From anriette at apc.org Mon Nov 1 06:02:42 2021 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2021 12:02:42 +0200 Subject: [Governance] Today at 12:00 UTC - Opening of the IGF preparatory and engagement phase In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0f5478ea-061b-80a4-fefc-c11a0c3adc7f@apc.org> Please join! You need to first register at https://www.intgovforum.org/en/content/igf-2021-registration IGF 2021 – Official Opening of the IGF 2021 Preparatory and Engagement Phase - Introductory Session I * *Session*(active tab) Time Monday, 1st November, 2021 (14:00 SAST) About this Session *Join Here * /Facilitated by MAG Issue Teams/ *IGF 2021 – Official Opening of the IGF 2021 Preparatory and Engagement Phase* *- IGF 2021 Preparatory Sessions on (i) Universal access and meaningful connectivity and (ii) Economic and social inclusion and human rights -* *Introducing IGF 2021 issue areas - 12:00 UTC* * Keynote address by David Souter, Managing Director, ICT Development Associates; Member, UK IGF Organising Committee * Overview of the issue areas * Strategic goals for IGF 2021 * Discussion *Main challenges associated with the main focus areas * The main goal is to**refine the scope of these issues with input from the perspective of different regions and stakeholder groups; and to establish a common ground on expectations for IGF 2021 outcomes. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ />>Twitter Comments for this Session: /*/#IGF2021 #UAMCIntr/o*/>>/ *PART I [12:30-14:00 UTC]* *Universal Access and Meaningful Connectivity ‎* This preparatory session will offer attendees an introduction to the policy issue area of ‎Universal Access & Meaningful Connectivity (UAMC), one of two Main Focus areas of the ‎IGF2021, as well as a preview of related IGF programming.  The session will feature discussion ‎on developing meaningful access to Internet infrastructure where there is none, for example ‎through innovative business models and the creation and maintenance of community networks, ‎as well as key topics relating to accessibility and use of the Internet, such as Universal ‎Acceptance, content in one’s own language, and digital skill-building.  All interested are ‎welcome, and organizers and speakers in UAMC sessions planned for IGF2021 are particularly ‎encouraged to attend, in order to foster early connections and exchange in preparation for the ‎hybrid event in December.‎ *Agenda* *Introduction - 5 minutes‎ - Sylvia Cadena (Moderator) *Scene-Setting Remarks - 8 minutes‎ - Sonia Jorge *Universal Access to Infrastructure – 15 minutes •Community networks and capacity building, Carlos Baca •Access to spectrum, Adriana Labardini *Q&A - 10 minutes‎ *Accessibility - 15 minutes‎ •Topic 1 – Domain names as a navigation tool for other languages, Edmon Chung •Topic 2 – Applications/content in underserved languages, Chenai Chair *Q&A - 10 minutes *How do universal access to infrastructure and accessibility relate to each other? - 15 minutes – All panelist discussion *Conclusion - 5 minutes‎ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ /30-Minute Break/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ />>Twitter Comments for this Session: /*/#IGF2021 #ESIHRIntr/o*/>>/ *PART II [14:30-16:00 UTC]* *Economic and social inclusion and human rights* While the topic of economic and social inclusion and human rights is not new to internet ‎governance, this issue area has been gaining strength as compared to previous IGFs. This ‎was also reflected by the total number of workshop applications received (34%), which made ‎this the issue group with the highest number of submissions. On the one hand, the increased ‎importance of inclusion and human rights as compared to previous years may be attributable ‎to middle to long term tendencies as is also reflected in the UN Secretary General’s Road map ‎for digital cooperation that identified inclusion and human rights as central to digital public ‎goods. On the other hand, however, this new trend might at least partly be attributed to the ‎disrupting effect of the still ongoing covid-19 pandemic. Social and economic consequences ‎have affected societies to different extents and stressed the need to rethink the values that we ‎want digital technologies and the internet to serve. ‎ High-level speakers from government, business, academia and civil society will discuss ‎emerging trends, challenges and opportunities. How can the rising significance of inclusion ‎and human rights in societal debates and public awareness be explained? What new risks ‎have emerged since the pandemic? How can we use new opportunities offered by digital ‎technologies and the internet for positive change? And to this aim, what governance strategies ‎should international organizations, governments, civil society and business adopt to promote ‎inclusive societies (e.g. sustainable development, education, health) recognising the needs of ‎vulnerable and marginalised groups and at the same time prevent new harms and risks to civil ‎and political rights (e.g. data privacy, freedom of expression, new forms of surveillance and ‎manipulation of behaviour by private and state actors, AI ethics, hate speech, child ‎protection)? What is the role of the IGF to promote economic and social inclusion and human ‎rights? ‎ *Agenda* *Introductory remarks by moderator / MAG member, welcome to the audience, short ‎description of topic and introduction of speakers (5 minutes)‎ *First block - Trends, new opportunities and risks (35 min)‎ * Short input talks of 4 speakers / panellist, 4 min per speaker (16 min) ‎ * Possibility to respond to other speakers’ inputs, 2 min per speaker (8 min)‎ * Poll, ranking the top risks and opportunities identified by panellists *  Questions from the audience (10 min)‎ *Second block - Possible governance strategies to promote inclusion and human ‎rights, including the role of the IGF (35 min)‎ * Short input talks from speakers / panellists, 4 min each (16 min in total)‎ * ‎‎Possibility to respond to other speakers’ inputs, 2 min per speaker (8 min)‎ * ‎Poll, ranking the top governance strategies identified by panellists * ‎Questions from the audience (10 min)‎ * Final discussion among audience and panellist (15 min)‎ *Short summary of main points by the moderator and outlook to the main session at ‎IGF 2021 (5 min)‎ -- Anriette Esterhuysen - anriette at apc.org//anriette at gmail.com Chair, United Nations Internet Governance Forum Multistakeholder Advisory Group www.intgovforum.org Senior advisor global and regional internet governance Association for Progressive Communications www.apc.org // afrisig.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joly at punkcast.com Tue Nov 2 00:52:13 2021 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2021 00:52:13 -0400 Subject: [Governance] WEBCAST TODAY: Tanzania Youth Internet Governance Forum Message-ID: The YIGF is a pre-cursor to the main Tanzania IGF, which will happen on Thurs and Friday this week. Today will be a hybrid event, as we know not always so easy to pull off. ISOC Live posted: "On Tuesday 2nd November 2021, from 10am-4pm EAT (07:00-13:00 UTC), the 2021 Tanzania Youth Internet Governance Forum (TZ YIGF) will be held in the Dar es Salaam Institute of Technology, and online. The theme is 'The role of youth in making the Internet a " [image: livestream] On *Tuesday 2nd November 2021*, from *10am-4pm EAT* (07:00-13:00 UTC), the *2021 Tanzania Youth Internet Governance Forum * (TZ YIGF) will be held in the Dar es Salaam Institute of Technology, and online. The theme is '*The role of youth in making the Internet a better space for Interaction*'. *LIVESTREAM http://livestream.com/internetsociety3/tz-yigf * *AGENDA https://archive.org/download/tz-yigf/TZ_YIGF_Timetable.pdf * *PARTICIPATE VIA ZOOM https://bit.ly/3btR7tQ * *TWITTER #YouthIGFTanzania @ISOC_Tanzania @IgfTanzania @IntGovForum #netgov* *SIMULCASTS* *https://www.twitter.com/ISOC_Live/ * *https://www.twitch.tv/isoclive * *https://www.facebook.com/liveisoc/ * (AI Captions) *https://www.facebook.com/ISOCAfrica/ * (AI Captions) *https://www.facebook.com/YouthIGFTanzania * (maybe) *ARCHIVE* *https://archive.org/details/tz-yigf * *INSTAGRAM https://www.instagram.com/youth_igf_tz/ * *Permalink* https://isoc.live/14726/ - -- -------------------------------------- Joly MacFie +12185659365 -------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anriette at apc.org Tue Nov 2 07:56:01 2021 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2021 13:56:01 +0200 Subject: [Governance] 15:00 UTC - IGF opening sessions today In-Reply-To: <22fc0303-40f3-e4c3-389c-68c62b3b2f4b@apc.org> References: <22fc0303-40f3-e4c3-389c-68c62b3b2f4b@apc.org> Message-ID: Apologies for cross-posting. Anriette Anriette Esterhuysen - anriette at apc.org//anriette at gmail.com Chair, United Nations Internet Governance Forum Multistakeholder Advisory Group www.intgovforum.org IGF 2021 Introductory Session II * *Session*(active tab) Time Tuesday, 2nd November, 2021 (17:00 SAST) About this Session *Join Here * /Facilitated by MAG Issue Teams/ *Introducing IGF 2021 issue areas * *(i) Emerging regulation: market structure, content, data and consumer/users rights regulation and (ii) Environmental sustainability and climate change* ------------------------------------------------------------------------ />>Twitter Comments for this Session: /*/#IGF2021 #EmergRegIntr/o*/>>/ *PART I [15:00-16:30 UTC]* *Emerging regulation: market structure, content, data and consumer/users rights regulation* This preparatory session will offer attendees an introduction to the policy issue area of ‎emerging regulation that impacts or relates to the Internet, one of four cross-cutting issue areas ‎of the IGF2021.  Followed by scene-setting remarks, this session will feature discussion on ‎competition, content moderation, data governance and consumer regulation that are part of a ‎recent trend of increased discussions on regulating many aspects of the Internet, either in the ‎form of national and international regulations by governments and intergovernmental ‎organisations (IGOs), or private sector-led self-regulation and co-regulation initiatives. We ‎hope this discussion can help to orientate the engagement of IGF2021 participants to identify ‎regulatory approaches and impacts that will be further expanded by the workshops that will be ‎part of the program in this issue area.  All interested are welcome, and organizers and speakers ‎in relevant sessions planned for IGF2021 are particularly encouraged to attend, in order to foster ‎early connections and exchange in preparation for the hybrid event in December.‎ *Agenda* *Welcome & Introduction - 5 minutes‎* * A MAG member will provide a brief orientation of the session – its purpose, the agenda, etc. – and introduce ‎the keynote speaker.‎ *Scene-Setting Remarks - 15 minutes* * *Speaker:* Jovan Kurbalija, Executive Director, Diplo Foundation *Regulatory Approaches - 20 minutes‎* * This section will focus on different regulatory approaches: regulation (national, regional or global), co-‎regulation, and self-regulation.‎  * *Speaker: *Sisi de la Pena, ALAI *Regulatory Impacts - 20 minutes‎* * This section will focus on regulatory impacts on human rights and Internet infrastructure * *Speaker: *Olaf Kolkman, ISOC * *Speaker: *Alison Gillwald, Executive Director, Research ICT Africa *Issue Area Previews - 20 minutes‎* * This section will focus on the subject matter areas featured in IGF2021 programming related to this issue area: ‎competition/antitrust, data governance, content moderation, and consumer protection.‎ *Conclusion - 5 minutes‎* ------------------------------------------------------------------------ /30-Minute Break/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ />>Twitter Comments for this Session: /*/#IGF2021 #EnvIntr/o*/>>/ *PART II [17:00-18:30 UTC]* *Environmental sustainability and climate change* The preparatory session will focus on setting the scene for the IGF and will discuss the role ‎of the Forum as an important player covering the issue of environment and digitalisation ‎and - in particular - being seen as a place where dots are connected and capacities of ‎policy makers on this issue are increased. This session will specifically cover the issue’s ‎narrative, explore different sub thematic areas, preview different types of sessions ‎‎(Workshops, Open Forums, Best Practice Forums, Dynamic Coalitions, NRI Collaborative ‎Sessions) under the theme, and feature a scene-setting speaker.‎ *Agenda* *Introduction (10 minutes)‎* * A short explanation to deliver a general perspective about the environment and ‎digitalization is something important to discuss. This part also discuss the impact of ‎the issue in the future and what we should do in the long term and sustain work ‎basis.‎ /*Speaker*/ Livia Walpen, OFCOM (Swiss Government) *Thematic discussion: (30-40 minutes)‎* * How multistakeholder parties could contribute to this issue and how the ‎Global South could take advantage within the process?‎ /*Speakers*/ Daniel Akinmade Emejulu, Microsoft Gustaff Hariman Iskandar, Common Room * How do the workshops of this issue reflect the calling of policy questions? ‎What do they try to bring to discuss?‎ /*Speaker*/ Rashid Kaukab, CUTS International *  What is the IGF role in this thematic issue? What should IGF do in the future ‎to keep the discussion continuing?‎ /*Speakers*/ Valeria Betancourt, Association for Progressive Communications (APC) Flurina Waespi, Policy Network on Environment (PNE) *Session organizers share brief explanation of their session (10-20 minutes)‎ Interactive plenary discussion with the participants, with Q&A (10- 20 minutes)‎ Closing (5 minutes)‎* -- Anriette Esterhuysen - anriette at apc.org//anriette at gmail.com Chair, United Nations Internet Governance Forum Multistakeholder Advisory Group www.intgovforum.org Senior advisor global and regional internet governance Association for Progressive Communications www.apc.org // afrisig.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joly at punkcast.com Tue Nov 2 08:10:09 2021 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2021 08:10:09 -0400 Subject: [Governance] 15:00 UTC - IGF opening sessions today In-Reply-To: References: <22fc0303-40f3-e4c3-389c-68c62b3b2f4b@apc.org> Message-ID: Questions. Will these sessions a) have real time text / captions / transcripts? b) be archived including slides ? Thanks Joly On Tue, Nov 2, 2021 at 7:56 AM Anriette Esterhuysen via Governance < governance at lists.igcaucus.org> wrote: > Apologies for cross-posting. > > Anriette > > Anriette Esterhuysen - anriette at apc.org//anriette at gmail.com > Chair, United Nations Internet Governance Forum Multistakeholder Advisory Groupwww.intgovforum.org > > > IGF 2021 Introductory Session II > > - *Session*(active tab) > > > Time > Tuesday, 2nd November, 2021 (17:00 SAST) > About this Session > > *Join Here > * > > *Facilitated by MAG Issue Teams* > > *Introducing IGF 2021 issue areas * > > *(i) Emerging regulation: market structure, content, data and > consumer/users rights regulation and (ii) Environmental sustainability and > climate change* > ------------------------------ > > *>>Twitter Comments for this Session: **#IGF2021 #EmergRegIntro**>>* > > *PART I [15:00-16:30 UTC]* > > *Emerging regulation: market structure, content, data and consumer/users > rights regulation* > > This preparatory session will offer attendees an introduction to the > policy issue area of ‎emerging regulation that impacts or relates to the > Internet, one of four cross-cutting issue areas ‎of the IGF2021. Followed > by scene-setting remarks, this session will feature discussion on > ‎competition, content moderation, data governance and consumer regulation > that are part of a ‎recent trend of increased discussions on regulating > many aspects of the Internet, either in the ‎form of national and > international regulations by governments and intergovernmental > ‎organisations (IGOs), or private sector-led self-regulation and > co-regulation initiatives. We ‎hope this discussion can help to orientate > the engagement of IGF2021 participants to identify ‎regulatory approaches > and impacts that will be further expanded by the workshops that will be > ‎part of the program in this issue area. All interested are welcome, and > organizers and speakers ‎in relevant sessions planned for IGF2021 are > particularly encouraged to attend, in order to foster ‎early connections > and exchange in preparation for the hybrid event in December.