the term 'overweening power' is used for Big Tech, and not the proposed High Level MS body. And if you do not think that Big Tech today has overweening power, which needs to be urgently regulated, it is you who is entirely out of touch with global intellectual, political, as well as public opinion. You are sitting lonesomely in some untenable libertarian ivory tower. But one thing I must commend you for is consistency. You responded to one of my emails years back in this very same space saying that you think 'social justice' is a meaningless term. So while consistent you might be, you are completely out of touch with contemporary digital reality. Internet, and those who were associated with it, were seen 20 years ago as representing counter power; today the Internet is controlled by those who represent the most pernicious incumbent power. Counters have now to be developed to this entrenched and fast expanding power. If 'your' internet governance is not taking note of this -- what is happening just outside your window -- it is you who is stuck in some 20 year old realities, not the organisations that developed and supported this campaign letter.  > I do not see how anyone with any deep knowledge of IG can take it > seriously. It has very little relevance to contemporary problems of IG. > Your IG knowledge has perhaps gone too deep - so deep that you may be alone wallowing there in the deep, in a manner very irrelevant to contemporary problems of IG. Although, your no doubt incisive and well written analyses -- however besides the point mostly -- do often provide very good cover to contemporary 'bad' digital forces. And therefore they get lapped up. Like this current email of yours is doing great favours to the shapers and supporters of the Digital Cooperation High Level MS Body, who themselves have little to be able to present their case in a democratic-discursive way, in spaces like this public elist. >   > > Insofar as it has any substance, it seems to call for more > nation-state based regulation of internet operations and content.  But > this is something that, from Trump’s Great Firewall of America, to > Russia’s “sovereign” Internet, to Europe’s NIS2, to India’s app > blocking and censorship, to China’s insulated internet, we already > have plenty of. And we are getting more and it seems to be making > things worse. > There has to be a limit to the Libertarians' clever technique to continue quoting the undoubted statist excesses vis a vis the digital to keep at bay appropriate regulation of Big Tech, and also the needed national policies to escape the coming bi-polar US-China's complete digital and AI domination of the word. State's undue power has to be resisted at the same time as a rule of law has to be established and applied for governing non-state bad actors. >   > > By the way, has anyone at JustNet noticed that Facebook is joining > them in their call for more internet regulation at the national level? > Think about the implications of that for a moment: > https://about.fb.com/regulations/ > >   > > If you read the letter, you can see that they obtained the support of > all these organization – very few of whom actually focus on Internet > or ICT governance > For you Internet governance is about core technical systems of the Internet/ digital. For everyone else, its scope and meaning is fast expanding outwards, getting closer to the points and manners of the real-life impacts of the digital. There are of course organisations in this list of 170 plus organisations that deal centrally with digital governance, but then many others that are looking at platform/data/AI governance in relation to food and agriculture, health, education, trade, gender relations, labour, and so on. There is one that is a chief port-of-call for developing country governments on e-commerce issues in trade deals (btw, much of IG today is done in and through trade deals), another is represented in a new data working group of the World Committee on Food security of FAO, a third is developing health data principles, another working on feminist digital justice, another on how platforms use data to control dependent businesses, .... I can keep going, but you get the point. Should they all come to Prof Milton Mueller to get what Internet/ digital governance is!? It is perhaps time you go to them, if you have to keep 'your' IG relevant. > – by equating the UN HLDC with the World Economic Forum. This is > factually wrong, but it does succeed at throwing red meat in front of > the anti-globalization activists from two decades ago. > No one equated UN HLDC with the WEF. It is was another WEF we wont have such a problem. What we have shown is that UN HLDC represent the exact unfolding of a plan for global governance that WEF laid out 10 years back through its Global Redesign Imitative. And we provide exact quotations. Dont you see the difference?  I have already described what these organisations are. You make fun of them at your own cost. >   > > Internet governance needs to be accomplished from the bottom up, and > rely heavily on networked, non-hierarchical forms of governance. > But not when  OECD does it ... They are rich people and nations, mostly of the western civilisation, they know what they are doing, they have superior rights over the world! Please stop this colonial narrative.   > We need to protect and strengthen, not destroy or undermine, the > organically developed internet institutions. When state-based, > hierarchical interventions are necessary, they need to be carefully > circumscribed and focused to address real problems that cannot be > handled in any other way, such as crime, fraud, and coercion. > Your libertarian definition of the scope of Internet/ digital governance! Sorry, developing countries at least cannot agree. For us economic issues, regulating Big Tech, developing domestic digital industry, etc are all very important. > The UN should stop trying to become a centerpoint of global internet > governance and continue to serve as a place for dialogue and network > building. > Go first tell this to your country and the OECD... Meanwhile, further discussion is very welcome. Regards, parminder >   > >   > > Dr. Milton L Mueller > > Georgia Institute of Technology > > School of Public Policy > > IGP_logo_gold block > >   > >   > >   > >   > > *From:*Governance *On Behalf > Of *parminder via Governance > *Sent:* Saturday, March 13, 2021 12:30 AM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org > *Subject:* [Governance] 170 orgs send an open letter to UN SG to stop > plans for a new High Level Multistakeholder Body > >   > > The open letter was sent to the official consultation process, signed > by more than 170 organisations. > > It was titled "“More than 170 Civil Society Groups Worldwide Oppose > Plans for a Big Tech Dominated Body for Global Digital Governance” . > > Please see the final statement and endorsements at > https://justnetcoalition.org/big-tech-governing-big-tech.pdf >   > .  >   > It was also translated into Spanish, French, German and Dutch. All > versions are linked from the enclosed document >   > We had just 3 days to get sign ons, out of which 2 were weekend days. > In the circumstances, the number is quite good. It shows the > groundswell to opposition to this move. Thanks to everyone who > supported this. >   > We will now get this letter also sent directly to the UN SG and his > new Tech Envoy. >   > We will like to keep this campaign open for some time to get > additional support and build awareness ... >   > This ongoing campaign is just a start, much more needs to be done and > will be done to stop this assault on democracy and on possibilities of > effective regulation of Big Tech. We will be doing all it takes, > including engaging with governments. >   > We will follow a twin track: develop a powerful movement within civil > society groups, and engage with governments and the UN. >   > Will keep you posted. >   > Best regards > parminder > > On 05/03/21 2:15 pm, parminder via Governance wrote: > > Dear All > > This is anopen letter to the UN Secretary General > > initiated by 16 global and national level civil society networks > and organisations urging him to shelve plans for a High Level > Multistakeholder Body which, if set up, can be expected to become > the default apex global digital governance and policy body. This > body is proposed to have a private funding model, with strong > hints also at a 'pay to play' model. It is but obvious that Big > Tech will come to dominate any such body. > > Quoting from the letter: > > /Not only in developing countries but also in the US and EU, > calls for stronger regulation of Big Tech are rising. At the > precise point when we should be shaping global norms to > regulate Big Tech, plans have emerged for an ‘empowered’ > global digital governance body that will evidently be > dominated by Big Tech. Adding vastly to its already > overweening power, this new Body would help Big Tech resist > effective regulation, globally and at national levels. Indeed, > we face the unbelievable prospect of ‘*a Big Tech led body for > Global Governance of Big Tech’*./ > >  Two technical annexes to the open letter explain the background > of the matter in considerable detail. > > *This letter is open for endorsements, *which can be done by > writing an email to _secretariat at justnetcoalition.org > _or filling _this form > _before > midnight PST (GMT-8) of the 7^th of March. > >   > > Please also do circulate to other groups and networks where it may > attract interest. > >   > > The open letter may also be accessed at > https://justnetcoalition.org/big-tech-governing-big-tech.pdf > > >   > > French text is at : > https://justnetcoalition.org/big-tech-governing-big-tech-french.pdf > > and Spanish version at - > https://justnetcoalition.org/big-tech-governing-big-tech-spanish.pdf > > > >   > > Please let us know if you have any questions or comments regarding > the above. > >   > > Best, parminder > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 18807 bytes Desc: not available URL: From joly at punkcast.com Mon Mar 22 08:30:35 2021 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2021 08:30:35 -0400 Subject: [Governance] WEBCAST TODAY: WSIS 2021 High-Level Policy Sessions 133/154: Bridging Digital Divides Message-ID: The first session of this is just finishing. High level could be interpreted to mean starchy wordiness, but there are nuggets to be found. Probably the best way to digest is to read the transcripts, which I will upload to the archive in short order. Spicing up proceedings is the inclusion of representatives from Cambodia and iran. ISOC is represented by Trustee Olga Cavalli, and USA by our FCC Chair Jessica Rosenworcel. ISOC Live posted: "Today, Monday March 22 2021 at 11:00-15:15 UTC the World Summit on the Information Society Forum 2021 (WSIS 2021) opens its High Level Sessions with two sessions, 133 and 154, on "Bridging Digital Divides". SESSION 133: 11:00-12:30 UTC OPENING Mr. Houlin " [image: livestream] Today, *Monday March 22 2021* at *11:00-15:15 UTC* the *World Summit on the Information Society Forum 2021 * (WSIS 2021) opens its *High Level Sessions * with two sessions, *133 *and *154 *, on "*Bridging Digital Divides*". SESSION 133: 11:00-12:30 UTC *OPENING* *Mr. Houlin Zhao*, Secretary-General, International Telecommunication Union (ITU) *H.E. Mr. Maxim Parshin*, Deputy Minister, Ministry of Digital Development, Communications and Mass Media, Russian Federation *PANEL* *Mr. Stephen Bereaux*, Deputy Director, Telecommunication Development Bureau, International Telecommunication Union (ITU) *H.E. Ms. Masooma Khawari*, Minister, Ministry of Communications and Information Technology (MCIT), Afghanistan *H.E. Mr. Sanjay Dhotre*, Union Minister of State for Education, Communications and Electronics & Information Technology, Ministry of Communications, India *H.E. Mr. Hajymyrat Hudayguliyev*, Chairman (Minister), «Türkmenaragatnasyk» (Turkmen Communications) Agency, Turkmenistan *H.E. Dr. Jenfan Muswere*, Minister of ICT, Postal and Courier Services, Zimbabwe *H.E. Mr. Sattar Hashemi*, Deputy-Minister, Ministry of Information and Communication Technology, Iran (Islamic Republic of) *Mr. Chenda Thong*, Chairman, Telecommunication Regulator of Cambodia (TRC), Cambodia *Dr. Jacek Oko*, President, Office of Electronic Communications (UKE), Poland *Dr. Salma Abbasi*, Chairperson and CEO, eWorldwide Group *Ms. Clarisse Iribagiza*, Founder and CEO, HeHe *MODERATOR* *Dr. Olga Cavalli*, South School on Internet Governance SESSION 154:14:00-15:15 UTC *OPENING* *Malcolm Johnson*, ITU *PANEL* *Dr. Bilel Jamoussi*, Chief of the Study Groups Department, Standardization Bureau, International Telecommunication Union (ITU) *H.E. Dr. Daryl Vaz*, MP, Minister, Ministry of Science, Energy & Technology, Jamaica *H.E. Ms. Allyson West*, Minister, Ministry of Public Administration and Digital Transformation, Trinidad and Tobago *H.E. Ms. Pamela Gidi*, Vice Minister, Under Secretariat of Telecommunications, Chile *Ms. Nahima Díaz*, Director General, Instituto Nicaraguense de Telecomunicaciones y Correos TELCOR, Nicaragua *Mr. Apollo Knights*, Director, National Telecommunications Regulatory Commission, Saint Vincent and The Grenadines *Ms. Jessica Rosenworcel*, Acting Chairwoman, Federal Communications Commission, United States *Dr. Mercedes Aramendia*, Presidenta de Directorio de URSEC, UNIDAD REGULADORA DE SERVICIOS DE COMUNICACIONES (URSEC), Uruguay *Mr. Luis Pacheco Zevallos*, Manager, Enforcement Directorate, Telecommunications Regulatory Agency - OSIPTEL, Peru *Ms. Kate Wilson*, CEO, DIAL *MODERATOR* *Ms. Eleanor Sarpong*, Deputy Director & Policy Lead, A4AI/Web Foundation *LIVESTREAM http://livestream.com/internetsociety/wsis2021-dd * *REAL TIME TEXT https://www.streamtext.net/text.aspx?event=ITU-WSIS * *TWITTER #WSIS2021 * *SIMULCASTS* *https://www.facebook.com/WSISprocess/live * *https://www.pscp.tv/ISOC_Live/ * *https://www.twitch.tv/isoclive * *https://www.facebook.com/isocny/live * *ARCHIVE* *https://archive.org/details/wsis2021-dd * *Permalink* https://isoc.live/13877/ -- -------------------------------------- Joly MacFie +12185659365 -------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From suresh at hserus.net Mon Mar 22 07:04:27 2021 From: suresh at hserus.net (suresh) Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2021 16:34:27 +0530 Subject: [Governance] 170 orgs send an open letter to UN SG to stop plans for a new High Level Multistakeholder Body In-Reply-To: References: <7795cc31-b355-8556-71d6-12e1d43e7ee9@itforchange.net> <02f04869-79ee-2cfd-55c2-323c59bbed4d@itforchange.net> <986DB421-4E05-A240-A8A1-F7112FC39093@hxcore.ol>, Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From david_allen_ab63 at post.harvard.edu Mon Mar 22 11:40:37 2021 From: david_allen_ab63 at post.harvard.edu (david_allen_ab63 at post.harvard.edu) Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2021 11:40:37 -0400 Subject: [Governance] 170 orgs send an open letter to UN SG to stop plans for a new High Level Multistakeholder Body In-Reply-To: References: <7795cc31-b355-8556-71d6-12e1d43e7ee9@itforchange.net> <02f04869-79ee-2cfd-55c2-323c59bbed4d@itforchange.net> <986DB421-4E05-A240-A8A1-F7112FC39093@hxcore.ol> Message-ID: — see inline -- > On Mar 22, 2021, at 7:04 AM, suresh wrote: > > While I do agree with respectful exchanges of views, sophistry in arguments and padding stakeholder lists with ngos that don’t have any background in the subject matter is just not on. That is an expression of your view – and received only as such. Others see the matter entirely differently. The contrary has in fact just been reviewed in significant detail now. (And if we want to search for the distraction of sophistry where it may exist, we want to do that throughout.) > This list exists to debate policy. Unfortunately it occasionally becomes a forum to play politics which is a rather different thing altogether. So-called ‘politics’ is, it seems, endemic to life, even fo those who may prefer it otherwise. If so, then our challenge is to frame our logical pursuits where the political aspect is rightly acknowledged, while keeping distinct the other elements of the logical progression. So that we may find better paths forward. > --srs David Allen > > From: Governance on behalf of david_allen_ab63--- via Governance > Sent: Monday, March 22, 2021 8:34 AM > To: Governance > Subject: Re: [Governance] 170 orgs send an open letter to UN SG to stop plans for a new High Level Multistakeholder Body > > We do not figure out if anyone is ‘right’ – when the position taken is mudslinging. > > We have prospect for such common views only when facts and logic, offered by differing views, can track along in civil exchange. > > The disagreement here is as old as these discussions, back to the original WSIS events at least One side promotes multi-stakeholder ‘innovations’ in governance. Others view democratic requirements for representation to be fundamental. > > This governance caucus, itself, is useful as a forum to the extent there is respectful exchange among the views. > > David Allen > > >> On Mar 21, 2021, at 7:49 PM, suresh > wrote: >> >> Milton has expressed his views strongly but he is in essence right. >> >> That letter advocates a dangerous point of view and has been endorsed by a clutch of organisations that have, in general, no internet governance background except for just net and it’s constituents. >> >> While claiming to be multistakeholder it denies “big tech” (the technical community at large) from having a stake. And then it asks for a place on what looks set to turn a multilateral body in short order. >> >> --srs >> >> From: Governance > on behalf of david_allen_ab63--- via Governance > >> Sent: Monday, March 22, 2021 4:36 AM >> To: Governance >> Subject: Re: [Governance] 170 orgs send an open letter to UN SG to stop plans for a new High Level Multistakeholder Body >> >> Back in the history, two groups split off from the original governance list. These reflected two separate views on Internet governance. One of the groups continues today, the Just Net Coalition. >> >> When