‎ > > *Agenda* > > *Welcome & Introduction - 5 minutes‎* > > - A MAG member will provide a brief orientation of the session – its > purpose, the agenda, etc. – and introduce ‎the keynote speaker.‎ > > *Scene-Setting Remarks - 15 minutes* > > - *Speaker:* Jovan Kurbalija, Executive Director, Diplo Foundation > > *Regulatory Approaches - 20 minutes‎* > > - This section will focus on different regulatory approaches: > regulation (national, regional or global), co-‎regulation, and > self-regulation.‎ > - *Speaker: *Sisi de la Pena, ALAI > > *Regulatory Impacts - 20 minutes‎* > > - This section will focus on regulatory impacts on human rights and > Internet infrastructure > - *Speaker: *Olaf Kolkman, ISOC > - *Speaker: *Alison Gillwald, Executive Director, Research ICT Africa > > *Issue Area Previews - 20 minutes‎* > > - This section will focus on the subject matter areas featured in > IGF2021 programming related to this issue area: ‎competition/antitrust, > data governance, content moderation, and consumer protection.‎ > > *Conclusion - 5 minutes‎* > ------------------------------ > > *30-Minute Break* > ------------------------------ > > *>>Twitter Comments for this Session: **#IGF2021 #EnvIntro**>>* > > *PART II [17:00-18:30 UTC]* > > *Environmental sustainability and climate change* > > The preparatory session will focus on setting the scene for the IGF and > will discuss the role ‎of the Forum as an important player covering the > issue of environment and digitalisation ‎and - in particular - being seen > as a place where dots are connected and capacities of ‎policy makers on > this issue are increased. This session will specifically cover the issue’s > ‎narrative, explore different sub thematic areas, preview different types > of sessions ‎‎(Workshops, Open Forums, Best Practice Forums, Dynamic > Coalitions, NRI Collaborative ‎Sessions) under the theme, and feature a > scene-setting speaker.‎ > > *Agenda* > > *Introduction (10 minutes)‎* > > - A short explanation to deliver a general perspective about the > environment and ‎digitalization is something important to discuss. This > part also discuss the impact of ‎the issue in the future and what we should > do in the long term and sustain work ‎basis.‎ > > *Speaker* > > Livia Walpen, OFCOM (Swiss Government) > > *Thematic discussion: (30-40 minutes)‎* > > - How multistakeholder parties could contribute to this issue and how > the ‎Global South could take advantage within the process?‎ > > *Speakers* > > Daniel Akinmade Emejulu, Microsoft > > Gustaff Hariman Iskandar, Common Room > > - How do the workshops of this issue reflect the calling of policy > questions? ‎What do they try to bring to discuss?‎ > > *Speaker* > > Rashid Kaukab, CUTS International > > - What is the IGF role in this thematic issue? What should IGF do in > the future ‎to keep the discussion continuing?‎ > > *Speakers* > > Valeria Betancourt, Association for Progressive Communications (APC) > > Flurina Waespi, Policy Network on Environment (PNE) > > > > > > *Session organizers share brief explanation of their session (10-20 > minutes)‎ Interactive plenary discussion with the participants, with Q&A > (10- 20 minutes)‎ Closing (5 minutes)‎* > > -- > Anriette Esterhuysen - anriette at apc.org//anriette at gmail.com > Chair, United Nations Internet Governance Forum Multistakeholder Advisory Groupwww.intgovforum.org > > Senior advisor global and regional internet governance > Association for Progressive Communicationswww.apc.org // afrisig.org > > -- > Governance mailing list > Governance at lists.igcaucus.org > https://lists.igcaucus.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > -- -------------------------------------- Joly MacFie +12185659365 -------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From 6.internet at gmail.com Tue Nov 2 08:12:26 2021 From: 6.internet at gmail.com (sivasubramanian muthusamy) Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2021 17:42:26 +0530 Subject: [Governance] 15:00 UTC - IGF opening sessions today In-Reply-To: References: <22fc0303-40f3-e4c3-389c-68c62b3b2f4b@apc.org> Message-ID: 15 UTC is time for Session 2 ? IGF 2021 Introductory Session II - *Session*(active tab) Time Tuesday, 2nd November, 2021 (17:00 SAST) About this Session Sivasubramanian M On Tue, Nov 2, 2021 at 5:26 PM Anriette Esterhuysen via Governance < governance at lists.igcaucus.org> wrote: > Apologies for cross-posting. > > Anriette > > Anriette Esterhuysen - anriette at apc.org//anriette at gmail.com > Chair, United Nations Internet Governance Forum Multistakeholder Advisory Groupwww.intgovforum.org > > > IGF 2021 Introductory Session II > > - *Session*(active tab) > > > Time > Tuesday, 2nd November, 2021 (17:00 SAST) > About this Session > > *Join Here > * > > *Facilitated by MAG Issue Teams* > > *Introducing IGF 2021 issue areas * > > *(i) Emerging regulation: market structure, content, data and > consumer/users rights regulation and (ii) Environmental sustainability and > climate change* > ------------------------------ > > *>>Twitter Comments for this Session: **#IGF2021 #EmergRegIntro**>>* > > *PART I [15:00-16:30 UTC]* > > *Emerging regulation: market structure, content, data and consumer/users > rights regulation* > > This preparatory session will offer attendees an introduction to the > policy issue area of ‎emerging regulation that impacts or relates to the > Internet, one of four cross-cutting issue areas ‎of the IGF2021. Followed > by scene-setting remarks, this session will feature discussion on > ‎competition, content moderation, data governance and consumer regulation > that are part of a ‎recent trend of increased discussions on regulating > many aspects of the Internet, either in the ‎form of national and > international regulations by governments and intergovernmental > ‎organisations (IGOs), or private sector-led self-regulation and > co-regulation initiatives. We ‎hope this discussion can help to orientate > the engagement of IGF2021 participants to identify ‎regulatory approaches > and impacts that will be further expanded by the workshops that will be > ‎part of the program in this issue area. All interested are welcome, and > organizers and speakers ‎in relevant sessions planned for IGF2021 are > particularly encouraged to attend, in order to foster ‎early connections > and exchange in preparation for the hybrid event in December.‎ > > *Agenda* > > *Welcome & Introduction - 5 minutes‎* > > - A MAG member will provide a brief orientation of the session – its > purpose, the agenda, etc. – and introduce ‎the keynote speaker.‎ > > *Scene-Setting Remarks - 15 minutes* > > - *Speaker:* Jovan Kurbalija, Executive Director, Diplo Foundation > > *Regulatory Approaches - 20 minutes‎* > > - This section will focus on different regulatory approaches: > regulation (national, regional or global), co-‎regulation, and > self-regulation.‎ > - *Speaker: *Sisi de la Pena, ALAI > > *Regulatory Impacts - 20 minutes‎* > > - This section will focus on regulatory impacts on human rights and > Internet infrastructure > - *Speaker: *Olaf Kolkman, ISOC > - *Speaker: *Alison Gillwald, Executive Director, Research ICT Africa > > *Issue Area Previews - 20 minutes‎* > > - This section will focus on the subject matter areas featured in > IGF2021 programming related to this issue area: ‎competition/antitrust, > data governance, content moderation, and consumer protection.‎ > > *Conclusion - 5 minutes‎* > ------------------------------ > > *30-Minute Break* > ------------------------------ > > *>>Twitter Comments for this Session: **#IGF2021 #EnvIntro**>>* > > *PART II [17:00-18:30 UTC]* > > *Environmental sustainability and climate change* > > The preparatory session will focus on setting the scene for the IGF and > will discuss the role ‎of the Forum as an important player covering the > issue of environment and digitalisation ‎and - in particular - being seen > as a place where dots are connected and capacities of ‎policy makers on > this issue are increased. This session will specifically cover the issue’s > ‎narrative, explore different sub thematic areas, preview different types > of sessions ‎‎(Workshops, Open Forums, Best Practice Forums, Dynamic > Coalitions, NRI Collaborative ‎Sessions) under the theme, and feature a > scene-setting speaker.‎ > > *Agenda* > > *Introduction (10 minutes)‎* > > - A short explanation to deliver a general perspective about the > environment and ‎digitalization is something important to discuss. This > part also discuss the impact of ‎the issue in the future and what we should > do in the long term and sustain work ‎basis.‎ > > *Speaker* > > Livia Walpen, OFCOM (Swiss Government) > > *Thematic discussion: (30-40 minutes)‎* > > - How multistakeholder parties could contribute to this issue and how > the ‎Global South could take advantage within the process?‎ > > *Speakers* > > Daniel Akinmade Emejulu, Microsoft > > Gustaff Hariman Iskandar, Common Room > > - How do the workshops of this issue reflect the calling of policy > questions? ‎What do they try to bring to discuss?‎ > > *Speaker* > > Rashid Kaukab, CUTS International > > - What is the IGF role in this thematic issue? What should IGF do in > the future ‎to keep the discussion continuing?‎ > > *Speakers* > > Valeria Betancourt, Association for Progressive Communications (APC) > > Flurina Waespi, Policy Network on Environment (PNE) > > > > > > *Session organizers share brief explanation of their session (10-20 > minutes)‎ Interactive plenary discussion with the participants, with Q&A > (10- 20 minutes)‎ Closing (5 minutes)‎* > > -- > Anriette Esterhuysen - anriette at apc.org//anriette at gmail.com > Chair, United Nations Internet Governance Forum Multistakeholder Advisory Groupwww.intgovforum.org > > Senior advisor global and regional internet governance > Association for Progressive Communicationswww.apc.org // afrisig.org > > -- > Governance mailing list > Governance at lists.igcaucus.org > https://lists.igcaucus.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amritachoudhury8 at gmail.com Tue Nov 2 11:57:08 2021 From: amritachoudhury8 at gmail.com (Amrita Choudhury) Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2021 21:27:08 +0530 Subject: [Governance] IGF 2021 Introductory Sessions: 3 November: Inclusive Internet governance ecosystems and digital cooperation 13 UTC: Trust, security, stability 15 UTC Message-ID: <051a01d7d002$4bddfb70$e399f250$@gmail.com> Dear All, You are invited to the IGF 2021 Introductory Sessions to be held on 3 November, that introduces the issue areas followed by interactive discussion to build up to the main IGF2021 Main issue area sessions. . Inclusive Internet governance ecosystems and digital cooperation at 13 UTC . Trust, security, stability at 15 UTC The formal session update is available here: https://www.intgovforum.org/en/content/igf-2021-introductory-session-iii Please note to attend the session you will have to register. After clicking this link https://www.intgovforum.org/en/content/igf-2021-introductory-session-iii , please opt for "Join Here" under About the session and register. Do join and enrich the discussion. Regards, Amrita -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joly at punkcast.com Wed Nov 3 19:41:33 2021 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2021 19:41:33 -0400 Subject: [Governance] SIMULCAST: NetThing - Australian Internet Governance forum 2021 Message-ID: This has just kicked off. I know the time may not work for many elsewhere, but sessions will be archived on the livestream link. Tip to keep up.: open the streamtext link in a tab on your browser. [image: livestream] On *Thursday-Friday 4-5 November 2021 NetThing *, Australia’s Internet Governance Forum, will take place online. NetThing is an annual two-day event bringing together a diverse multidisciplinary community for the discussion of issues pertaining to the internet in Australia. It is an open, inclusive platform for the exploration of Australian technology policy issues, aiming to mobilise the community to collaborate on solutions in a safe and moderated environment. *LIVESTREAM http://livestream.com/internetsociety/netthing2021 *(open captions / AUSLAN) *PROGRAM **https://netthing.org.au/2021-program-1* (UTC+11) *PARTICIPATE VIA ZOOM https://netthing.org.au/register * ((open captions / AUSLAN) *REAL TIME TEXT https://www.streamtext.net/player?event=netthing * *TWITTER #netthing #auigf @NetThing_au @internetAUS* *SIMULCASTS* *https://www.twitter.com/ISOC_Live/ * *https://www.twitch.tv/isoclive * *https://www.facebook.com/liveisoc/ * *ARCHIVE* *https://archive.org/details/netthing2021 * *Permalink* https://isoc.live/14737/ - -- -------------------------------------- Joly MacFie +12185659365 -------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lb at lucabelli.net Thu Nov 4 09:12:01 2021 From: lb at lucabelli.net (lb lucabelli.net) Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2021 13:12:01 +0000 Subject: [Governance] Data Architectures in the BRICS Countries Message-ID: Dear colleagues, Should you be interested, tomorrow at 9:30 Rio time (GMT-3), the CyberBRICS Project at FGV Law School and Carnegie India will co-host a webinar on Data Architectures in the BRICS Countries https://carnegieindia.org/2021/11/05/data-architectures-in-brics-countries-event-7738 Below a short description and some suggested readings to understand the latest developments. Pease feel free to share this email through your networks Kind regards Luca Data Architectures in the BRICS Countries November 05, 2021 12:30 - 14:00 (UTC) YouTube link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GVo33wwuT8 At the 13th BRICS Summit hosted by India in September 2021, the five BRICS members—Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa—reiterated their commitment to prioritize the effective and efficient use of technology and data for development. They agreed to encourage further cooperation on these fronts, including by “respecting the right to privacy of individuals”. Exchange of knowledge and good practices about the development of data architectures in the BRICS countries is essential to furthering this cooperation. This event will aim at furthering a better understanding of the existing good practices to promote intra-BRICS cooperation on data-related policies and technology development. Suggested readings Comparative Map on “Data Protection Across BRICS Countries” https://cyberbrics.info/data-protection-across-brics-countries/ PrivacyNama CyberBRICS Panel on “Impact of privacy legislation on the openness of the Internet” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2Y9Y2KOdIk&t=5760s Data Protection in the BRICS Countries: Enhanced Cooperation and Convergence towards Legal Interoperability https://cyberbrics.info/data-protection-in-the-brics-countries-enhanced-cooperation-and-convergence-towards-legal-interoperability/ Cybersecurity Convergence in the BRICS Countries https://directionsblog.eu/cybersecurity-convergence-in-the-brics-countries/ “CyberBRICS: Cybersecurity Regulations in the BRICS Countries” Full eBook https://cyberbrics.info/cyberbrics-cybersecurity-regulations-in-the-brics-countries-full-ebook/ [http://www.fgv.br/mailing/2018/direito_rio/assinatura/fgv_direito_rio.jpg] Luca Belli, PhD Professor | FGV Law Schoool Coordinator | Center for Technology & Society [http://www.fgv.br/mailing/2018/direito_rio/assinatura/fgv_tel.jpg]+55 21 3799 5763 t at 1lucabelli [http://www.fgv.br/mailing/2018/direito_rio/assinatura/fgv_direito_rio_map.jpg]Praia de Botafogo, 190 13º andar Botafogo - Rio de Janeiro, RJ - CEP: 22250-900 [http://www.fgv.br/mailing/2018/direito_rio/assinatura/fgv_ass_email.jpg]luca.belli at fgv.br [http://www.fgv.br/mailing/2018/direito_rio/assinatura/fgv_ass_url.jpg]CTS-FGV direitorio.fgv.br/cts [http://www.fgv.br/mailing/2018/direito_rio/assinatura/fgv_ass_url.jpg]cyberBRICS www.cyberbrics.info [http://www.fgv.br/mailing/2018/direito_rio/assinatura/fgv_ass_url.jpg]CPDP LatAm www.cpdp.lat 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: image.png Type: image/png Size: 14321 bytes Desc: image.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image.png Type: image/png Size: 365 bytes Desc: image.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image.png Type: image/png Size: 566 bytes Desc: image.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image.png Type: image/png Size: 709 bytes Desc: image.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image.png Type: image/png Size: 668 bytes Desc: image.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image.png Type: image/png Size: 668 bytes Desc: image.