the other group eventually dissolved, this current incarnation of the governance list was effectively re-instituted, as a forum where views – sometimes quite differing – might find a civil ground. Where discussion could go forward to useful purpose. >> >> The co-co moderators of this present list, please take note. The whole prospect for useful discussion, when views may differ radically, turns on avowedly civil exchange. Most certainly ad hominem attacks vitiate any possibility. >> >> Personal attacks, with language >> >> "just laughable" >> >> “how anyone … can take it seriously" >> >> "throwing red meat" >> >> destroy any real possibility for productive exchange. >> >> We potentially can benefit and like to hear views, particularly when well informed, offered by those who see it differently from ourselves. No civil exchange can tolerate inflammatory, bullying, derogatory behavior. >> >> Co-cos please take note. >> >> David Allen >> >> >>> On Mar 21, 2021, at 4:45 PM, Mueller, Milton L via Governance > wrote: >>> >>> >>> I’ve looked over the letter and am not impressed; not with the argument it presents nor with the astroturfed list of 170 organizations. >>> >>> We at IGP have largely, and deliberately, ignored the UN’s initiatives around so-called High Level >>> Digital Cooperation. Not because we think it is leading in a bad direction or is part of an evil capitalist plot, nor do we think the people promoting it are badly motivated. We just think it is mostly irrelevant. It is founded on model of governance that is unrealistic and unlikely to have any impact on the internet (or platforms, which is not the same as the internet). >>> >>> The Internet consists of 70,000 autonomous systems using a common layer 3 and 4 protocol to communicate. Key elements of the internet infrastructure are governed by what we call the Organically Developed Internet institutions, such as IETF (standards), ICANN (domain names) the Regional Internet Registries (IP addressing) and cooperative action among network operators (routing, interconnection). >>> >>> Because the internet has created a globalized space for communication, many new problems and new forms of governance are evolving at the transnational layer that go well beyond critical internet resources. They affect issues areas such as cybersecurity, content moderation, and privacy. Some of these transnational initiatives are, in our opinion, praiseworthy; others are not. But it is both unlikely and undesirable for them to be consolidated or centralized in the hands of a single global body, whether it is called “multistakeholder” or “intergovernmental.” No such body is going to be able to have the power or the expertise or the widespread legitimacy and participation to address all these areas. Only a dialogue forum is possible at the IGF level. >>> >>> Worse, increasingly, national governments are trying to interfere with or control usage of the internet at the application layer. This is leading to an increasingly fragmented, costly, and repressive environment. One could call this tech nationalism, jurisdictional alignment, fragmentation or a digital neo-mercantilism. IGP has published numerous critiques of these pathologies. >>> >>> In this context, for JustNet and its partners to portray “regulation of big tech” as the salvation of the internet, and the UN’s attempt to create a High Level MS Body as an entity with “overweening power” that “would help Big Tech resist effective regulation” is just laughable. I do not see how anyone with any deep knowledge of IG can take it seriously. It has very little relevance to contemporary problems of IG. >>> >>> Insofar as it has any substance, it seems to call for more nation-state based regulation of internet operations and content. But this is something that, from Trump’s Great Firewall of America, to Russia’s “sovereign” Internet, to Europe’s NIS2, to India’s app blocking and censorship, to China’s insulated internet, we already have plenty of. And we are getting more and it seems to be making things worse. >>> >>> By the way, has anyone at JustNet noticed that Facebook is joining them in their call for more internet regulation at the national level? Think about the implications of that for a moment:https://aboutfb.com/regulations/ >>> >>> If you read the letter, you can see that they obtained the support of all these organization – very few of whom actually focus on Internet or ICT governance – by equating the UN HLDC with the World Economic Forum. This is factually wrong, but it does succeed at throwing red meat in front of the anti-globalization activists from two decades ago. >>> >>> Internet governance needs to be accomplished from the bottom up, and rely heavily on networked, non-hierarchical forms of governance. We need to protect and strengthen, not destroy or undermine, the organically developed internet institutions. When state-based, hierarchical interventions are necessary, they need to be carefully circumscribed and focused to address real problems that cannot be handled in any other way, such as crime, fraud, and coercion. The UN should stop trying to become a centerpoint of global internet governance and continue to serve as a place for dialogue and network building. >>> >>> >>> Dr. Milton L Mueller >>> Georgia Institute of Technology >>> School of Public Policy >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >>> On Mar 13, 2021, at 2:34 PM, suresh via Governance > wrote: >>> >>> How many of the signatory organisations other than IT for change and just net coalition are active in internet governance issues, by the way? >>> >>> --srs >>> >>> From: Governance > on behalf of sivasubramanian muthusamy via Governance > >>> Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2021 12:01 AM >>> To: parminder >>> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> Subject: Re: [Governance] 170 orgs send an open letter to UN SG to stop plans for a new High Level Multistakeholder Body >>> >>> Dear Parminder, >>> >>> "It is in any case unacceptable that such an apex policy body will >>> have corporation [ various stakholders, not just Corporations } and >>> government nominees sitting as equals." -- Why? Isn't that what we >>> call the Multi-stakeholder process? >>> >>> If this campaign is signed by 170 Orgs, what were these signatories >>> told about the Secretary General's Initiative? Please be kind enough >>> to point me to the home page calling for signatures. >>> >>> Thank you. >>> >>> Sivasubramanian M >>> >> >>> From: Governance > On Behalf Of parminder via Governance >>> Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2021 12:30 AM >>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> Subject: [Governance] 170 orgs send an open letter to UN SG to stop plans for a new High Level Multistakeholder Body >>> >>> The open letter was sent to the official consultation process, signed by more than 170 organisations. >>> >>> It was titled "“More than 170 Civil Society Groups Worldwide Oppose Plans for a Big Tech Dominated Body for Global Digital Governance” . >>> >>> Please see the final statement and endorsements at >>> https://justnetcoalition.org/big-tech-governing-big-tech.pdf . >>> >>> It was also translated into Spanish, French, German and Dutch. All versions are linked from the enclosed document >>> >>> We had just 3 days to get sign ons, out of which 2 were weekend days. In the circumstances, the number is quite good. It shows the groundswell to opposition to this move. Thanks to everyone who supported this. >>> >>> We will now get this letter also sent directly to the UN SG and his new Tech Envoy. >>> >>> We will like to keep this campaign open for some time to get additional support and build awareness ... >>> >>> This ongoing campaign is just a start, much more needs to be done and will be done to stop this assault on democracy and on possibilities of effective regulation of Big Tech. We will be doing all it takes, including engaging with governments. >>> >>> We will follow a twin track: develop a powerful movement within civil society groups, and engage with governments and the UN. >>> >>> Will keep you posted. >>> >>> Best regards >>> parminder >>> On 05/03/21 2:15 pm, parminder via Governance wrote: >>> Dear All >>> This is an open letter to the UN Secretary General initiated by 16 global and national level civil society networks and organisations urging him to shelve plans for a High Level Multistakeholder Body which, if set up, can be expected to become the default apex global digital governance and policy body. This body is proposed to have a private funding model, with strong hints also at a 'pay to play' model. It is but obvious that Big Tech will come to dominate any such body. >>> Quoting from the letter: >>> Not only in developing countries but also in the US and EU, calls for stronger regulation of Big Tech are rising. At the precise point when we should be shaping global norms to regulate Big Tech, plans have emerged for an ‘empowered’ global digital governance body that will evidently be dominated by Big Tech. Adding vastly to its already overweening power, this new Body would help Big Tech resist effective regulation, globally and at national levels. Indeed, we face the unbelievable prospect of ‘a Big Tech led body for Global Governance of Big Tech’. >>> Two technical annexes to the open letter explain the background of the matter in considerable detail. >>> This letter is open for endorsements, which can be done by writing an email tosecretariat at justnetcoalition.org or filling this form before midnight PST (GMT-8) of the 7th of March >>> >>> Please also do circulate to other groups and networks where it may attract interest. >>> >>> The open letter may also be accessed at https://justnetcoalition.org/big-tech-governing-big-tech.pdf >>> >>> French text is at : https://justnetcoalition.org/big-tech-governing-big-tech-french.pdf and Spanish version at - https://justnetcoalition.org/big-tech-governing-big-tech-spanish.pdf >>> >>> Please let us know if you have any questions or comments regarding the above. >>> >>> Best, parminder >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Governance mailing list >>> Governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> https://lists.igcaucus.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pandayjyoti at gmail.com Mon Mar 22 12:17:05 2021 From: pandayjyoti at gmail.com (jyoti panday) Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2021 21:47:05 +0530 Subject: [Governance] IGP blogpost Regulation of Digital Platforms Message-ID: Dear All, Sharing IGP's latest post which delves into legislative developments in Indonesia, Myanmar and India for your feedback and comments. https://www.internetgovernance.org/2021/03/18/regulation-of-digital-platforms-in-asia/ Regards, Jyoti Panday -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From milton at gatech.edu Mon Mar 22 12:59:34 2021 From: milton at gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L) Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2021 16:59:34 +0000 Subject: [Governance] 170 orgs send an open letter to UN SG to stop plans for a new High Level Multistakeholder Body In-Reply-To: <1559bbe8-369e-e603-066d-128368f15b3e@itforchange.net> References: <7795cc31-b355-8556-71d6-12e1d43e7ee9@itforchange.net> <02f04869-79ee-2cfd-55c2-323c59bbed4d@itforchange.net> <1559bbe8-369e-e603-066d-128368f15b3e@itforchange.net> Message-ID: I agree with Parminder here: our exchange is airing the issues related to the initiative and this is a healthy thing. I will try to find time to respond to his other points later this week. It would be good if the debate and discussion are focused on what IGF can actually do or not do and on how civil society can shape IG in positive ways. Milton, thanks for responding, even though you find the Digital Cooperation initiative irrelevant. This is certainly much better than what many here who are actively engaged with shaping and pushing this initiative have bothered to do. I hope they also express their response and views. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Mar 22 15:04:18 2021 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2021 00:34:18 +0530 Subject: [Governance] 170 orgs send an open letter to UN SG to stop plans for a new High Level Multistakeholder Body In-Reply-To: <1559bbe8-369e-e603-066d-128368f15b3e@itforchange.net> References: <7795cc31-b355-8556-71d6-12e1d43e7ee9@itforchange.net> <02f04869-79ee-2cfd-55c2-323c59bbed4d@itforchange.net> <1559bbe8-369e-e603-066d-128368f15b3e@itforchange.net> Message-ID: In my response to Milton I did not discuss the fully multilateral and intergovernmental nature of digital policy making by the below mentioned OCED's Committee on Digital Economy Policy (CDEP), This is because, for the sake of this particular argument, Milton was neutral about such a body being inter-gov or multistakeholder... He simply did not see the need for such an apex, cross-sectoral, body. But for those who helped shape and support the proposed new Multistakeholder High Level Body, which will evidently take a central and apex digital policy role in the UN system, I have a further and different question. When they find ok and acceptable the completely inter-governmental process of digital norms, principles and policy making at the OECD (which actually becomes the default for the world), and indeed participate enthusiastically in its processes even if only as consulting entities, why -- and on what basis -- do they oppose at the global / UN level  shaping of norms, principles and policy done in a similar inter-gov manner, which could have similar consultative processes as the OECD? Is this not a colonial approach? How can they do such a thing, in this age and time? And worse, how do even developing country entities and actors join in such a hypocrisy of the North?  None of these questions are rhetorical.. So please do answer them, even if to explain how anything here may be wrongly stated, framed, etc... Any actual work on norms, principles and policies development in OECD's Committees, including the CDEP for digital policy,  is undertaken only among governments, although there exist civil society, business and trade union advisory groups that can give comments. But that happens in most UN processes as well. Remember WSIS? We had such an exemplary inclusive process with huge multi-stakeholder rights of participation, more than provided in the CDEP.  To concretely illustrate CDEP's inter-governmentalism; see enclosed the ToR for an 'informal drafting group on government access to data held by private sector'.  It is to only have governmental members. So indeed, not only do other stakeholders not participate in final decision making, they are not to be part of even an informal drafting group! I have seen much better drafting processes at national levels; in India, for instance for its draft data protection bill. And you know what, this beats it all -- the OECD passes this as their multistakholder processes for digital policy development. See, for instance, Box 1.1 of this document https://www.oecd.org/going-digital/C-MIN-2018-6-EN.pdf One wonders then, why the multistakeholder model for OECD's digital policy making is different, and that for the rest or whole of world is different, which is centred on this proposed Multistakeholder High Level Body.  I am indeed happy to adopt the exact OECD  multistakeholder model for digital policy making in the UN as well. Actually India proposed a UN committee for digital policies in 2011 to the UN GA with similar role and similar 'multistakeholder' processes as OECD's CDEP. It was rejected out of hand as an attempt to foist multilateralism and governmental control over the Internet. Such unabashed hypocrisy! Why when OECD makes its digital policies in a certain democratic manner, at the global level corporations are to sit at an equal level with governments for policy development, as would happen with this proposed Multistakeholder High Level Body. . If they find this model so good, why do they not adopt it for OECD's digital policy making. Why those civil society groups that are pushing the MS High Level Body model at the UN level not also push it for the OECD ? The proposed Multi stakeholder High Level Body for digital policies, therefore, represents not just a corporate capture of policy making, but it is also a body for digital colonialism. Even as the promoters of this initiative from the North, including governments, themselves make digital policies in a democratic inter-gov manner, including at inter-country level, for the developing world they want the process to be controlled by their tech majors, which, unlike the Northern governments themselves, have vast presence in developing countries too. If this is not digital colonialism, what would be! But I might be missing or misrepresenting something, and would be happy to be corrected. parminder On 22/03/21 5:20 pm, parminder via Governance wrote: > > Second: But if in any case you still remain absolutely opposed to a > cross-sectoral, apex, digital policy and governance body, and I have > been raising this same issue for at least 12-13 years now, why you > never oppose the OECD's Committee on Digital Economy Policy (CDEP)? In > the name of the body, 'Economy'  is there only for forms sake. This > committee shapes digital policy in all areas, from principles for tech > architecture, to platforms and content, to data and AI. Why do OECD > needs a transnational, single digital governance body, when you so > strongly oppose such a body at the global level. I have raised this > issue often, and at one time when you could not avoid responding, you > dismissed this body as a capacity building body, which is of course an > untruth. OECD committees do go as far as developing legal instruments > . > > The latest initiative of the CDEP is on government access to data held > by the private sector > . > The likely outcomes could be a document of policy principles but it > could even be a legal instrument. Since digital policy making is a > cross-sectoral work, CDEP often works in collaboration with other OECD > Committees towards different ends. For instance, it worked with the > Committee on Health to develop Health Data Principles > . A very > appropriate kind of output, and done in the right way too. Similarly a > UN body on digital governance -- while all countries and not just the > richest ones are represented  -- should work with the WHO to develop > global Health Data Principles. In default of an UN Internet/ digital > governance body, OECD's norms, principles and policies become the > default global one. > > But here you develop cold feet... OECD committees should keep > functioning and rolling out global governance norms, principles and > policies, but not any UN body. That is not needed, any such thing is > completely relevant. This is plainly a colonial attitude. It is a pity > that in the global Internet/ digital governance space one can openly > do such a thing. It normally does not happen elsewhere, in global > civil society spaces. > > You are from the US, why dont you advocate to the OECD, where your gov > sits,  to cede its one-point cross-sectoral digital norms/ policy > work, and abolish the body specifically made for this purpose? What > right do you have to tell the rest of the world to not do it? I > repeat, it is plain and simple colonialism. > >> >>   >> >> *From:*Governance *On Behalf >> Of *parminder via Governance >> *Sent:* Saturday, March 13, 2021 12:30 AM >> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> *Subject:* [Governance] 170 orgs send an open letter to UN SG to stop >> plans for a new High Level Multistakeholder Body >> >>   >> >> The open letter was sent to the official consultation process, signed >> by more than 170 organisations. >> >> It was titled "“More than 170 Civil Society Groups Worldwide Oppose >> Plans for a Big Tech Dominated Body for Global Digital Governance” . >> >> Please see the final statement and endorsements at >> https://justnetcoalition.org/big-tech-governing-big-tech.pdf >>   >> .  >>   >> It was also translated into Spanish, French, German and Dutch. All >> versions are linked from the enclosed document >>   >> We had just 3 days to get sign ons, out of which 2 were weekend days. >> In the circumstances, the number is quite good. It shows the >> groundswell to opposition to this move. Thanks to everyone who >> supported this. >>   >> We will now get this letter also sent directly to the UN SG and his >> new Tech Envoy. >>   >> We will like to keep this campaign open for some time to get >> additional support and build awareness ... >>   >> This ongoing campaign is just a start, much more needs to be done and >> will be done to stop this assault on democracy and on possibilities >> of effective regulation of Big Tech. We will be doing all it takes, >> including engaging with governments. >>   >> We will follow a twin track: develop a powerful movement within civil >> society groups, and engage with governments and the UN. >>   >> Will keep you posted. >>   >> Best regards >> parminder >> >> On 05/03/21 2:15 pm, parminder via Governance wrote: >> >> Dear All >> >> This is anopen letter to the UN Secretary General >> >> initiated by 16 global and national level civil society networks >> and organisations urging him to shelve plans for a High Level >> Multistakeholder Body which, if set up, can be expected to become >> the default apex global digital governance and policy body. This >> body is proposed to have a private funding model, with strong >> hints also at a 'pay to play' model. It is but obvious that Big >> Tech will come to dominate any such body. >> >> Quoting from the letter: >> >> /Not only in developing countries but also in the US and EU, >> calls for stronger regulation of Big Tech are rising. At the >> precise point when we should be shaping global norms to >> regulate Big Tech, plans have emerged for an ‘empowered’ >> global digital governance body that will evidently be >> dominated by Big Tech. Adding vastly to its already >> overweening power, this new Body would help Big Tech resist >> effective regulation, globally and at national levels. >> Indeed, we face the unbelievable prospect of ‘*a Big Tech led >> body for Global Governance of Big Tech’*./ >> >>  Two technical annexes to the open letter explain the background >> of the matter in considerable detail. >> >> *This letter is open for endorsements, *which can be done by >> writing an email to _secretariat at justnetcoalition.org >> _or filling _this form >> _before >> midnight PST (GMT-8) of the 7^th of March. >> >>   >> >> Please also do circulate to other groups and networks where it >> may attract interest. >> >>   >> >> The open letter may also be accessed at >> https://justnetcoalition.org/big-tech-governing-big-tech.pdf >> >> >>   >> >> French text is at : >> https://justnetcoalition.org/big-tech-governing-big-tech-french.pdf >> >> and Spanish version at - >> https://justnetcoalition.org/big-tech-governing-big-tech-spanish.pdf >> >> >> >>   >> >> Please let us know if you have any questions or comments >> regarding the above. >> >>   >> >> Best, parminder >> >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: OECD -- CDEP -- Government access to personal data held by the private sector.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 187792 bytes Desc: not available URL: From bzs at theworld.com Mon Mar 22 16:50:19 2021 From: bzs at theworld.com (bzs at theworld.com) Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2021 16:50:19 -0400 Subject: [Governance] 170 orgs send an open letter to UN SG to stop plans for a new High Level Multistakeholder Body In-Reply-To: References: <7795cc31-b355-8556-71d6-12e1d43e7ee9@itforchange.net> <02f04869-79ee-2cfd-55c2-323c59bbed4d@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <24665.779.780145.702782@gargle.gargle.HOWL> On March 21, 2021 at 20:45 governance at lists.igcaucus.org (Mueller, Milton L via Governance) wrote: > By the way, has anyone at JustNet noticed that Facebook is joining them in > their call for more internet regulation at the national level? Think about the > implications of that for a moment: https://about.fb.com/regulations/ Facebook has also taken out full page ads in The Economist recently calling for more internet regulation, expressing the same ideas as that link. FB wants to increase the cost of entry into social media. Similar to how historically large auto manufacturers, for example, (after perhaps some early resistance) applauded automobile safety etc regulation. It made it very expensive to start an automobile manufacturing company, paperwork costs etc. but only added a relatively modest cost on existing big auto companies, and equally on all of them. So conferred little if any competitive advantage or disadvantage among existing (large) companies. It would put potentially existential pressure on existing or new smaller companies or organizations. Consider the cost of raising the bar to scan, categorize, and respond to millions of messages per hour (at FB's size that's per minute) imposing large fines etc for failure. This is how oligopolies are enshrined via government regulatory power. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs at TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo* From suresh at hserus.net Mon Mar 22 19:20:09 2021 From: suresh at hserus.net (suresh) Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2021 04:50:09 +0530 Subject: [Governance] 170 orgs send an open letter to UN SG to stop plans for a new High Level Multistakeholder Body In-Reply-To: References: <7795cc31-b355-8556-71d6-12e1d43e7ee9@itforchange.net> <02f04869-79ee-2cfd-55c2-323c59bbed4d@itforchange.net> <1559bbe8-369e-e603-066d-128368f15b3e@itforchange.net>, Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From 6.internet at gmail.com Mon Mar 22 19:24:49 2021 From: 6.internet at gmail.com (sivasubramanian muthusamy) Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2021 04:54:49 +0530 Subject: [Governance] 170 orgs send an open letter to UN SG to stop plans for a new High Level Multistakeholder Body In-Reply-To: <24665.779.780145.702782@gargle.gargle.HOWL> References: <7795cc31-b355-8556-71d6-12e1d43e7ee9@itforchange.net> <02f04869-79ee-2cfd-55c2-323c59bbed4d@itforchange.net> <24665.779.780145.702782@gargle.gargle.HOWL> Message-ID: Dear Barry, On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 2:21 AM bzs--- via Governance wrote: > > > On March 21, 2021 at 20:45 governance at lists.igcaucus.org (Mueller, Milton L via Governance) wrote: > > By the way, has anyone at JustNet noticed that Facebook is joining them in > > their call for more internet regulation at the national level? Think about the > > implications of that for a moment: https://about.fb.com/regulations/ > > Facebook has also taken out full page ads in The Economist recently > calling for more internet regulation, expressing the same ideas as > that link. > > FB wants to increase the cost of entry into social media. > > Similar to how historically large auto manufacturers, for example, > (after perhaps some early resistance) applauded automobile safety etc > regulation. > > It made it very expensive to start an automobile manufacturing > company, paperwork costs etc. but only added a relatively modest cost > on existing big auto companies, and equally on all of them. Not really a comment on facebook, I have not seen the advertisements nor have a theory on why facebook has called for regulation. But I would agree with something in general. Tougher regulations and complex processes do have an effect of creating barriers, wittingly or unwittingly. In India till about 1984 we had two motorcar companies, one with a licence to produce 30,000 cars a year, with a technology that did not change since 1956, with styles that did not change since 1956, and another car company with a similar licence also made cars in a factory that did not change any factory equipment for 30 years. No one else was allowed to make cars, not even the companies that had a licence to make trucks or motorcycles. We have a come a long way. Another example, this one not related to innovation, but progress: In Washington DC four years in the metro, I was asking why the metro system in Washington DC wasn't as advanced as that of the rest of the US cities. The answer was that there were too many accountability processes in place which slowed down decisions on changes. Essential regulations, in limited measure, (and in the Internet space, intervention for a limited time), would help. But "regulation" as a term with its full import does not quite rhyme with the terminology of Internet Governance. We need a few new magic words and concepts. > > So conferred little if any competitive advantage or disadvantage among > existing (large) companies. It would put potentially existential > pressure on existing or new smaller companies or organizations. > > Consider the cost of raising the bar to scan, categorize, and respond > to millions of messages per hour (at FB's size that's per minute) > imposing large fines etc for failure. > > This is how oligopolies are enshrined via government regulatory power. > > -- > -Barry Shein > > Software Tool & Die | bzs at TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com > Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD > The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo* > -- > Governance mailing list > Governance at lists.igcaucus.org > https://lists.igcaucus.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Mar 23 02:21:47 2021 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2021 11:51:47 +0530 Subject: [Governance] 170 orgs send an open letter to UN SG to stop plans for a new High Level Multistakeholder Body In-Reply-To: References: <7795cc31-b355-8556-71d6-12e1d43e7ee9@itforchange.net> <02f04869-79ee-2cfd-55c2-323c59bbed4d@itforchange.net> <1559bbe8-369e-e603-066d-128368f15b3e@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On 23/03/21 4:50 am, suresh wrote: > What I am missing here is that so far the oecd has defined norms and > best practices and collected / released data rather than having gone > anywhere near actual governance I have employed considerable text below, and in the earlier email, that can leave no doubt about the functions of OECD's CDEP. In the previous email,  I provided a link to the page on OECD website about the 'legal instruments' (its own language) that it develops through these committees. In this second email below I enclosed terms of reference for an informal drafting group with a clearly mentioned purpose of developing a new legal instrument. Despite all this, if you write what you have, I do not know what to make of it. I hold myself back because I do not want to feed the likely purpose of making it impossible to have any rational discussion on the subject in this space. In any case, I have also said, and a few times, whatever you think is the function OCED's CDEP undertakes, what about doing an exact cut paste for a UN committee on digital policy. Such models have been advocaed by developing countries on several occasions in the last 12-13 years. But not just the North and OECD countries, but all IG civil society members here have fully refused to consider them.... That is why I call this approach as colonial. And just because some developing country people too join them in refusing what they themselves do at the OECD does not make it less colonial. Colonialism always had such internal collaborators. parminder > > Do you see any kind of change occurring in this? > > --srs >   > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* Governance on behalf > of parminder via Governance > *Sent:* Tuesday, March 23, 2021 12:34 AM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org > *Subject:* Re: [Governance] 170 orgs send an open letter to UN SG to > stop plans for a new High Level Multistakeholder Body >   > > > In my response to Milton I did not discuss the fully multilateral and > intergovernmental nature of digital policy making by the below > mentioned OCED's Committee on Digital Economy Policy (CDEP), This is > because, for the sake of this particular argument, Milton was neutral > about such a body being inter-gov or multistakeholder... He simply did > not see the need for such an apex, cross-sectoral, body. > > But for those who helped shape and support the proposed new > Multistakeholder High Level Body, which will evidently take a central > and apex digital policy role in the UN system, I have a further and > different question. > > When they find ok and acceptable the completely inter-governmental > process of digital norms, principles and policy making at the OECD > (which actually becomes the default for the world), and indeed > participate enthusiastically in its processes even if only as > consulting entities, why -- and on what basis -- do they oppose at the > global / UN level  shaping of norms, principles and policy done in a > similar inter-gov manner, which could have similar consultative > processes as the OECD? Is this not a colonial approach? How can they > do such a thing, in this age and time? And worse, how do even > developing country entities and actors join in such a hypocrisy of the > North?  > > None of these questions are rhetorical.. So please do answer them, > even if to explain how anything here may be wrongly stated, framed, etc... > > Any actual work on norms, principles and policies development in > OECD's Committees, including the CDEP for digital policy,  is > undertaken only among governments, although there exist civil society, > business and trade union advisory groups that can give comments. But > that happens in most UN processes as well. Remember WSIS? We had such > an exemplary inclusive process with huge multi-stakeholder rights of > participation, more than provided in the CDEP.  > > To concretely illustrate CDEP's inter-governmentalism; see enclosed > the ToR for an 'informal drafting group on government access to data > held by private sector'.  It is to only have governmental members. So > indeed, not only do other stakeholders not participate in final > decision making, they are not to be part of even an informal drafting > group! I have seen much better drafting processes at national levels; > in India, for instance for its draft data protection bill. > > And you know what, this beats it all -- the OECD passes this as their > multistakholder processes for digital policy development. See, for > instance, Box 1.1 of this document > https://www.oecd.org/going-digital/C-MIN-2018-6-EN.pdf > > One wonders then, why the multistakeholder model for OECD's digital > policy making is different, and that for the rest or whole of world is > different, which is centred on this proposed Multistakeholder High > Level Body.  I am indeed happy to adopt the exact OECD  > multistakeholder model for digital policy making in the UN as well. > Actually India proposed a UN committee for digital policies in 2011 to > the UN GA with similar role and similar 'multistakeholder' processes > as OECD's CDEP. It was rejected out of hand as an attempt to foist > multilateralism and governmental control over the Internet. Such > unabashed hypocrisy! > > Why when OECD makes its digital policies in a certain democratic > manner, at the global level corporations are to sit at an equal level > with governments for policy development, as would happen with this > proposed Multistakeholder High Level Body. . If they find this model > so good, why do they not adopt it for OECD's digital policy making. > Why those civil society groups that are pushing the MS High Level Body > model at the UN level not also push it for the OECD ? > > The proposed Multi stakeholder High Level Body for digital policies, > therefore, represents not just a corporate capture of policy making, > but it is also a body for digital colonialism. Even as the promoters > of this initiative from the North, including governments, themselves > make digital policies in a democratic inter-gov manner, including at > inter-country level, for the developing world they want the process to > be controlled by their tech majors, which, unlike the Northern > governments themselves, have vast presence in developing countries > too. If this is not digital colonialism, what would be! > > But I might be missing or misrepresenting something, and would be > happy to be corrected. > > parminder > > On 22/03/21 5:20 pm, parminder via Governance wrote: >> >> Second: But if in any case you still remain absolutely opposed to a >> cross-sectoral, apex, digital policy and governance body, and I have >> been raising this same issue for at least 12-13 years now, why you >> never oppose the OECD's Committee on Digital Economy Policy (CDEP)? >> In the name of the body, 'Economy'  is there only for forms sake. >> This committee shapes digital policy in all areas, from principles >> for tech architecture, to platforms and content, to data and AI. Why >> do OECD needs a transnational, single digital governance body, when >> you so strongly oppose such a body at the global level. I have raised >> this issue often, and at one time when you could not avoid >> responding, you dismissed this body as a capacity building body, >> which is of course an untruth. OECD committees do go as far as >> developing legal instruments >> . >> >> The latest initiative of the CDEP is on government access to data >> held by the private sector >> . >> The likely outcomes could be a document of policy principles but it >> could even be a legal instrument. Since digital policy making is a >> cross-sectoral work, CDEP often works in collaboration with other >> OECD Committees towards different ends. For instance, it worked with >> the Committee on Health to develop Health Data Principles >> . A very >> appropriate kind of output, and done in the right way too. Similarly >> a UN body on digital governance -- while all countries and not just >> the richest ones are represented  -- should work with the WHO to >> develop global Health Data Principles. In default of an UN Internet/ >> digital governance body, OECD's norms, principles and policies become >> the default global one. >> >> But here you develop cold feet... OECD committees should keep >> functioning and rolling out global governance norms, principles and >> policies, but not any UN body. That is not needed, any such thing is >> completely relevant. This is plainly a colonial attitude. It is a >> pity that in the global Internet/ digital governance space one can >> openly do such a thing. It normally does not happen elsewhere, in >> global civil society spaces. >> >> You are from the US, why dont you advocate to the OECD, where your >> gov sits,  to cede its one-point cross-sectoral digital norms/ policy >> work, and abolish the body specifically made for this purpose? What >> right do you have to tell the rest of the world to not do it? I >> repeat, it is plain and simple colonialism. >> >>> >>>   >>> >>> *From:*Governance *On Behalf >>> Of *parminder via Governance >>> *Sent:* Saturday, March 13, 2021 12:30 AM >>> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> *Subject:* [Governance] 170 orgs send an open letter to UN SG to >>> stop plans for a new High Level Multistakeholder Body >>> >>>   >>> >>> The open letter was sent to the official consultation process, >>> signed by more than 170 organisations. >>> >>> It was titled "“More than 170 Civil Society Groups Worldwide Oppose >>> Plans for a Big Tech Dominated Body for Global Digital Governance” . >>> >>> Please see the final statement and endorsements at >>> https://justnetcoalition.org/big-tech-governing-big-tech.pdf >>>   >>> .  >>>   >>> It was also translated into Spanish, French, German and Dutch. All >>> versions are linked from the enclosed document >>>   >>> We had just 3 days to get sign ons, out of which 2 were weekend >>> days. In the circumstances, the number is quite good. It shows the >>> groundswell to opposition to this move. Thanks to everyone who >>> supported this. >>>   >>> We will now get this letter also sent directly to the UN SG and his >>> new Tech Envoy. >>>   >>> We will like to keep this campaign open for some time to get >>> additional support and build awareness ... >>>   >>> This ongoing campaign is just a start, much more needs to be done >>> and will be done to stop this assault on democracy and on >>> possibilities of effective regulation of Big Tech. We will be doing >>> all it takes, including engaging with governments. >>>   >>> We will follow a twin track: develop a powerful movement within >>> civil society groups, and engage with governments and the UN. >>>   >>> Will keep you posted. >>>   >>> Best regards >>> parminder >>> >>> On 05/03/21 2:15 pm, parminder via Governance wrote: >>> >>> Dear All >>> >>> This is anopen letter to the UN Secretary General >>> >>> initiated by 16 global and national level civil society networks >>> and organisations urging him to shelve plans for a High Level >>> Multistakeholder Body which, if set up, can be expected to >>> become the default apex global digital governance and policy >>> body. This body is proposed to have a private funding model, >>> with strong hints also at a 'pay to play' model. It is but >>> obvious that Big Tech will come to dominate any such body. >>> >>> Quoting from the letter: >>> >>> /Not only in developing countries but also in the US and EU, >>> calls for stronger regulation of Big Tech are rising. At the >>> precise point when we should be shaping global norms to >>> regulate Big Tech, plans have emerged for an ‘empowered’ >>> global digital governance body that will evidently be >>> dominated by Big Tech. Adding vastly to its already >>> overweening power, this new Body would help Big Tech resist >>> effective regulation, globally and at national levels. >>> Indeed, we face the unbelievable prospect of ‘*a Big Tech >>> led body for Global Governance of Big Tech’*./ >>> >>>  Two technical annexes to the open letter explain the background >>> of the matter in considerable detail. >>> >>> *This letter is open for endorsements, *which can be done by >>> writing an email to _secretariat at justnetcoalition.org >>> _or filling _this form >>> _before >>> midnight PST (GMT-8) of the 7^th of March. >>> >>>   >>> >>> Please also do circulate to other groups and networks where it >>> may attract interest. >>> >>>   >>> >>> The open letter may also be accessed at >>> https://justnetcoalition.org/big-tech-governing-big-tech.pdf >>> >>> >>>   >>> >>> French text is at : >>> https://justnetcoalition.org/big-tech-governing-big-tech-french.pdf >>> >>> and Spanish version at - >>> https://justnetcoalition.org/big-tech-governing-big-tech-spanish.pdf >>> >>> >>> >>>   >>> >>> Please let us know if you have any questions or comments >>> regarding the above. >>> >>>   >>> >>> Best, parminder >>> >>> >>> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joly at punkcast.com Tue Mar 23 07:07:54 2021 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2021 07:07:54 -0400 Subject: [Governance] WEBCAST TODAY: WSIS 2021 High-Level Policy Sessions 133/154: Bridging Digital Divides In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Transcripts are now posted https://archive.org/download/wsis2021-dd/WSIS_2021_SESSION_133_TRANSCRIPT.pdf https://archive.org/download/wsis2021-dd/WSIS_2021_SESSION_154_TRANSCRIPT.pdf On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 8:30 AM Joly MacFie wrote: > The first session of this is just finishing. High level could be > interpreted to mean starchy wordiness, but there are nuggets to be found. > Probably the best way to digest is to read the transcripts, which I will > upload to the archive in short order. Spicing up proceedings is the > inclusion of representatives from Cambodia and iran. ISOC is represented by > Trustee Olga Cavalli, and USA by our FCC Chair Jessica Rosenworcel. > > > ISOC Live posted: "Today, Monday March 22 2021 at 11:00-15:15 UTC the > World Summit on the Information Society Forum 2021 (WSIS 2021) opens its > High Level Sessions with two sessions, 133 and 154, on "Bridging Digital > Divides". SESSION 133: 11:00-12:30 UTC OPENING Mr. Houlin " > > [image: livestream] Today, > *Monday March 22 2021* at *11:00-15:15 UTC* the *World Summit on the > Information Society Forum 2021 * > (WSIS 2021) opens its *High Level Sessions > * with two sessions, *133 > *and *154 > *, on "*Bridging > Digital Divides*". > SESSION 133: 11:00-12:30 UTC > > *OPENING* > *Mr. Houlin Zhao*, Secretary-General, International Telecommunication > Union (ITU) > *H.E. Mr. Maxim Parshin*, Deputy Minister, Ministry of Digital > Development, Communications and Mass Media, Russian Federation > > *PANEL* > *Mr. Stephen Bereaux*, Deputy Director, Telecommunication Development > Bureau, International Telecommunication Union (ITU) > *H.E. Ms. Masooma Khawari*, Minister, Ministry of Communications and > Information Technology (MCIT), Afghanistan > *H.E. Mr. Sanjay Dhotre*, Union Minister of State for Education, > Communications and Electronics & Information Technology, Ministry of > Communications, India > *H.E. Mr. Hajymyrat Hudayguliyev*, Chairman (Minister), > «Türkmenaragatnasyk» (Turkmen Communications) Agency, Turkmenistan > *H.E. Dr. Jenfan Muswere*, Minister of ICT, Postal and Courier Services, > Zimbabwe > *H.E. Mr. Sattar Hashemi*, Deputy-Minister, Ministry of Information and > Communication Technology, Iran (Islamic Republic of) > *Mr. Chenda Thong*, Chairman, Telecommunication Regulator of Cambodia > (TRC), Cambodia > *Dr. Jacek Oko*, President, Office of Electronic Communications (UKE), > Poland > *Dr. Salma Abbasi*, Chairperson and CEO, eWorldwide Group > *Ms. Clarisse Iribagiza*, Founder and CEO, HeHe > > *MODERATOR* > *Dr. Olga Cavalli*, South School on Internet Governance > SESSION 154:14:00-15:15 UTC > > *OPENING* > *Malcolm Johnson*, ITU > > *PANEL* > *Dr. Bilel Jamoussi*, Chief of the Study Groups Department, > Standardization Bureau, International Telecommunication Union (ITU) > *H.E. Dr. Daryl Vaz*, MP, Minister, Ministry of Science, Energy & > Technology, Jamaica > *H.E. Ms. Allyson West*, Minister, Ministry of Public Administration and > Digital Transformation, Trinidad and Tobago > *H.E. Ms. Pamela Gidi*, Vice Minister, Under Secretariat of > Telecommunications, Chile > *Ms. Nahima Díaz*, Director General, Instituto Nicaraguense de > Telecomunicaciones y Correos TELCOR, Nicaragua > *Mr. Apollo Knights*, Director, National Telecommunications Regulatory > Commission, Saint Vincent and The Grenadines > *Ms. Jessica Rosenworcel*, Acting Chairwoman, Federal Communications > Commission, United States > *Dr. Mercedes Aramendia*, Presidenta de Directorio de URSEC, UNIDAD > REGULADORA DE SERVICIOS DE COMUNICACIONES (URSEC), Uruguay > *Mr. Luis Pacheco Zevallos*, Manager, Enforcement Directorate, > Telecommunications Regulatory Agency - OSIPTEL, Peru > *Ms. Kate Wilson*, CEO, DIAL > > *MODERATOR* > *Ms. Eleanor Sarpong*, Deputy Director & Policy Lead, A4AI/Web Foundation > > *LIVESTREAM http://livestream.com/internetsociety/wsis2021-dd > * > > *REAL TIME TEXT https://www.streamtext.net/text.aspx?event=ITU-WSIS > * > > *TWITTER #WSIS2021 * > > *SIMULCASTS* > *https://www.facebook.com/WSISprocess/live > * > *https://www.pscp.tv/ISOC_Live/ * > *https://www.twitch.tv/isoclive * > *https://www.facebook.com/isocny/live > * > > *ARCHIVE* > *https://archive.org/details/wsis2021-dd > * > > > > *Permalink* > https://isoc.live/13877/ > > > > -- > -------------------------------------- > Joly MacFie +12185659365 > -------------------------------------- > - > -- -------------------------------------- Joly MacFie +12185659365 -------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joly at punkcast.com Tue Mar 23 08:53:18 2021 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2021 08:53:18 -0400 Subject: [Governance] =?utf-8?q?WEBCAST_TODAY_=E2=80=93_VIRTUAL_PEERING_S?= =?utf-8?q?ERIES_=E2=80=93_AFRICA_=238=3A_Death_of_Transit_=26_The_?= =?utf-8?q?Evolving_Role_of_IXPs_=7C_LA_S=C3=89RIE_VIRTUAL_PEERING_?= =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=93_AFRIQUE_=238=3A_Mort_du_transit_et_=C3=A9volut?= =?utf-8?q?ion_du_r=C3=B4le_des_IXP?= Message-ID: This is, by a long chalk, the most popular event in the Virtual Peering Series thus far - a LOT of sign ups. Of course, Geoff Huston has been harping on about this for some time. It will be interesting to see what the other operators have to say. ISOC Live posted: "On Tuesday March 23 2021, at 13:00-14.30 UTC, the African IXP Association, in partnership with the Internet Society, presents the eighth webinar in the Virtual Peering Series – Africa, with the theme 'Death of Transit & The Evolving Role of IXPs'. Th" [image: Livestream (English)] On *Tuesday March 23 2021*, at *13:00-14.30 UTC*, the *African IXP Association *, in partnership with the *Internet Society *, presents the eighth webinar in the *Virtual Peering Series – Africa *, with the theme '*Death of Transit & The Evolving Role of IXPs * '. The global Internet industry is consolidating. More traffic emanates from fewer autonomous systems every day, primarily due to the growth of global cloud & content delivery services. As more content and services migrate to their platforms, they work to expand their private global networks to the Internet’s edge via undersea cables, terrestrial networks, and data centers where they interconnect directly with eyeball networks. This installment of the Virtual Peering Series – Africa will explore what this phenomenon means for Internet exchange points (IXPs) in Africa and around the world. [image: Livestream (Francais)] Le *mardi 23 mars 2021*, de *13h00 à 14h30* UTC, l'*Association africaine des IXP *, en partenariat avec l'*Internet Society *, présente le huitième webinaire de la série Virtual Peering - Afrique, sur le thème « *Mort du transit et évolution du rôle des IXP * ». L’industrie Internet mondiale se consolide. Plus de trafic émane de moins de systèmes autonomes chaque jour, principalement en raison de la croissance des services mondiaux de cloud et de diffusion de contenu. À mesure que de plus en plus de contenus et de services migrent vers leurs plates-formes, ils s’efforcent d’étendre leurs réseaux mondiaux privés vers la périphérie d’Internet via des câbles sous-marins, des réseaux terrestres et des centres de données où ils s’interconnectent directement avec des réseaux oculaires. Cet épisode de la Série de peering virtuels – Afrique explorera ce que ce phénomène signifie pour les points d’échange Internet (IXP) en Afrique et dans le monde. *SPEAKERS / CONFERENCIERS* *Geoff Huston*, Chief Scientist, Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) *Mark Tinka*, Head of Engineering, SEACOM *Christian Kaufmann*, Vice President Technology, Akamai Technologies *Patrick Christian*, Principal Analyst, TeleGeography *MODERATORS / MODÉRATEURS* *Kyle Spencer*, Executive Director, Uganda Internet Exchange Point and Co-Coordinator, African IXP Association *Caglar Dabanoglu*, Senior Network Architect, Akamai Technologies *LIVESTREAMS* *https://livestream.com/internetsociety/afpeering8 * (English) (open captions) *https://livestream.com/internetsociety2/afpeering8 * (Francais) *PARTICIPATE VIA ZOOM https://bit.ly/3sO9AaZ *(EN/FR Interpretation, English closed captions) *REAL TIME TEXT* *https://www.streamtext.net/text.aspx?event=CFI-ISOC * (English) *TWITTER #IPeerinAfrica @internetsociety @AfIX https://bit.ly/IPeerInAfrica * Geoff Huston @apnic Mark Tinka @SEACOM @ckatminxsdotnet @Akamai Patrick Christian @TeleGeography @kyleville @caglardabanoglu , *SIMULCASTS_* *https://www.pscp.tv/ISOC_Live/ * *https://www.twitch.tv/isoclive (English only)* *https://www.facebook.com/InternetSociety/live * *https://www.facebook.com/ISOCAfrica/live * *ARCHIVE* *https://archive.org/details/afpeering8 * *EVENT SPONSORS* LINX | PAIX | Rack Centre *SERIES SPONSORS* Facebook | NAPAfrica *Permalink* https://isoc.live/13825/ - -- -------------------------------------- Joly MacFie +12185659365 -------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From judith at jhellerstein.com Tue Mar 23 10:10:24 2021 From: judith at jhellerstein.com (Judith Hellerstein) Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2021 10:10:24 -0400 Subject: [Governance] Reminder--Invitation--Accessible Banking for the Blind in the 21st Century: Experience Sharing from the Developed and Developing Countries"--March 26 1300 UTC Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Tue Mar 23 11:26:32 2021 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2021 15:26:32 +0000 Subject: [Governance] Reminder--Invitation--Accessible Banking for the Blind in the 21st Century: Experience Sharing from the Developed and Developing Countries"--March 26 1300 UTC In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: This is really fantastic Judith, thank you. On Tue, 23 Mar 2021, 2:10 pm Judith Hellerstein via Governance, < governance at lists.igcaucus.org> wrote: > Dear All, > > Just a reminder to all to join Accessibility SIG in what looks to be a > great event that our President Muhammad Shabbir has organized, titled: > "Accessible Banking for the Blind in the 21st Century: Experience Sharing > from the Developed and Developing Countries" > > > > Date: 26th March 2021, 1300 to 1430 UTC > > *https://us02web.zoom.us/meeting/register/tZUude-grj8sHN0sDBiOa6WN5uolHUTnqqgw > * > > > > Many banks offer a number of digital services that allow consumers to pay > bills and shop online all from the comfort of home without visiting your > bank in person. However, even in this day and age people with blindness in > some countries despite knowledge, skills and willingness, have to > physically go to the bank branch to do their business because of the > stubbornness of the bankers and/or their Ignorance to add accessible > digital technologies to their systems. > > > > Join Internet Society Accessibility > Special Interest Group ( > Accessibility-SIG ) in this interesting webinar > where people with blindness from developed and developing countries come > together to share their experiences with the banking sector in the 21st > century. > > > > This discussion is a part of a series of webinars that ISOC > Accessibility-SIG is organizing to spread the message of digital > accessibility for Persons With Disabilities (PWDs). The current pandemic > has highlighted the grave importance of increasing the awareness of how to > make digital spaces accessible. During this current Pandemic, where > everything is virtual many online platforms, digital environments and even > conferences are just not accessible to people with disabilities. Through > this series of webinars, we hope to increase the awareness so that the > digital spaces can be made more accessible and inclusive to all > irrespective of the disability. Our goal is to make sure that the Internet > is really for everyone just as the ISOC tagline states. In the next webinar > of this series, we are bringing experts and users from around different > parts of the world together to discuss the challenges that people with > visual impairment/blindness face particularly with regards to the banking > system. > > > > The English language webinar will be organized on Friday March 26th from > 1300-1430 UTC on Zoom. The Speakers include: > > > - Majid Khan, USA, > - Vashkar Bhattacharjee, Bangladesh, > - Abdul Qadir, Jordan, > - Abdul Busuulwa, Uganda, > - Imran Shaikh, Pakistan, > - Gerry Ellis, Ireland, > - Anatoliy Popko, Russia, > > > Open discussion, > > Closed captioning will be provided at this link: > https://www.streamtext.net/player?event=CFI-A11YSIG > > There will be a live webcast with open captions via ISOC.LIVE which will > be archived, along with a transcript and any presentations > > > > REGISTER ON ZOOM http://bit.ly/a11ysig6 > > > Best Regards, > > Judith Hellerstein > > Accessibility SIG Secretary > > -- > _________________________________________________________________________ > Judith Hellerstein, Founder & CEO > Hellerstein & Associates > 3001 Veazey Terrace NW, Washington DC 20008 > Phone: (202) 362-5139 Skype ID: judithhellerstein > Mobile/Whats app: +1202-333-6517 > E-mail: Judith at jhellerstein.com Website: www.jhellerstein.com > Linked In: www.linkedin.com/in/jhellerstein/ > Opening Telecom & Technology Opportunities Worldwide > > > -- > Governance mailing list > Governance at lists.igcaucus.org > https://lists.igcaucus.