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image.png Type: image/png Size: 668 bytes Desc: image.png URL: From ayden at ferdeline.com Fri Nov 5 10:41:42 2021 From: ayden at ferdeline.com (=?utf-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2021 14:41:42 +0000 Subject: [Governance] Alliance for the Future of the Internet Message-ID: Hi all, Does anyone have any additional information on the so-called “Alliance for the Future of the Internet” that Politico mentions in [this article](https://www.politico.com/news/2021/11/04/biden-democracy-summit-technology-519530)? They do share a short discussion paper and timeline that the U.S. will be proposing next month, but if there are any conversations involving civil society, would be great to learn more... Thanks! https://www.politico.com/news/2021/11/04/biden-democracy-summit-technology-519530 Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Nov 5 11:00:13 2021 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2021 20:30:13 +0530 Subject: [Governance] Alliance for the Future of the Internet In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <011f6a3e-7ce2-6bfb-fbf9-5481a773ff1d@itforchange.net> Surprising how suddenly the Internet which was all this while value-neutral and thus non-political (so that the US could keep de facto control over the Internet against globally politically negotiated governance of it) has suddenly become so highly value-laden and political.. Of course, the Masters of the World decide what is the truth at any given time!  In UK, the Tony Blair Institute is calling for an Internet based on western values, actually calling it the NATO for the Internet . What happens to the values and political choices of other parts of the world, say, the developing countries? parminder On 05/11/21 8:11 pm, Ayden Férdeline via Governance wrote: > Hi all, > > Does anyone have any additional information on the so-called “Alliance > for the Future of the Internet” that Politico mentions in this article > ? > They do share a short discussion paper and timeline that the U.S. will > be proposing next month, but if there are any conversations involving > civil society, would be great to learn more... Thanks! > > https://www.politico.com/news/2021/11/04/biden-democracy-summit-technology-519530 > > > Best wishes, > > Ayden Férdeline > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From woody at pch.net Fri Nov 5 11:17:59 2021 From: woody at pch.net (Bill Woodcock) Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2021 15:17:59 +0000 Subject: [Governance] Alliance for the Future of the Internet In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Apparently it’s just one guy in the White House, and it conflicts with the techno-democracy thing State is doing. Not an “alliance” in the sense of multiple parties acting in concert, but maybe more like the “coalition of the willing.” Sounds like it’s very unlikely to become anything real, but who knows. -Bill > On Nov 5, 2021, at 2:42 PM, Ayden Férdeline via Governance wrote: > >  > Hi all, > > Does anyone have any additional information on the so-called “Alliance for the Future of the Internet” that Politico mentions in this article? They do share a short discussion paper and timeline that the U.S. will be proposing next month, but if there are any conversations involving civil society, would be great to learn more... Thanks! > > https://www.politico.com/news/2021/11/04/biden-democracy-summit-technology-519530 > > Best wishes, > > Ayden Férdeline > -- > Governance mailing list > Governance at lists.igcaucus.org > https://lists.igcaucus.org/mailman/listinfo/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From valeriab at apc.org Fri Nov 5 18:20:59 2021 From: valeriab at apc.org (Valeria Betancourt) Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2021 17:20:59 -0500 Subject: [Governance] =?utf-8?q?Call_for_proposals_GISWatch_2021-2022_-_?= =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=9CCOVID-19=3A_Changes_to_digital_rights_priorities_and_s?= =?utf-8?b?dHJhdGVnaWVz4oCd?= Message-ID: Dear all, APC is pleased to announce that we have published a call for proposals for the 2021-2022 edition of Global Information Society Watch (GISWatch). This year, the theme will be “COVID-19: Changes to digital rights priorities and strategies”. This edition aims to address to key questions:      a.    How has the COVID-19 pandemic changed or shaped the ways in which civil society organisations do their advocacy work around digital technology-related issues, including digital rights? b.    How have digital technology and digital rights advocacy priorities shifted due to the pandemic? To find out more, you can read the full terms of reference here and everything you need to prepare a proposal: https://www.apc.org/en/node/37747/ Please note that the deadline for submissions is *22 November.* You can find out more about GISWatch and read previous editions at the following link:  https://giswatch.org/about We hope you will help us share this call with your networks, and look forward to receiving your proposals! With best wishes on behalf of the GISWatch team, Valeria -- Valeria Betancourt Directora / Manager Programa de Políticas de Information y Comunicación / Communication and Information Policy Programme Global Policy Advocacy / Incidencia política global 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 capdasiege at gmail.com Tue Nov 9 17:23:37 2021 From: capdasiege at gmail.com (Capda Capda) Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2021 23:23:37 +0100 Subject: [Governance] =?utf-8?q?Enregistrement_aux_assises_sur_la_transfo?= =?utf-8?q?rmation_et_l=27Int=C3=A9gration_digital_post-Covid-19_15?= =?utf-8?q?_-_19_Novembre_2019_//_Registration_to_the_discussions_o?= =?utf-8?q?n_post-Covid-19_digital_transformation_and_integration?= Message-ID: *Francais | English* Le FGI Cameroun en partenariat avec ses entités organise les Assises sur la Transformation et l'Intégration Digitale Post Covid-19 “ATID-2021” du 15 au 19 novembre 2021. L’ATID-2021 est organisée en semi-présentiel et s’articule autour de trois ( 03) activités principales ; à savoir : - Le Forum Jeunes sur la Gouvernance de l’Internet National (FGI-JCM) - Le Forum sur la Gouvernance de l’Internet National (FGI-CM) - Le Forum sur la Gouvernance de l’Internet Afrique Centrale (FGI-AC) *1. FGI Jeune Cameron: Équiper les jeunes pour un accès responsable à Internet et aux outils numériques.* Date: lundi 15 Novembre 2021 Time: 8:00 (UTC+1) Format: Hybride (En Présentiel et En ligne) S'Enregistrer ici: https://intgovforum.zoom.us/meeting/register/tZYvc-6pqD4iHNBws0mStf0dfwaNCRiTrygE *2. FGI Cameroun: Gouvernance de données et facteur d’amélioration du e-Gouvernement a l'ère du Covid-19.* Date: Mardi 16 - Mercredi 17 Novembre 2021 Time: 8:00 (UTC+1) Format: Hybride (En Présentiel et En ligne) S'Enregistrer ici: https://intgovforum.zoom.us/meeting/register/tZMuc-6pqj0jGNQzYJgmFKkMuyuc32QxIBug *3. FGI Afrique Centrale : Technologies Émergentes et Développement de l'Infrastructure: Quelles contributions des pays de la sous région à l’ère du COVID-19 ?.* Date: Jeudi 18 - Vendredi 19 Novembre 2021 Time: 8:00 (UTC+1) Format: Hybride (En Présentiel et En ligne) S'Enregistrer ici: https://intgovforum.zoom.us/meeting/register/tZUqce-qrj8vHNLnHyKu4TRQVpYAEOygRBV6 Suivez-nous sur Twitter: @IgfCameroon, @igfYouth, @IgfMag_cmr, #caigf, #cmigf2021, #cmyigf2021. Merci et bonne réception ------------------------------------------------- The IGF Cameroon in partnership with its entities, is organizing the discussions on post-Covid-19 digital transformation and integration scheduled for 15th to 19th November 2021. The discussions are held in a hybrid format around three (03) main activities; such as: - The National Youth Internet Governance Forum (YIGF-CM) - The National Internet Governance Forum (IGF-CM) - The Central African Internet Governance Forum (CAIGF) *1. Cameroon Youth IGF: Equipping the youth for responsible access to Internet and digital tools.* Date: Monday 15th November 2021 Time: 8:00am (UTC+1) Format: Hybrid (In Person & Online) Register Here: https://intgovforum.zoom.us/meeting/register/tZYvc-6pqD4iHNBws0mStf0dfwaNCRiTrygE *2. Cameroon IGF: Data Governance and e-Government Improving Factor in the Covid-19 era.* Date: Tuesday 16th - Wednesday 17th November 2021 Time: 8:00am (UTC+1) Format: Hybrid (In Person & Online) Register Here: https://intgovforum.zoom.us/meeting/register/tZMuc-6pqj0jGNQzYJgmFKkMuyuc32QxIBug *3. Central African IGF: Emerging Technologies and Infrastructure Development: What contributions from sub-regional countries in the COVID-19 era?.* Date: Thursday 18th - Friday 19th November 2021 Time: 8:00am (UTC+1) Format: Hybrid (In Person & Online) Register Here: https://intgovforum.zoom.us/meeting/register/tZUqce-qrj8vHNLnHyKu4TRQVpYAEOygRBV6 Remember to follow us on twitter: @IgfCameroon, @igfYouth, @IgfMag_cmr, #caigf, #cmigf2021, #cmyigf2021. Thank you with kind regards -- *Michel TCHONANG LINZE* *Coordinateur Général* *ÉVÉNEMENTS** SUR LES TIC * - *ICANN72 du 23 au 28 octobre 2021 USA* - *Assises sur la Transformation et l'Intégration Digitale Post Covid-19 du 18 octobre au 19 novembre 2021 à Yaounde - Cameroun * - *ITU DIGITAL WORLD du 12 au 15 Octobre 2021 - VIET NAM* - *AfIGF du 22 au 24 novembre 2021 UA* - *Conférence mondiale de développement des télécommunications (CMDT-21) Addis-Abeba (Éthiopie), 06 au 15 juin 2022.* - *16ème FGI se tiendra en Pologne à Katowice du 06 au 10 décembre 2021* *C**APDA (Consortium d'Appui aux Actions pour la Promotion et le Développement de l'Afrique)* *BP : 15 151 DOUALA - CAMEROUN Tél. : (237) 67775-39-63 / 24212-9493 Email : capdasiege at gmail.com Site : www.capda.cm * -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joly at punkcast.com Tue Nov 9 17:47:01 2021 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2021 17:47:01 -0500 Subject: [Governance] WEBCAST WED-FRI: Papua New Guinea National ICT Summit 2021 Message-ID: The way that things work, 8:30am Weds in Papua New Guinea is 5:30pm Tue on the US East Coast, so primetime viewing! They do not tweet much in PNG, so best form of participation is via Facebook . The link for day 1 real time text is https://bit.ly/3obH8z7 This simulcast is sponsored by the *Internet Society Pacific Islands Chapter * (PICISOC). ISOC Live posted: "On Wednesday-Friday 10-12 November 2021 the Papua New Guinea National ICT Summit will be held at the APEC Haus in Port Moresby and online, with the theme 'Enhancing our economy through ICT and digital transformation'. Organized by PNG Department of Inform" [image: livestream] On *Wednesday-Friday 10-12 November 2021* the *Papua New Guinea National ICT Summit * will be held at the APEC Haus in Port Moresby and online, with the theme '*Enhancing our economy through ICT and digital transformation*'. Organized by *PNG Department of Information & Communications Technology *, the summit aims to cover some of the current global ICT trends and practices and align those with PNGs efforts, with the goal of rebuilding and enhancing the economy to the use of ICT in various sectors and industries. *AGENDA https://archive.org/download/pngict/PNGICT_AGENDA.pdf * *LIVESTREAM http://livestream.com/internetsociety3/pngict * *REAL TIME TEXT* (see ISOC.LIVE ) *TWITTER #PNGICT @nictapng @PNGEduNews #PNG* *SIMULCASTS* *https://www.twitter.com/ISOC_Live/ * *https://www.twitch.tv/isoclive * *https://www.facebook.com/liveisoc/ *(AI Captions) *https://www.facebook.com/isocasiapacific/* (AI Captions) *https://www.facebook.com/pngdict * *ARCHIVE* *https://archive.org/details/pngict * *Permalink* https://isoc.live/14751/ -- -------------------------------------- Joly MacFie +12185659365 -------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bommelaer at isoc.org Wed Nov 10 03:14:11 2021 From: bommelaer at isoc.org (Constance Bommelaer) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2021 08:14:11 +0000 Subject: [Governance] Call for application / Internet Society's Early Career Fellowship In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Colleagues, Please see below the call for applications. Feel free to share across your networks. Thank you, ---------- Constance Bommelaer de Leusse Area Vice President Institutional Relations and Empowerment The Internet Society www.isoc.org ________________________________ From: Alejandra Prieto Sent: Tuesday, November 9, 2021 5:48 PM To: Constance Bommelaer Subject: Internet Society's Early Career Fellowship Do you know Internet champions who could shape the future of the Internet? The Internet is a resource of possibility and opportunity that has transformed our lives for the better. It’s where we collaborate, share ideas, and strengthen bonds. It’s where we work, learn, communicate, and innovate. But increasingly, there are challenges to the fundamental principles that underpinned its creation, and the digital divide is still huge. Defending these principles and advancing access requires Internet Champions! Applications are open until 18 November 2021for the Early Career Fellowship, a professional development program that will empower the Internet Champions of the future. The Program will offer unparalleled access to world-class experts and resources. Our Fellows will develop their professional skills in leadership, communications, advocacy and project management. Please, share this opportunity with those in your network who are early in their working career in the Internet ecosystem and might have a project idea that would grow and strengthen the Internet. Thank you very much! Best regards/Atentamente/Cordialement, Alejandra Prieto Senior Manager, Fellowship Programs prieto at isoc.org internetsociety.org | @internetsociety -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Nov 10 10:45:33 2021 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2021 21:15:33 +0530 Subject: [Governance] Fwd: UN SG interjects a completely unnecessary leadership group on the top of IGF's MAG In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Sent the below to the ISOC list ... I think this leadership group over the top of MAG and the IGF is completely needless, and dangerous, and alsoas per my best understanding  does not correspond to what came out of the pubic consultations on the subject Any comments? parminder -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: UN SG interjects a completely unnecessary leadership group on the top of IGF's MAG Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2021 20:56:16 +0530 From: parminder To: parminder via InternetPolicy Please see https://www.intgovforum.org/en/content/terms-of-reference-for-the-igf-leadership-panel The UN Internet Governance Forum was created by the World Summit on the Information Society as, and only as, a forum for policy dialogue,  ...Policy making or shaping, or even nudging was never its job.  The current Multi stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) is already an over-bloated body as an annual program development system..... Why does MAG and IGF need a leadership group on the top of it. It is not only highly unnecessary, but quite dangerous, as an international group that I am a member of argued in its response to UNSG's consultation on developing some such new body . ISOC's response to the consultation also argued against the need for any such new body, and certainly not outside the existing MAG and kind of overseeing it, as it has now been created . See ISOC's response at https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/93a-public-responses  The leadership group would apparently be promoting some policy options as 'IGF views' ('promote IGF outputs' is one function of this new body), which is a very dangerous over-reach .... I can see some senior Big Tech executives promoting, well, the IGF community wants this and this, and not that..... Are we ready to live in such a world? I wonder if ISOC has any plans to oppose this move by the UN SG.  I am sure we will hear: tch, tch, you are completely wrong, this is not what this new body is supposed to do.. It is quite an innocent one .. But just look at its name ' The IGF Leadership Panel'. what does a leadership group do ...  Sorry, we do not want some Big Tech  CEO's calling themselves IGF leaders.. we do not accept them as IGF leaders. In fact, we want IGF turned to the task of examining and exploring how best to regulate Big Tech, about which there is a serious public and political clamor today, not for the IGF to be led by Big Tech. parminder PS: Unfortunately, the UN Secretary General seems to have made it his agenda to inject corporate elements into key policy levels in all areas of global governance, through such multistakeholder panels... Similar happened at the recent UN Food Systems Summit (UNFSS) . Grassroots groups involved with right to food, and working with small farmers and peasants, made the following observation, and I quote: *The implications of the UN FSS follow-up on the existing Global Food Governance Architecture * The description of follow-up plans in the latest draft of the UN Secretary General’s (UNSG) Statement of Action (14 September) is deeply worrying, as is the public statement by FAO Director General (15 September) on how the FAO intends to follow up on the Food System Summit. The UNSG does not have a mandate to establish follow up mechanisms for this Summit. Member States are the decision makers in the UN system. Member States did not request or agree to put these new structures and mechanisms in place. We do not recognize the multistakeholder national food systems pathways without emphasis on the differentiated responsibilities. Most of the Summit’s national and independent dialogues largely excluded the groups most affected by hunger and malnutrition, and key food system actors such as small-scale food producers and workers. Most dialogues were as opaque as the whole Summit. Further, the FSS organizers - the Deputy Secretary General (DSG) in particular – committed to not creating new structures. Yet the announcement that the Rome-based Agencies - FAO, IFAD, WFP - will jointly lead a “coordination hub” that draws on wider UN system capacities to support follow-up to the Food Systems Summit, points to significantly altering the existing global governance of food and agriculture with far reaching implications. This Rome based hub and a newly established “Advisory Group” are supposed to strengthen linkages to other priority global and intergovernmental processes relating for example to the Environment, Climate, Food Security, Health and Nutrition, as well as key intergovernmental fora such as the High-level Political Forum (HLPF), and Financing for Development Forum. Such a change in the existing governance architecture without any intergovernmental deliberation and mandate is completely illegitimate and unacceptable. Such a “coordination hub” and its newly created “Advisory Group” would encroach into the functions of the CFS, which is precisely the UN Committee mandated to ensure inclusive policy development, coherence, coordination, and convergence across the UN systems on issues of food security and nutrition. This proposal of change in global food governance architecture bypasses Member States and the CFS, and has the potential to destroy the CFS and its unique mandate and processes. The UNSG as well as the heads of the Rome-based agencies, if they support such suggestions, are clearly acting outside their mandates. Third, there is no need to conduct a global stock-taking in two years to review progress in implementing the outcomes of a Summit which did not have the mandate to make any formal commitments. The public statement released by the DG of FAO is also quite alarming. FAO is unduly diverging from its mandate in the direction of a corporate-driven agenda very much aligned with the FSS agenda. Prioritizing technology, innovation and data will clearly fail its mandate that is grounded in attaining the right to food for all, and redirect financing towards corporate private sector at the cost of public programmes. As a UN agency, FAO is bound by the international human rights framework, and must serve public interest and give centrality to the weakest – yet essential – actors of food systems: small-scale food producers and workers. Excerpt taken from https://www.csm4cfs.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/EN-Policy-Brief-on-FSS-1.pdf -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ayden at ferdeline.com Wed Nov 10 18:21:21 2021 From: ayden at ferdeline.com (=?utf-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2021 23:21:21 +0000 Subject: [Governance] Fw: 2 year $200k SSRC Just Tech Fellowship! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi all, Forwarding this funding opportunity from another mailing list, in case of interest to anyone based in the States. Apologies for crossposting if you have already seen it. Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ > [View this email in your browser](https://mailchi.mp/ssrc.org/new-ssrc-fellowship-opportunity-just-tech?e=d8b6d1644c) > > [Introducing the Just Tech Fellowship](https://ssrc.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=23016b3478f0ef1f169c918a5&id=9e81b67004&e=d8b6d1644c) > > A New Fellowship Opportunity from the Social Science Research Council > > The Social Science Research Council is thrilled to announce that we are accepting expressions of interest for ourJust Tech Fellowship, a groundbreaking new initiative from SSRC's [Just Tech program](https://ssrc.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=23016b3478f0ef1f169c918a5&id=bb3ac1ab4b&e=d8b6d1644c). Just Tech foregrounds questions of power, justice, and the public impact of new technologies, investigating evidence of bias and harms while imagining and creating more just technological futures. > > The[Just Tech Fellowship](https://ssrc.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=23016b3478f0ef1f169c918a5&id=f10d27f95f&e=d8b6d1644c)is aremote, two-year, full-time research fellowshipthat invests in a diverse community of researchers and practitioners who will identify and challenge injustices emerging from new technologies and identify solutions that advance social, political, and economic rights. > > [Learn more](https://ssrc.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=23016b3478f0ef1f169c918a5&id=d8eb4e6b91&e=d8b6d1644c) > > The Just Tech Fellowship is designed not only to support a researcher’s work but also to invest in their entire person and build a supportive community. The fellowship offerstwo-year unrestricted awards of $100,000 per yearwith the intention of opening space, time, and resources for fellows as they envision and enact more just technological futures. The awards are augmented byrobust supplementary funding packagesto subsidize dependent care, health care, work space, technical equipment, project materials, communications, or other needs. > > For more information, visit the following links: > > - [Just Tech Fellowship Press Release](https://ssrc.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=23016b3478f0ef1f169c918a5&id=c9bf62ebb0&e=d8b6d1644c) > > - [About the SSRC Just Tech Program](https://ssrc.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=23016b3478f0ef1f169c918a5&id=0c84a64dff&e=d8b6d1644c) > > - [2021 Fellowship Theme: Crisis and Reparation](https://ssrc.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=23016b3478f0ef1f169c918a5&id=7f61ced606&e=d8b6d1644c) > > - Sign up for a public information session on[December 1](https://ssrc.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=23016b3478f0ef1f169c918a5&id=2e5a6548bd&e=d8b6d1644c)at 3:00 p.m. ET or[December 9](https://ssrc.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=23016b3478f0ef1f169c918a5&id=9592737a05&e=d8b6d1644c)at 10:00 a.m. ET > > We are honored to work with you collectively to—in the words of Ruha Benjamin, Princeton University professor and author ofRace After Technology—"imagine and craft the worlds you cannot live without, just as you dismantle the ones you cannot live within." > > We look forward to hearing from you. > > TO APPLY > > Submission of an[expression of interest](https://ssrc.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=23016b3478f0ef1f169c918a5&id=9c3e32ed03&e=d8b6d1644c)is required to submit a full application. Expressions of interest will be accepted until Sunday, January 2, 2022. Full applications will be accepted between Monday, January 3, 2022, and Sunday, January 30, 2022. Details on required contents of complete applications are available[here](https://ssrc.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=23016b3478f0ef1f169c918a5&id=deb0e507cc&e=d8b6d1644c). > > Please review the[fellowship home page](https://ssrc.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=23016b3478f0ef1f169c918a5&id=b2d9fa3177&e=d8b6d1644c) and[FAQ page](https://ssrc.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=23016b3478f0ef1f169c918a5&id=fcbe24928a&e=d8b6d1644c)for more details. For further questions, contact us atjust-tech at ssrc.org. > > The Social Science Research Council’s Just Tech program foregrounds questions of power, justice, and the public impact of new technologies, investigating evidence of bias and harms while imagining and creating more just technological futures. > > Just Tech is supported by the Ford Foundation, the John D. and Catherine T. McArthur Foundation, the Surdna Foundation, and Democracy Fund. > > [Twitter](https://ssrc.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=23016b3478f0ef1f169c918a5&id=a36281897c&e=d8b6d1644c) > > [Website](https://ssrc.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=23016b3478f0ef1f169c918a5&id=736233a8c8&e=d8b6d1644c) > > [Email](mailto:just-tech at ssrc.org) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joly at punkcast.com Thu Nov 11 00:35:20 2021 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2021 00:35:20 -0500 Subject: [Governance] WEBCAST TODAY: Internet measurements, global routing and online privacy Message-ID: This is underway, and full of technical meat. I hope to get the slides for the archive. ISOC Live posted: "On Thursday 11th November 2021 from 10:00-12:00 IST (04:30-06:30 UTC) the Internet Society India Hyderabad Chapter and Internet Society Pulse present a workshop 'Internet measurements, global routing and online privacy'. The workshop will provide an ove" [image: livestream] On *Thursday 11th November 2021* from *10:00-12:00 IST* (04:30-06:30 UTC) the *Internet Society India Hyderabad Chapte *r and *Internet Society Pulse * present a workshop '*Internet measurements, global routing and online privacy*'. The workshop will provide an overview of the Internet ecosystem in India and in the region using an Internet Measurement lens - focusing on global routing and privacy considerations. HOST *K Mohan Raidu*, President, ISOC India Hyderabad Chapter SPEAKERS *Sambuddha Chakravarty*, Assistant professor, IIT Delhi *Anurag Bhatia*, Network Researcher, Hurricane Electric *David Belson*, Fastly *Romain Fontugne*, IIJ Japan *CHAIR Amreesh Phokeer*, Internet Measurement and Data Expert, Internet Society *LIVESTREAM http://livestream.com/internetsociety/internetmeasurement * *PARTICIPATE VIA ZOOM https://bit.ly/3oieMTX * *TWITTER #internetmeasuremen t @isoc_pulse @isochyderabad @anurag_bhatia Sambuddha Chakravarty @iitdelhi @dbelson @Fastly @romain_fontugne @ihr_alerts @amreesh* *SIMULCASTS* *https://www.twitter.com/ISOC_Live/ * *ARCHIVE* *https://archive.org/details/internetmeasurement * *Permalink* https://isoc.live/14760/ -- -------------------------------------- Joly MacFie +12185659365 -------------------------------------- - -- -------------------------------------- Joly MacFie +12185659365 -------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joly at punkcast.com Thu Nov 11 19:40:59 2021 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2021 19:40:59 -0500 Subject: [Governance] =?utf-8?q?WEBCAST_TODAY=3A_A11yVR_=E2=80=93_Paradig?= =?utf-8?q?m_Shifts_in_Interacting_With_Virtual_Environments=3A_A_F?= =?utf-8?q?ocus_on_Deaf_People_=E2=80=93_Wendy_Dannels?= Message-ID: This is underway. Quite a complicated set up. Presenter is using ASL via video in Hubs, and in a Zoom call with interpreters for two way communication. ISOC Live posted: "On Thursday November 11 2021 at 19:00 EDT / 00:00 UTC / 09:00 JST (Wed) the Accessibility VR Meetup hosts 'Paradigm Shifts in Interacting With Virtual Environments: A Focus on Deaf People' on Mozilla Hubs. Professor Wendy Dannels of the XR Accessibility S" [image: livestream] On *Thursday November 11 2021* at *19:00 EDT / 00:00 UTC / 09:00 JST* (Wed) the *Accessibility VR Meetup * hosts '*Paradigm Shifts in Interacting With Virtual Environments: A Focus on Deaf People *' on Mozilla Hubs. *Professor Wendy Dannels * of the XR Accessibility Solutions Laboratory at *Rochester Institute of Technology * will will point to some challenges and opportunities deaf individuals using American Sign Language as their primary language have faced when navigating and interacting with others through Mozilla Hubs. She will discuss ideas on making VR social platforms more inclusive including working with host and access service providers such as ASL interpreters. The session will be webcast live via a partnership with the *Internet Society Accessibility SIG * (A11ySIG). *LIVESTREAM: https://livestream.com/internetsociety/a11yvr19 *(open captions / ASL) *PARTICIPATE VIA MOZILLA HUBS: https://www.meetup.com/a11yvr/events/281355381/ * (open captions / ASL) *REAL TIME TEXT: https://www.streamtext.net/player?event=a11yvr * *TWITTER: @a11yvr #xrasl #ritntid @wdannells @RITtigers #a11y #XR #VR @IAAPOrg @MozillaHubs #captioned* *SIMULCASTS* (open captions / ASL) *https://www.twitter.com/ISOC_Live/ * *https://www.twitch.tv/isoclive * *https://www.facebook.com/liveisoc/ * *https://youtu.be/by-JkpU-AXI *(monitored for comments) *https://www.facebook.com/DeafScience *(maybe) *ARCHIVE https://archive.org/details/a11yvr19 * *ACCREDITATION - *All A11yVR meetups are pre-approved for *IAAP Continuing Accessibility Education Credits (CAEC) .* *SPONSOR: Equal Entry * *Permalink* https://isoc.live/14720/ - -- -------------------------------------- Joly MacFie +12185659365 -------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sheetal at gp-digital.org Mon Nov 15 04:51:55 2021 From: sheetal at gp-digital.org (Sheetal Kumar) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2021 09:51:55 +0000 Subject: [Governance] NOTICE: CSCG nomination process for IGF Leadership Panel Message-ID: Dear all, As you may have seen, the IGF Secretariat has launched the nomination process at the request of the Executive Office of the United Nations Secretary-General for the *inaugural Leadership Panel of the 2022 and 2023 Internet Governance Forum (IGF) cycles* . Following several rounds of open consultations, the Leadership Panel is a response to the Secretary-General’s Roadmap for Digital Cooperation , which calls for strengthening of the IGF through, among other aspects, *’’creating a strategic and empowered multi-stakeholder high-level body, building on the experience of the existing multi-stakeholder advisory group, which would address urgent issues, coordinate follow-up action on Forum discussions and relay proposed policy approaches and recommendations from the Forum to the appropriate normative and decision-making forums*.’’ CSCG, and for this process, this includes APC and IGC, will run a nomination process to identify nominees for the two categories: - Two [2] at-large members (distinguished or prominent persons who do not fall under above stakeholder groups) and - Two [2] CEO-level (or deputy-level) representatives from each of the other three stakeholder groups (civil society) Please note, this does not mean we endorse the process or the mechanism itself. We will send a letter with the nominations that clearly reiterates our previous publicly stated positions (such as this Open letter on the interpretation of paragraph 93(a) of the UNSG's Roadmap on Digital Cooperation and this on the future of the IGF on the Leadership Panel/Higher-level MAG ), including the importance of maintaining the MAG's current role and not supplanting it, the importance of diversity and inclusion, transparency etc and make clear that our submission of nominees should not be read as endorsement. We intend that our nominations reflect the above criteria. Please note that to receive a CSCG nomination for the IGF leadership panel you'll need to send us (me and Valeria and Bruna cc'd) the information required on the online form . We request this is done by *COB November 22 *so that we are able to submit by the deadline of *November 29. * We look forward to receiving your nomination/s. Best Sheetal -- *Sheetal Kumar* Head of Global Engagement and Advocacy | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| Time zone: GMT | M: +44 (0)7739569514 | PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joly at punkcast.com Tue Nov