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From milton at gatech.edu Tue Mar 23 13:39:21 2021 From: milton at gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L) Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2021 17:39:21 +0000 Subject: [Governance] 170 orgs send an open letter to UN SG to stop plans for a new High Level Multistakeholder Body In-Reply-To: <1559bbe8-369e-e603-066d-128368f15b3e@itforchange.net> References: <7795cc31-b355-8556-71d6-12e1d43e7ee9@itforchange.net> <02f04869-79ee-2cfd-55c2-323c59bbed4d@itforchange.net> <1559bbe8-369e-e603-066d-128368f15b3e@itforchange.net> Message-ID: All: As I stated earlier, I think this dialogue is worth having, even if most of Parminder's arguments are weak and the neoMarxist ideology underlying them have been proven time and again to lead to stunted economic development and authoritarian systems of governance. It is worth having because it deals with the fundamentals of internet governance and many may share some of his ideas and mistakes. In Parminder's response, he said that I "have defined Internet/ digital governance to be the technical governance of the Internet." False. I pointed out that technical governance of the internet - to quote me accurately, I said "key elements of the internet infrastructure" - is taking place via private sector and civil society-based multi-stakeholder institutions. I note that these are actually working quite well, and you have been unable to offer serious critiques of those institutions. And far from being in an ivory tower, we have been directly involved in all of them. But I went on to point out that "many new problems and new forms of governance are evolving at the transnational layer that go well beyond critical internet resources. They affect issues areas such as cybersecurity, content moderation, and privacy." I recognize those (and others, such as platform governance) as IG issues - indeed, IGP focuses more and more on those issues now. That is the space we are debating about. Your inability to accurately represent this distinction between CIR governance and IG policy does not bode well for the kind of contribution you think you can make to the broader IG debate. Now let's take a look at your JustNet letter. https://justnetcoalition.org/big-tech-governing-big-tech.pdf Note that I chose to take it seriously enough to respond, unlike many others. Keep in mind that, as I stated the first time, IGP is not a supporter of any specific proposal in the 'Roadmap for Digital Cooperation.' But we do find your attack on it to push in a direction that is much worse than anything they proposed. You say it is "unacceptable that such an apex policy body will have corporation and government nominees sitting as equals." So, let's be clear: you are rejecting the multistakeholder principle and advocating for a traditional intergovernmental arrangement of the sort favored by authoritarian states. Their preference has always been to exclude the private sector and civil society from direct participation and make IG a governments-only game. Your attempt to revive the long-dead "enhanced cooperation" process pushes in that direction as well. You also object to the use of private sector funding, allegedly because this will corrupt the process. While it is true that, say, an entity funded entirely by Microsoft or Facebook would be biased and problematic, I am curious as to why you have no similar concerns about governmental funding. Are you saying that the U.S., China, Russia, the UK or European Union are entirely selfless, virtuous entities with no special interests they would push? Are you saying that nation-states never support or withhold support for UN agencies based on their politics? Maybe you have forgotten about the recent US withdrawal from WHO? Or the infiltration of the UN Human Rights Council by states that want to suppress discussion of HR violations? Note that it is overwhelmingly private sector funding and operation that built the internet and keeps it going. Are you proposing a return to the state-owned PTTs of the 19th and early 20th century? They have a pretty poor record, both in terms of development and rights. Fact of the matter is, if IGF - even in its current form - is going to survive, it is going to need money, and whoever provides that money is going to see it as in their interests in some way. Ergo, drawing on diverse private sector resources in addition to UN's governmental budget or governmental sources can actually improve its independence and quality. More broadly, the corporations who would most likely be tapped do not have common interests, which I am sure you know if you have been paying any attention to the Apple-Google-Microsoft-Facebook-Tiktok disputes). You assert that "a High level Multistakeholder Body for 'Digital Cooperation'...would become the de facto body for 'global digital governance'." This is either a tremendously ignorant or absurdly demogogic statement. Just to take the three most significant power centers, the US, the EU and China, all have active and powerful antitrust authorities, who are engaged in a rather systematic assault on the platforms. All three, plus India, have legal and regulatory powers over data, privacy and so on, and are actively using them. With the exception of the US, all have extensive censorship powers, and are actively using them. All are partitioning the internet based on claims of "national security." All are asserting, or exercising, extra territorial jurisdiction I various ways. If you are claiming that somehow a loose, weakly funded UN-based multistakeholder alliance is going to negate or supersede these uses of state power, you are really out of touch with the political and economic realities of internet governance and have no business accusing anyone of being in an ivory tower. Now let's consider your (quite vague) ideas about what should be done instead. All you say is that you want a "a genuinely democratic system for global digital governance, keeping vested corporate interests at bay." It is evident that you, like the People Republic of China, mean by "democratic" a multilateral system, one government one vote, in which individuals have no role and the actual private sector owners and operators of networks and applications are "kept at bay" and regulated in a top-down manner by a collection of states. You have no idea how states with fundamental disagreements about rights, law, political economy and economic policy will come to agreement on how to do this, of course. So I am sorry, I fail to see anything in your letter other than posturing, raising the spectre of a huge and powerful corporate-dominated entity in order to mobilize a bunch of fringe groups into another anti-capitalist diatribe. Best regards, Dr. Milton L Mueller Georgia Institute of Technology School of Public Policy [IGP_logo_gold block] From: parminder Sent: Monday, March 22, 2021 7:51 AM To: Mueller, Milton L ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [Governance] 170 orgs send an open letter to UN SG to stop plans for a new High Level Multistakeholder Body On 22/03/21 2:15 am, Mueller, Milton L wrote: I've looked over the letter and am not impressed; Milton, thanks for responding, even though you find the Digital Cooperation initiative irrelevant. This is certainly much better than what many here who are actively engaged with shaping and pushing this initiative have bothered to do. I hope they also express their response and views. not with the argument it presents nor with the astroturfed list of 170 organizations. So you find the active involvement and support of global organisations that are, for instance, the primary global networks of grassroots organisations in areas like health, education, food security, and conservation; top global trade unions; top global organisations working on gender justice, and global trade; some of the most prominent global development NGOs; as astroturfing? The most prominent among these, if not members of Just Net Coalition, are actually in active partnerships with the JNC on Internet/ digital governance issues. And mind you, this is the support we got over just 3 days which unfortunately included a weekend -- owing to a deadline for submitting comments to the UN process. You dismiss them as some irrelevant anti-globalisation organisations and activists from two decades ago; losers, perhaps, who lap up any global campaign letter thrown at them for getting their names printed on it! I reckon then that real people's perspectives and representation in Internet/digital governance matters should come from from a certain professorial chair at Syracuse University in the US, or it is that you have now shifted to somewhere in Georgia. A group of around 20 prominent global organisations and networks, having prepared this letter, are currently collaborating over an e-list for follow-ups, including establishing contacts with people inside the UN, government delegates etc, apart from spreading the message wider among CS groups and engaging them.. And this is outside the Just Net Coalition, JNC being just a participant in this collaboration. This should puncture the pompous arrogance with which you typically come to such matters, and we can move now to more substantive matters. See in-line. We at IGP have largely, and deliberately, ignored the UN's initiatives around so-called High Level Digital Cooperation. Not because we think it is leading in a bad direction or is part of an evil capitalist plot, nor do we think the people promoting it are badly motivated. We just think it is mostly irrelevant. It is founded on model of governance that is unrealistic and unlikely to have any impact on the internet (or platforms, which is not the same as the internet). The Internet consists of 70,000 autonomous systems using a common layer 3 and 4 protocol to communicate. Key elements of the internet infrastructure are governed by what we call the Organically Developed Internet institutions, such as IETF (standards), ICANN (domain names) the Regional Internet Registries (IP addressing) and cooperative action among network operators (routing, interconnection). Because the internet has created a globalized space for communication, many new problems and new forms of governance are evolving at the transnational layer that go well beyond critical internet resources. They affect issues areas such as cybersecurity, content moderation, and privacy. So, you have defined Internet/ digital governance to be the technical governance of the Internet plus largely these three areas involving a digital version of libertarian minimal state. You do not consider, for instance, data, AI or platform regulation, especially the distributive issues involved therein, as Internet/digital governance, right. You have the right to your definitions of Internet/ digital governance, but it is evident that the world overwhelming disagrees with you, including the IGF (see its program). Some of these transnational initiatives are, in our opinion, praiseworthy; others are not. But it is both unlikely and undesirable for them to be consolidated or centralized in the hands of a single global body, whether it is called "multistakeholder" or "intergovernmental." No such body is going to be able to have the power or the expertise or the widespread legitimacy and participation to address all these areas. Only a dialogue forum is possible at the IGF level. Two responses to this: One, lets consider the WHO; It really cannot be considered as global health governance being 'consolidated or centralized in the hands of a single global body' . But it still does very useful norms and standards setting work, develops global legal instruments, as required and possible, develops and coordinates frameworks of responses and other programmatic action, does neutral public interest global research and capacity development, and so on. WHO's existence has been extremely useful, and has not impeded other transnational initiatives This is true of UN global governance bodies in all areas. Digital is more inherently global than any other sector. So, why would a similar body for Internet/ digital governance not also be useful. Second: But if in any case you still remain absolutely opposed to a cross-sectoral, apex, digital policy and governance body, and I have been raising this same issue for at least 12-13 years now, why you never oppose the OECD's Committee on Digital Economy Policy (CDEP)? In the name of the body, 'Economy' is there only for forms sake. This committee shapes digital policy in all areas, from principles for tech architecture, to platforms and content, to data and AI. Why do OECD needs a transnational, single digital governance body, when you so strongly oppose such a body at the global level. I have raised this issue often, and at one time when you could not avoid responding, you dismissed this body as a capacity building body, which is of course an untruth. OECD committees do go as far as developing legal instruments. The latest initiative of the CDEP is on government access to data held by the private sector. The likely outcomes could be a document of policy principles but it could even be a legal instrument. Since digital policy making is a cross-sectoral work, CDEP often works in collaboration with other OECD Committees towards different ends. For instance, it worked with the Committee on Health to develop Health Data Principles. A very appropriate kind of output, and done in the right way too. Similarly a UN body on digital governance -- while all countries and not just the richest ones are represented -- should work with the WHO to develop global Health Data Principles. In default of an UN Internet/ digital governance body, OECD's norms, principles and policies become the default global one. But here you develop cold feet... OECD committees should keep functioning and rolling out global governance norms, principles and policies, but not any UN body. That is not needed, any such thing is completely relevant. This is plainly a colonial attitude. It is a pity that in the global Internet/ digital governance space one can openly do such a thing. It normally does not happen elsewhere, in global civil society spaces. You are from the US, why dont you advocate to the OECD, where your gov sits, to cede its one-point cross-sectoral digital norms/ policy work, and abolish the body specifically made for this purpose? What right do you have to tell the rest of the world to not do it? I repeat, it is plain and simple colonialism. Worse, increasingly, national governments are trying to interfere with or control usage of the internet at the application layer. This is leading to an increasingly fragmented, costly, and repressive environment. One could call this tech nationalism, jurisdictional alignment, fragmentation or a digital neo-mercantilism. IGP has published numerous critiques of these pathologies. In this context, for JustNet and its partners to portray "regulation of big tech" as the salvation of the internet, and the UN's attempt to create a High Level MS Body as an entity with "overweening power" that "would help Big Tech resist effective regulation" is just laughable. First, the term 'overweening power' is used for Big Tech, and not the proposed High Level MS body. And if you do not think that Big Tech today has overweening power, which needs to be urgently regulated, it is you who is entirely out of touch with global intellectual, political, as well as public opinion. You are sitting lonesomely in some untenable libertarian ivory tower. But one thing I must commend you for is consistency. You responded to one of my emails years back in this very same space saying that you think 'social justice' is a meaningless term. So while consistent you might be, you are completely out of touch with contemporary digital reality. Internet, and those who were associated with it, were seen 20 years ago as representing counter power; today the Internet is controlled by those who represent the most pernicious incumbent power. Counters have now to be developed to this entrenched and fast expanding power. If 'your' internet governance is not taking note of this -- what is happening just outside your window -- it is you who is stuck in some 20 year old realities, not the organisations that developed and supported this campaign letter. I do not see how anyone with any deep knowledge of IG can take it seriously. It has very little relevance to contemporary problems of IG. Your IG knowledge has perhaps gone too deep - so deep that you may be alone wallowing there in the deep, in a manner very irrelevant to contemporary problems of IG. Although, your no doubt incisive and well written analyses -- however besides the point mostly -- do often provide very good cover to contemporary 'bad' digital forces. And therefore they get lapped up. Like this current email of yours is doing great favours to the shapers and supporters of the Digital Cooperation High Level MS Body, who themselves have little to be able to present their case in a democratic-discursive way, in spaces like this public elist. Insofar as it has any substance, it seems to call for more nation-state based regulation of internet operations and content. But this is something that, from Trump's Great Firewall of America, to Russia's "sovereign" Internet, to Europe's NIS2, to India's app blocking and censorship, to China's insulated internet, we already have plenty of. And we are getting more and it seems to be making things worse. There has to be a limit to the Libertarians' clever technique to continue quoting the undoubted statist excesses vis a vis the digital to keep at bay appropriate regulation of Big Tech, and also the needed national policies to escape the coming bi-polar US-China's complete digital and AI domination of the word. State's undue power has to be resisted at the same time as a rule of law has to be established and applied for governing non-state bad actors. By the way, has anyone at JustNet noticed that Facebook is joining them in their call for more internet regulation at the national level? Think about the implications of that for a moment: https://about.fb.com/regulations/ If you read the letter, you can see that they obtained the support of all these organization - very few of whom actually focus on Internet or ICT governance For you Internet governance is about core technical systems of the Internet/ digital. For everyone else, its scope and meaning is fast expanding outwards, getting closer to the points and manners of the real-life impacts of the digital. There are of course organisations in this list of 170 plus organisations that deal centrally with digital governance, but then many others that are looking at platform/data/AI governance in relation to food and agriculture, health, education, trade, gender relations, labour, and so on. There is one that is a chief port-of-call for developing country governments on e-commerce issues in trade deals (btw, much of IG today is done in and through trade deals), another is represented in a new data working group of the World Committee on Food security of FAO, a third is developing health data principles, another working on feminist digital justice, another on how platforms use data to control dependent businesses, .... I can keep going, but you get the point. Should they all come to Prof Milton Mueller to get what Internet/ digital governance is!? It is perhaps time you go to them, if you have to keep 'your' IG relevant. - by equating the UN HLDC with the World Economic Forum. This is factually wrong, but it does succeed at throwing red meat in front of the anti-globalization activists from two decades ago. No one equated UN HLDC with the WEF. It is was another WEF we wont have such a problem. What we have shown is that UN HLDC represent the exact unfolding of a plan for global governance that WEF laid out 10 years back through its Global Redesign Imitative. And we provide exact quotations. Dont you see the difference? I have already described what these organisations are. You make fun of them at your own cost. Internet governance needs to be accomplished from the bottom up, and rely heavily on networked, non-hierarchical forms of governance. But not when OECD does it ... They are rich people and nations, mostly of the western civilisation, they know what they are doing, they have superior rights over the world! Please stop this colonial narrative. We need to protect and strengthen, not destroy or undermine, the organically developed internet institutions. When state-based, hierarchical interventions are necessary, they need to be carefully circumscribed and focused to address real problems that cannot be handled in any other way, such as crime, fraud, and coercion. Your libertarian definition of the scope of Internet/ digital governance! Sorry, developing countries at least cannot agree. For us economic issues, regulating Big Tech, developing domestic digital industry, etc are all very important. The UN should stop trying to become a centerpoint of global internet governance and continue to serve as a place for dialogue and network building. Go first tell this to your country and the OECD... Meanwhile, further discussion is very welcome. Regards, parminder Dr. Milton L Mueller Georgia Institute of Technology School of Public Policy [IGP_logo_gold block] From: Governance On Behalf Of parminder via Governance Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2021 12:30 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [Governance] 170 orgs send an open letter to UN SG to stop plans for a new High Level Multistakeholder Body The open letter was sent to the official consultation process, signed by more than 170 organisations. It was titled ""More than 170 Civil Society Groups Worldwide Oppose Plans for a Big Tech Dominated Body for Global Digital Governance" . Please see the final statement and endorsements at https://justnetcoalition.org/big-tech-governing-big-tech.pdf . It was also translated into Spanish, French, German and Dutch. All versions are linked from the enclosed document We had just 3 days to get sign ons, out of which 2 were weekend days. In the circumstances, the number is quite good. It shows the groundswell to opposition to this move. Thanks to everyone who supported this. We will now get this letter also sent directly to the UN SG and his new Tech Envoy. We will like to keep this campaign open for some time to get additional support and build awareness ... This ongoing campaign is just a start, much more needs to be done and will be done to stop this assault on democracy and on possibilities of effective regulation of Big Tech. We will be doing all it takes, including engaging with governments. We will follow a twin track: develop a powerful movement within civil society groups, and engage with governments and the UN. Will keep you posted. Best regards parminder On 05/03/21 2:15 pm, parminder via Governance wrote: Dear All This is an open letter to the UN Secretary General initiated by 16 global and national level civil society networks and organisations urging him to shelve plans for a High Level Multistakeholder Body which, if set up, can be expected to become the default apex global digital governance and policy body. This body is proposed to have a private funding model, with strong hints also at a 'pay to play' model. It is but obvious that Big Tech will come to dominate any such body. Quoting from the letter: Not only in developing countries but also in the US and EU, calls for stronger regulation of Big Tech are rising. At the precise point when we should be shaping global norms to regulate Big Tech, plans have emerged for an 'empowered' global digital governance body that will evidently be dominated by Big Tech. Adding vastly to its already overweening power, this new Body would help Big Tech resist effective regulation, globally and at national levels. Indeed, we face the unbelievable prospect of 'a Big Tech led body for Global Governance of Big Tech'. Two technical annexes to the open letter explain the background of the matter in considerable detail. This letter is open for endorsements, which can be done by writing an email to secretariat at justnetcoalition.org or filling this form before midnight PST (GMT-8) of the 7th of March. Please also do circulate to other groups and networks where it may attract interest. The open letter may also be accessed at https://justnetcoalition.org/big-tech-governing-big-tech.pdf French text is at : https://justnetcoalition.org/big-tech-governing-big-tech-french.pdf and Spanish version at - https://justnetcoalition.org/big-tech-governing-big-tech-spanish.pdf Please let us know if you have any questions or comments regarding the above. Best, parminder -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.png Type: image/png Size: 18385 bytes Desc: image003.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image004.png Type: image/png Size: 22318 bytes Desc: image004.png URL: From joly at punkcast.com Fri Mar 26 09:26:40 2021 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2021 09:26:40 -0400 Subject: [Governance] WEBCAST TODAY: Accessible Banking for the Blind in the 21st Century Message-ID: The 6th webinar in Accessibility SIG's COVID and Accessibility series, funded by a Beyond The Net grant. ISOC Live posted: "On Friday March 26th 2021 from 1300-1430 UTC the Internet Society Accessibility Special Interest Group presents a webinar 'Accessible Banking for the Blind in the 21st Century: Experience Sharing from the Developed and Developing Countries', which will br" [image: livestream] On *Friday March 26th 2021* from *1300-1430 UTC* the *Internet Society Accessibility Special Interest Group * presents a webinar '*Accessible Banking for the Blind in the 21st Century: Experience Sharing from the Developed and Developing Countries *', which will bring experts and users from around different parts of the world together to discuss the challenges that people with visual impairment/blindness face particularly with regards to the banking system. *SPEAKERS* *Judith Hellerstein*, Secretary ISOC Accessibility SIG *Majid Khan*, USA *Vashkar Bhattacharjee*, Bangladesh *Abdul Qadir*, Jordan *Abdul Busuulwa*, Uganda *Imran Shaikh*, Pakistan *Gerry Ellis*, Ireland *Anatoliy Popko*, Russia *MODERATOR* *Muhammad Shabbir Awan* (President, ISOC Accessibility SIG) *LIVESTREAM **http://livestream.com/internetsociety/a11ysigcovid6* (Open Captions ) *PARTICIPATE VIA ZOOM http://bit.ly/a11ysig6 *(Closed Captions) *REAL TIME TEXT https://www.streamtext.net/player?event=CFI-A11YSIG * *TWITTER #accessibility #Covid19 #a11y @a11ySIG @InternetSociety* *SIMULCASTS* *https://www.pscp.tv/ISOC_Live/ * *https://www.twitch.tv/isoclive * *ARCHIVE* *https://archive.org/details/a11ysigcovid6 * *Permalink* https://isoc.live/13884/ - -- -------------------------------------- Joly MacFie +12185659365 -------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joly at punkcast.com Fri Mar 26 18:01:45 2021 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2021 18:01:45 -0400 Subject: [Governance] SIMULCAST: ICANN 70 Public Forum Message-ID: This was yesterday. I have corrected and formatted the transcript -- might come in useful if you still have gaps in your ICANN 70 Bingo card! Note that I spelled sub pro as two words, Sub Pro. ISOC Live posted: "On Thursday March 25 2021 the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) held the Public Forum at ICANN 70 Virtual Community Forum. LIVESTREAM http://livestream.com/internetsociety/icann70pf TWITTER #ICANN70 SIMULCASTS https://youtu" [image: livestream] On *Thursday March 25 2021* the *Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers * (ICANN) held a *Public Forum * at* ICANN 70 Virtual Community Forum *. *LIVESTREAM http://livestream.com/internetsociety/icann70pf * *TWITTER #ICANN70 * *SIMULCASTS* *https://youtu.be/OFQysAgPOA0 * (ICANN) *https://www.pscp.tv/ISOC_Live/ * *https://www.twitch.tv/isoclive * *ARCHIVE* *https://archive.org/details/icann70pf * *Permalink* https://isoc.live/13896/ - -- -------------------------------------- Joly MacFie +12185659365 -------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From valeriab at apc.org Mon Mar 29 12:55:32 2021 From: valeriab at apc.org (Valeria Betancourt) Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2021 11:55:32 -0500 Subject: [Governance] GISWatch 2021 - Technology, the environment and a sustainable work: Perspectives from the Global South Message-ID: <0bedb135-8087-fc25-97a9-8ead6364d83d@apc.org> Dear all, We are very happy to be sharing with you the official "Sneak Peek" to the new edition of GISWatch on 'Technology, the environment and a sustainable work: Perspectives from the Global South'.  As we finalise details of the launch (which will be shared soon), we would like you to have a first look at the introduction and a selection of reports. You can access the Sneak Peek here: _https://www.apc.org/en/node/37228/_ You can also retweet the news from here: _https://twitter.com/APC_News/status/1376540573469904898_ We request that you kindly share this broadly with your network. More news to come soon! Best regards, Valeria -- Valeria Betancourt Directora / Manager Programa de Políticas de Information y Comunicación / Communication and Information Policy Programme Asociación para el Progreso de las Comunicaciones / Association for Progressive Communications, APC http://www.apc.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joly at punkcast.com Wed Mar 31 04:17:15 2021 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2021 04:17:15 -0400 Subject: [Governance] =?utf-8?q?WEBCAST_TODAY=3A_Encryption=2C_Cloud=2C_a?= =?utf-8?q?nd_the_GDPR_=E2=80=93_What_Is_The_Recipe_For_Survival=3F?= Message-ID: Encryption Europe are one of mISOC's partners in the Global Encryption Coalition - this is their third webinar of 2021. ISOC Live posted: "On Wednesday March 31 2021, at 10:00-11:00 CEST (08:00-09:00 UTC) Encryption Europe invites experts from Fair&Smart and Lybero to discuss how three crucial components will interact to protect the future of Europe: Encryption, the Cloud, and the GDPR. " On Wednesday March 31 2021, at 10:00-11:00 CEST (08:00-09:00 UTC)* Encryption Europe * invites experts from* Fair&Smart * and *Lybero * to discuss how three crucial components will interact to protect the future of *Europe: Encryption, the Cloud, and the GDPR* . The future is not as unpredictable as we may think. We know that the future of Europe relies on our capacity to innovate and keep innovation at home. We also know that people and businesses in Europe will care about the privacy and protection of their valuable data. And that cloud providers will play a crucial role in hosting our data at scale and cost-effectively. For all these reasons, we can safely say that our data will be processed in the cloud, under the legal safeguard of the GDPR, and enforced by strong encryption without backdoors. But there will be challenges for all organizations: from a technical point of view, how to handle encryption keys? how to handle backups and restoration? Is it compatible with web applications? And from a legal point of view: will our current processes and practices compatible with GDPR? how to protect data while allowing internal and external controls? PRESENTATION *Arnaud Laprêvote*, Lybero ROUNDTABLE *Eric Bedell*, Franklin Templeton *Xavier Lefevre*, CEO - Fair&Smart *Christophe Buschmann*, Commissioner - CNPD[image: livestream] *Arnaud Laprévote,* founder and CEO - Lybero MODERATOR *Jean-Christophe Le Toquin*, Coordinator, Encryption Europe *LIVESTREAM http://livestream.com/internetsociety/encrypteurope3 * *PARTICIPATE VIA ZOOM: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/8392012716 * *REAL TIME TEXT https://bit.ly/2PNSKeo * *TWITTER #EncryptEurope @EncryptEurope #GlobalEncryption #CyberSecurity #GDPR Arnaud Laprevote @Lybero_net Eric Bedell @FTI_Global Christophe Buschmann CNPD* *SIMULCASTS* *https://www.pscp.tv/ISOC_Live/ * *https://www.twitch.tv/isoclive * *ARCHIVE* *https://archive.org/details/encrypteurope3 * *Permalink* https://isoc.live/13903/ - -- -------------------------------------- Joly MacFie +12185659365 -------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Mar 31 08:07:10 2021 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2021 17:37:10 +0530 Subject: [Governance] 170 orgs send an open letter to UN SG to stop plans for a new High Level Multistakeholder Body In-Reply-To: References: <7795cc31-b355-8556-71d6-12e1d43e7ee9@itforchange.net> <02f04869-79ee-2cfd-55c2-323c59bbed4d@itforchange.net> <1559bbe8-369e-e603-066d-128368f15b3e@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On 23/03/21 11:09 pm, Mueller, Milton L wrote: > > All: > >   > > As I stated earlier, I think this dialogue is worth having, even if > most of Parminder's arguments are weak and the neoMarxist ideology > underlying them have been proven time and again to lead to stunted > economic development and authoritarian systems of governance. It is > worth having because it deals with the fundamentals of internet governance > I begin from this point of agreement that the issues here deal "with the fundamentals if internal governance". I will come later, or in another email, to my own name calling about what ideologies your arguments espouse so as not the distract from the most important parts of this discussion. Indeed, Milton, I was very much looking forward to your response but am quite disappointed by it. You have very little to argue beyond "you  like China, want ...", which is a pretty silly level to debate about what you yourself agree are issues dealing with the fundamentals of Internet governance. I did not think I would need to argue, that too with a prof of public policy, such well-established principles of public governance and policy making in general, and global levels of them in particular, like what are the canons of funding public governance and policy making, and what indeed is the current role of global governance as we know it. >   > > You say it is "unacceptable that such an apex policy body will have > corporation and government nominees sitting as equals." So, let's be > clear: you are rejecting the multistakeholder principle and advocating > for a traditional intergovernmental arrangement of the sort favored by > authoritarian states. Their preference has always been to exclude the > private sector and civil society from direct participation and make IG > a governments-only game. Your attempt to revive the long-dead > "enhanced cooperation" process pushes in that direction as well. > You have most conveniently avoided the matter of OCED's CDEP (committee on digital economy policy) entirely, when it was a big and one of the most important part of my email. I have deliberately and persistently stuck to a clear 'object of interest' because otherwise we can keep going in circles accusing each other in abstract terms, as you again do here, that I am 'rejecting the multistakeholder principle'  My email was clear, I not only fully accept the multistakeholder model that OECD employs for its digital policy making, I and the networks that I work with have officially sought as 'the exact same model'  for the global or the UN level, and developing countries have officially sought in UN committees and the UN GA 'the exact same model'  for the global or the UN level .... How many times do I need to say the same thing, and you do everything other than engage it. Lets see if you'd do any better in your next email! OCED calls its processes of public policy making as a multistakeholder model ( I had provided a link to an OECD doc explicitly saying this), ISOC calls it as a multistakeholder model (can provide link) .... So, if this is the multistakeholder model for supra-national Internet/ digital policy making, then you are clearly wrong; no I do not reject the multistakeholder principle. I indeed advocate it for the global/ UN level But if you have some other multistakeholder model in your mind for supra-national Internet/ digital policy making, please come out with it and I can tell you whether I support it or not. I cannot make it any clearer!? And sure enough, you consistently refuse to let us know why you support the OECD's CDEP's policy work, but wont support a similar (exact cut paste) model at the global level, and how doing that is not a colonial attitude? I still look forward to your response to this central question. >   > > You also object to the use of private sector funding, allegedly > because this will corrupt the process. While it is true that, say, an > entity funded entirely by Microsoft or Facebook would be biased and > problematic, I am curious as to why you have no similar concerns about > governmental funding. Are you saying that the U.S., China, Russia, the > UK or European Union are entirely selfless, virtuous entities with no > special interests they would push? Are you saying that nation-states > never support or withhold support for UN agencies based on their > politics? Maybe you have forgotten about the recent US withdrawal from > WHO? Or the infiltration of the UN Human Rights Council by states that > want to suppress discussion of HR violations? > As a professor of public policy you surely know that public policy functions cannot - repeat cannot -- be funded by private funds. At the global level, public funds are the proportionate contributions that countries make to the UN fund. I remain fully and consistency of the view that any UN based global public policy functions can and should only be funded from this pool of funds. In the same way as it will be scandalous to involve private funding for any public policy function in the US.  Or do you disagree? Even for supra-national level policy making, lets take the OECD example again .. Let some of guys who freely advocate that  global level public policy making (because it invokes those poor, undependable, developing countries) should be based on corporate funding, try and suggest any such thing for the OECD public policy processes.... I challenge you, just even try write a letter suggesting that, and you know what ridicule you'd subject to ....... So, are these things only reserved for poor, undependable, developing countries?  This is why your approach is colonial, no less. I am just about resting uttering the word racist -- but if you read the literature related to colonialism, racism runs through it. >   > > Note that it is overwhelmingly private sector funding and operation > that built the internet and keeps it going. Are you proposing a return > to the state-owned PTTs of the 19^th and early 20^th century? They > have a pretty poor record, both in terms of development and rights. > Ah! One wonders if one is doing this discussion with a professor of public policy!This was the principle of feudal political system -- ownership of means of production also ipso facto gave one political power. The republican-democratic tradition have tried to separate these two key realms of power -- and the whole republican-democratic institutional system is based on this cardinal principle. And here a US prof of public policy is not able to distinguish between talking about the actors involved in economic production in a sector, and those who should do public policy for it! This is almost depressing. But lets go past theory, and take an example. Big pharma controls almost all health related production -- medicines, equipment, etc....  Is that a good reason whereby big pharma should legitimately dominate health policy making at the US and the global level? Fund it, have its reps in decision making positions, etc. I am very eager to know your views on this. Thanks. >   > > Fact of the matter is, if IGF - even in its current form - is going to > survive, it is going to need money, and whoever provides that money is > going to see it as in their interests in some way. Ergo, drawing on > diverse private sector resources in addition to UN's governmental > budget or governmental sources can actually improve its independence > and quality. > Id ask the same questions (however shocking your views are to me, esp as coming from a prof of public policy). Would you advocate such diversity of funding, tapping into private sector funding, for digital and health policy processes in the US? And, in the OECD?   Be brave, and let your views be known clearly. Otherwise, the accusation of a colonial mindset will be well-deserved. >   > > More broadly, the corporations who would most likely be tapped do not > have common interests, which I am sure you know if you have been > paying any attention to the Apple-Google-Microsoft-Facebook-Tiktok > disputes). > A trite formulation ((btw, big pharma's interests too diverge internally).... It is perhaps you who do not pay attention to where all the interests of these digital corporations actually converge -- which elements also mostly involve the greatest divergence from wider public interest. > >   > > You assert that "a High level Multistakeholder Body for ‘Digital > Cooperation’...would become the de facto body for ‘global digital > governance’." This is either a tremendously ignorant or absurdly > demogogic statement. Just to take the three most significant power > centers, the US, the EU and China, all have active and powerful > antitrust authorities, who are engaged in a rather systematic assault > on the platforms. All three, plus India, have legal and regulatory > powers over data, privacy and so on, and are actively using them. With > the exception of the US, all have extensive censorship powers, and are > actively using them. All are partitioning the internet based on claims > of “national security.” All are asserting, or exercising, extra > territorial jurisdiction I various ways. > I am sorry, Milton, it is you who is tremendously ignorant about global governance. Since abstracts and concepts have not been making much headway with you, lets talk again in concrete examples. You have heard of 'global health governance', right ((google, if you have not)? The WHO is of course at the centre of it. Despite which all big nations you mention have their own health systems, like the never ending political debate in the US about its stupendously bad and inequitous health system. The WHO has had limited influence on these key health governance issues at the national level, but still WHO's global health governance is tremendously important and valuable. Are you getting the point? So you are basically tilting at self-created windmills, which just confuses the debate. There are powers of the nation state, and there is a role for global governance, and then also a continual contest between the two arenas as well. All this is well known, for anyone to get carried away by your rhetoric. >   > > If you are claiming that somehow a loose, weakly funded UN-based > multistakeholder alliance is going to negate or supersede these uses > of state power, you are really out of touch with the political and > economic realities of internet governance and have no business > accusing anyone of being in an ivory tower. > It is your ivory tower of some completely implausible Internet exceptionalism plus some radical libertarian notions that blinds you to simple well known facts of global governance as have been discussed above. What the new proposed MS body for digital governance makes incursions on is what could and should be a 'WHO of digital governance' and not so much on the power of the nation states to govern themselves. Although, as mentioned, a lot of work of norms making, soft law, etc does get undertaken even in this regard. And in time, in every sector, some harder agreements also do get signed by all.  All these can play a very important role in domestic governance . Where is the question here of negating or superseding uses of state power .  You are just creating your own imagined targets and then taking great pleasure in demolishing them! > >   > > Now let's consider your (quite vague) ideas about what should be done > instead. All you say is that you want a "a genuinely democratic system > for global digital governance, keeping vested corporate interests at > bay." It is evident that you, like the People Republic of China, mean > by "democratic" a multilateral system, one government one vote, in > which individuals have no role and the actual private sector owners > and operators of networks and applications are "kept at bay" and > regulated in a top-down manner by a collection of states. > As I said, I mean by democratic the system employed by the OECD for supra-national digital policy making. How many times I have to say it, to engage your engagement to that particular matter. There has to be a limit to how much the China boggie can be used in global digital governance discussions. Please try and find a better argument. > You have no idea how states with fundamental disagreements about > rights, law, political economy and economic policy will come to > agreement on how to do this, of course. > As someone who claims expertise in global governance matters, I would have expected you to know the history of how much agreement on rights, law, political economy and economic policy has actually been managed by UN based bodies over the last any decades. And btw if they could not do even more, the chief culprit is not China as much as the US (it not having even signed the covenant on social and economic rights). So if there is a 'China problem' for global governance, there is at least as big if not bigger 'US problem' too. But we are managing somehow, arent we... Including with a global Internet domain and routing logic system which is managed by a body subject entirely to the US law, and considerably to its executive power too. Democratic global governance is a work in progress. But regressions, as this proposal for the MS body at the apex of global digital governance, are certainty to resisted stoutly. > >   > > So I am sorry, I fail to see anything in your letter other than > posturing, raising the spectre of a huge and powerful > corporate-dominated entity in order to mobilize a bunch of fringe > groups into another anti-capitalist diatribe. > I did not know it was capitalist for corporates to fund, and run, public policy functions! I had a much better view of capitalism. Anyway, it does you no credit to call some prime organisations that lead global movements  in areas as diverse as media and education to health, labour, environment and gender  as a bunch of fringe groups. But, entirely your choice! These organisations certainly know much more about global governance than you seem to know. Even beyond formal matters about appropriate global governance -- which alone is the subject of the campaign letter,, even for substantive digital policy issues, the interest and involvement of these groups is very important as the real impact of the digital, and its governance (or not) is felt principally in all these different sectors. As for how well people like you, IGP, and many other organisations, that have been involved with IG for long, have been able to represent and serve the interests of those outside these charmed circles was well demonstrated during the .org sale controversy. But about that at some other time.  regards, parminder >   > > Best regards, > >   > > Dr. Milton L Mueller > > Georgia Institute of Technology > > School of Public Policy > > IGP_logo_gold block > >   > >   > > *From:*parminder > *Sent:* Monday, March 22, 2021 7:51 AM > *To:* Mueller, Milton L ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org > *Subject:* Re: [Governance] 170 orgs send an open letter to UN SG to > stop plans for a new High Level Multistakeholder Body > >   > >   > > On 22/03/21 2:15 am, Mueller, Milton L wrote: > >   > > I’ve looked over the letter and am not impressed; > > Milton, thanks for responding, even though you find the Digital > Cooperation initiative irrelevant. This is certainly much better than > what many here who are actively engaged with shaping and pushing this > initiative have bothered to do. I hope they also express their > response and views. > > not with the argument it presents nor with the astroturfed list of > 170 organizations. > > So you find the active involvement and support of global organisations > that are, for instance, the primary global networks of grassroots > organisations in areas like health, education, food security, and > conservation; top global trade unions; top global organisations > working on gender justice, and global trade; some of the most > prominent global development NGOs; as astroturfing? The most prominent > among these, if not members of Just Net Coalition, are actually in > active partnerships with the JNC on Internet/ digital governance > issues. And mind you, this is the support we got over just 3 days > which unfortunately included a weekend -- owing to a deadline for > submitting comments to the UN process. > > You dismiss them as some irrelevant anti-globalisation organisations > and activists from two decades ago; losers, perhaps, who lap up any > global campaign letter thrown at them for getting their names printed > on it! > > I reckon then that real people's perspectives and representation in > Internet/digital governance matters should come from from a certain > professorial chair at Syracuse University in the US, or it is that you > have now shifted to somewhere in Georgia. > > A group of around 20 prominent global organisations and networks, > having prepared this letter, are currently collaborating over an > e-list for follow-ups, including establishing contacts with people > inside the UN, government delegates etc, apart from spreading the > message wider among CS groups and engaging them.. And this is outside > the Just Net Coalition, JNC being just a participant in this > collaboration.  > > This should puncture the pompous arrogance with which you typically > come to such matters, and we can move now to more substantive matters. > See in-line. > >   > > We at IGP have largely, and deliberately, ignored the UN’s > initiatives around so-called High Level > > Digital Cooperation. Not because we think it is leading in a bad > direction or is part of an evil capitalist plot, nor do we think > the people promoting it are badly motivated. We just think it is > mostly irrelevant. It is founded on model of governance that is > unrealistic and unlikely to have any impact on the internet (or > platforms, which is not the same as the internet). > >   > > The Internet consists of 70,000 autonomous systems using a common > layer 3 and 4 protocol to communicate. Key elements of the > internet infrastructure are governed by what we call the > Organically Developed Internet institutions, such as IETF > (standards), ICANN (domain names) the Regional Internet Registries > (IP addressing) and cooperative action among network operators > (routing, interconnection). > >   > > Because the internet has created a globalized space for > communication, many new problems and new forms of governance are > evolving at the transnational layer that go well beyond critical > internet resources. They affect issues areas such as > cybersecurity, content moderation, and privacy. > > So, you have defined Internet/ digital governance to be the technical > governance of the Internet plus largely these three areas involving a > digital version of libertarian minimal state. You do not consider, for > instance, data, AI or platform regulation, especially the distributive > issues involved therein, as Internet/digital governance, right. You > have the right to your definitions of Internet/ digital governance, > but it is evident that the world overwhelming disagrees with you, > including the IGF (see its program). > >   > > Some of these transnational initiatives are, in our opinion, > praiseworthy; others are not. But it is both unlikely and > undesirable for them to be consolidated or centralized in the > hands of a single global body, whether it is called > “multistakeholder” or “intergovernmental.” No such body is going > to be able to have the power or the expertise or the widespread > legitimacy and participation to address all these areas. Only a > dialogue forum is possible at the IGF level.   > > Two responses to this: One, lets consider the WHO; It really cannot be > considered as global health governance being 'consolidated or > centralized in the hands of a single global body' . But it still does > very useful norms and standards setting work, develops global legal > instruments, as required and possible, develops and coordinates > frameworks of responses and other programmatic action, does neutral > public interest global research and capacity development, and so on. > WHO's existence has been extremely useful, and has not impeded other > transnational initiatives This is true of UN global governance bodies > in all areas. Digital is more inherently global than any other sector. > So, why would a similar body for Internet/ digital governance not also > be useful. > > Second: But if in any case you still remain absolutely opposed to a > cross-sectoral, apex, digital policy and governance body, and I have > been raising this same issue for at least 12-13 years now, why you > never oppose the OECD's Committee on Digital Economy Policy (CDEP)? In > the name of the body, 'Economy'  is there only for forms sake. This > committee shapes digital policy in all areas, from principles for tech > architecture, to platforms and content, to data and AI. Why do OECD > needs a transnational, single digital governance body, when you so > strongly oppose such a body at the global level. I have raised this > issue often, and at one time when you could not avoid responding, you > dismissed this body as a capacity building body, which is of course an > untruth. OECD committees do go as far as developing legal instruments > . > > > The latest initiative of the CDEP is on government access to data held > by the private sector > . > The likely outcomes could be a document of policy principles but it > could even be a legal instrument. Since digital policy making is a > cross-sectoral work, CDEP often works in collaboration with other OECD > Committees towards different ends. For instance, it worked with the > Committee on Health to develop Health Data Principles > . > A very appropriate kind of output, and done in the right way too. > Similarly a UN body on digital governance -- while all countries and > not just the richest ones are represented  -- should work with the WHO > to develop global Health Data Principles. In default of an UN > Internet/ digital governance body, OECD's norms, principles and > policies become the default global one. > > But here you develop cold feet... OECD committees should keep > functioning and rolling out global governance norms, principles and > policies, but not any UN body. That is not needed, any such thing is > completely relevant. This is plainly a colonial attitude. It is a pity > that in the global Internet/ digital governance space one can openly > do such a thing. It normally does not happen elsewhere, in global > civil society spaces. > > You are from the US, why dont you advocate to the OECD, where your gov > sits,  to cede its one-point cross-sectoral digital norms/ policy > work, and abolish the body specifically made for this purpose? What > right do you have to tell the rest of the world to not do it? I > repeat, it is plain and simple colonialism. > >   > > Worse, increasingly, national governments are trying to interfere > with or control usage of the internet at the application layer. > This is leading to an increasingly fragmented, costly, and > repressive environment. One could call this tech nationalism, > jurisdictional alignment, fragmentation or a digital > neo-mercantilism. IGP has published numerous critiques of these > pathologies. > >   > > In this context, for JustNet and its partners to portray > “regulation of big tech” as the salvation of the internet, and the > UN’s attempt to create a High Level MS Body as an entity with > “overweening power” that “would help Big Tech resist effective > regulation” is just laughable. > > First, the term 'overweening power' is used for Big Tech, and not the > proposed High Level MS body. And if you do not think that Big Tech > today has overweening power, which needs to be urgently regulated, it > is you who is entirely out of touch with global intellectual, > political, as well as public opinion. You are sitting lonesomely in > some untenable libertarian ivory tower. But one thing I must commend > you for is consistency. You responded to one of my emails years back > in this very same space saying that you think 'social justice' is a > meaningless term. So while consistent you might be, you are completely > out of touch with contemporary digital reality. Internet, and those > who were associated with it, were seen 20 years ago as representing > counter power; today the Internet is controlled by those who represent > the most pernicious incumbent power. Counters have now to be developed > to this entrenched and fast expanding power. If 'your' internet > governance is not taking note of this -- what is happening just > outside your window -- it is you who is stuck in some 20 year old > realities, not the organisations that developed and supported this > campaign letter.  > > I do not see how anyone with any deep knowledge of IG can take it > seriously. It has very little relevance to contemporary problems > of IG. > > Your IG knowledge has perhaps gone too deep - so deep that you may be > alone wallowing there in the deep, in a manner very irrelevant to > contemporary problems of IG. Although, your no doubt incisive and well > written analyses -- however besides the point mostly -- do often > provide very good cover to contemporary 'bad' digital forces. And > therefore they get lapped up. Like this current email of yours is > doing great favours to the shapers and supporters of the Digital > Cooperation High Level MS Body, who themselves have little to be able > to present their case in a democratic-discursive way, in spaces like > this public elist. > >   > > Insofar as it has any substance, it seems to call for more > nation-state based regulation of internet operations and content. >  But this is something that, from Trump’s Great Firewall of > America, to Russia’s “sovereign” Internet, to Europe’s NIS2, to > India’s app blocking and censorship, to China’s insulated > internet, we already have plenty of. And we are getting more and > it seems to be making things worse. > > There has to be a limit to the Libertarians' clever technique to > continue quoting the undoubted statist excesses vis a vis the digital > to keep at bay appropriate regulation of Big Tech, and also the needed > national policies to escape the coming bi-polar US-China's complete > digital and AI domination of the word. State's undue power has to be > resisted at the same time as a rule of law has to be established and > applied for governing non-state bad actors. > >   > > By the way, has anyone at JustNet noticed that Facebook is joining > them in their call for more internet regulation at the national > level? Think about the implications of that for a moment: > https://about.fb.com/regulations/ > > > >   > > If you read the letter, you can see that they obtained the support > of all these organization – very few of whom actually focus on > Internet or ICT governance > > For you Internet governance is about core technical systems of the > Internet/ digital. For everyone else, its scope and meaning is fast > expanding outwards, getting closer to the points and manners of the > real-life impacts of the digital. There are of course organisations in > this list of 170 plus organisations that deal centrally with digital > governance, but then many others that are looking at platform/data/AI > governance in relation to food and agriculture, health, education, > trade, gender relations, labour, and so on. There is one that is a > chief port-of-call for developing country governments on e-commerce > issues in trade deals (btw, much of IG today is done in and through > trade deals), another is represented in a new data working group of > the World Committee on Food security of FAO, a third is developing > health data principles, another working on feminist digital justice, > another on how platforms use data to control dependent businesses, > .... I can keep going, but you get the point. > > Should they all come to Prof Milton Mueller to get what Internet/ > digital governance is!? It is perhaps time you go to them, if you have > to keep 'your' IG relevant. > >   > > – by equating the UN HLDC with the World Economic Forum. This is > factually wrong, but it does succeed at throwing red meat in front > of the anti-globalization activists from two decades ago. > > No one equated UN HLDC with the WEF. It is was another WEF we wont > have such a problem. What we have shown is that UN HLDC represent the > exact unfolding of a plan for global governance that WEF laid out 10 > years back through its Global Redesign Imitative. And we provide exact > quotations. Dont you see the difference?  > > I have already described what these organisations are. You make fun of > them at your own cost. > >   > > Internet governance needs to be accomplished from the bottom up, > and rely heavily on networked, non-hierarchical forms of governance. > >   > > But not when  OECD does it ... They are rich people and nations, > mostly of the western civilisation, they know what they are doing, > they have superior rights over the world! Please stop this colonial > narrative.   > >   > > We need to protect and strengthen, not destroy or undermine, the > organically developed internet institutions. When state-based, > hierarchical interventions are necessary, they need to be > carefully circumscribed and focused to address real problems that > cannot be handled in any other way, such as crime, fraud, and > coercion. > > Your libertarian definition of the scope of Internet/ digital > governance! Sorry, developing countries at least cannot agree. For us > economic issues, regulating Big Tech, developing domestic digital > industry, etc are all very important. > >   > > > > The UN should stop trying to become a centerpoint of global > internet governance and continue to serve as a place for dialogue > and network building. > > Go first tell this to your country and the OECD... > > Meanwhile, further discussion is very welcome. > > Regards, parminder > >   > >   > >   > > Dr. Milton L Mueller > > Georgia Institute of Technology > > School of Public Policy > > IGP_logo_gold block > >   > >   > >   > >   > > *From:*Governance > *On Behalf Of > *parminder via Governance > *Sent:* Saturday, March 13, 2021 12:30 AM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > *Subject:* [Governance] 170 orgs send an open letter to UN SG to > stop plans for a new High Level Multistakeholder Body > >   > > The open letter was sent to the official consultation process, > signed by more than 170 organisations. > > It was titled "“More than 170 Civil Society Groups Worldwide > Oppose Plans for a Big Tech Dominated Body for Global Digital > Governance” . > > Please see the final statement and endorsements at > > https://justnetcoalition.org/big-tech-governing-big-tech.pdf >   > .  > >   > > It was also translated into Spanish, French, German and Dutch. All > versions are linked from the enclosed document > >   > > We had just 3 days to get sign ons, out of which 2 were weekend > days. In the circumstances, the number is quite good. It shows the > groundswell to opposition to this move. Thanks to everyone who > supported this. > >   > > We will now get this letter also sent directly to the UN SG and > his new Tech Envoy. > >   > > We will like to keep this campaign open for some time to get > additional support and build awareness ... > >   > > This ongoing campaign is just a start, much more needs to be done > and will be done to stop this assault on democracy and on > possibilities of effective regulation of Big Tech. We will be > doing all it takes, including engaging with governments. > >   > > We will follow a twin track: develop a powerful movement within > civil society groups, and engage with governments and the UN. > >   > > Will keep you posted. > >   > > Best regards > > parminder > > On 05/03/21 2:15 pm, parminder via Governance wrote: > > Dear All > > This is anopen letter to the UN Secretary General > > initiated by 16 global and national level civil society > networks and organisations urging him to shelve plans for a > High Level Multistakeholder Body which, if set up, can be > expected to become the default apex global digital governance > and policy body. This body is proposed to have a private > funding model, with strong hints also at a 'pay to play' > model. It is but obvious that Big Tech will come to dominate > any such body. > > Quoting from the letter: > > /Not only in developing countries but also in the US and > EU, calls for stronger regulation of Big Tech are rising. > At the precise point when we should be shaping global > norms to regulate Big Tech, plans have emerged for an > ‘empowered’ global digital governance body that will > evidently be dominated by Big Tech. Adding vastly to its > already overweening power, this new Body would help Big > Tech resist effective regulation, globally and at national > levels. Indeed, we face the unbelievable prospect of ‘*a > Big Tech led body for Global Governance of Big Tech’*./ > >  Two technical annexes to the open letter explain the > background of the matter in considerable detail. > > *This letter is open for endorsements, *which can be done by > writing an email to _secretariat at justnetcoalition.org > _or filling _this > form > _before > midnight PST (GMT-8) of the 7^th of March. > >   > > Please also do circulate to other groups and networks where it > may attract interest. > >   > > The open letter may also be accessed at > https://justnetcoalition.org/big-tech-governing-big-tech.pdf > > >   > > French text is at : > https://justnetcoalition.org/big-tech-governing-big-tech-french.pdf > > and Spanish version at - > https://justnetcoalition.org/big-tech-governing-big-tech-spanish.pdf > > > >   > > Please let us know if you have any questions or comments > regarding the above. > >   > > Best, parminder > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.png Type: image/png Size: 18385 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image004.png Type: image/png Size: 22318 bytes Desc: not available URL: From joly at punkcast.com Wed Mar 31 11:46:23 2021 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2021 11:46:23 -0400 Subject: [Governance] WEBCAST: Digital Watch Internet Governance Briefing March 2021 Message-ID: This was a restream earlier today of yesterday's GIP briefing. It's downloadable in the archive, including audio and uncorrected Otter text. Interesting, for those who care about such things, to compare the Otter AI to the Rev that Diplo are now using. ISOC Live posted: "On Wednesday March 31 2021 at 13:00 UTC ISOC LIVE will restream the Digital Watch Internet Governance Briefing for March 2021. Catch up on the major internet governance and digital policy updates from all around the globe and join our experts as they anal" [image: livestream] On *Wednesday March 31 2021* at *13:00 UTC ISOC LIVE * will restream the *Digital Watch Internet Governance Briefing for March 2021 *. Catch up on the major internet governance and digital policy updates from all around the globe and join our experts as they analyse the existing and emerging policy trends. Special feature this month is Ambassador *Jürg Lauber*, Chair of the *UN Open-ended Working Group (OEWG) on Developments in the Field of ICTs in the Context of International Security *, talking about the process that led to its '*Final Substantive Report *' issued on March 10 2021. *PRESENTERS* *Jürg Lauber*, PR Switzerland *Stephanie Borg Psaila*, Diplo *Katarina Andjelkovic*, Diplo *Jovan Kurbalija*, Diplo *Andrijana Gavrilovic*, Diplo *Marco Lotti*, Diplo *Amrita Choudhry* *Hanane Boujemi* *Grace Mtung'u* *Ana Maria Corrêa* *MODERATORS* *Vladimir Radunovic*, Diplo *Su Sonia Herring*, Diplo *LIVESTREAM https://livestream.com/internetsociety/gipdw03-21 * *REAL TIME TEXT https://bit.ly/3rDVVT0 * *TWITTER #thegip @GenevaGIP* *SIMULCASTShttps://www.pscp.tv/ISOC_Live/ https://www.twitch.tv/isoclive https://www.facebook.com/isocny/live * *ARCHIVEhttps://archive.org/details/gipdw03-21 * *Permalink* https://isoc.live/13908/ - -- -------------------------------------- Joly MacFie +12185659365 -------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joly at punkcast.com Wed Mar 31 13:25:24 2021 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2021 13:25:24 -0400 Subject: [Governance] =?utf-8?q?WEBCAST_TODAY=3A_Niejelow_Rodin_Global_Di?= =?utf-8?q?gital_Futures_Policy_Forum_Session_2_=E2=80=93_fireside_?= =?utf-8?q?chat_with_Brad_Smith?= Message-ID: ISOC LIVE has webcast every Digital Futures Forum since it was founded in 2016. This year it's a somewhat piecemeal event, and we'll be bring you more as it happens.. Meanwhile, enjoy the thoughts of President Brad. Microsoft is, of course, an Internet Society organizational member . ISOC Live posted: "Today, Wednesday March 31 2021 at 1pm EDT (17:00 UTC) the Columbia University School of International and Public Affairs (SIPA) presents the second session of the 2021 Niejelow Rodin Global Digital Futures Policy Forum. Dean Merit E. Janow will sit down f" [image: livestream] Today, *Wednesday March 31 2021* at *1pm EDT* (17:00 UTC) the *Columbia University School of International and Public Affairs * (SIPA) presents the second session of the* 2021 Niejelow Rodin Global Digital Futures Policy Forum *. Dean* Merit E. Janow* will sit down for a fireside chat with *Brad Smith*, President of Microsoft, on his latest book* Tools and Weapons: The Promise and the Peril of the Digital Age *. *LIVESTREAM* *http://livestream.com/internetsociety/sipa-gdf2021-2 * *REAL TIME TEXT https://bit.ly/3sGnuMT * *TWITTER: #SIPADigitalFutures https://bit.ly/sipadigitalfutures @BradSmi* *@ColumbiaSIPA* *SIMULCASTS* *https://www.pscp.tv/ISOC_Live/ * *https://www.twitch.tv/isocny/live * *https://www.facebook.com/InternetSociety/live * *ARCHIVE* *https://archive.org/details/sipa-gdf2021-2 * *Permalink* https://isoc.live/13912/ -- -------------------------------------- Joly MacFie +12185659365 -------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: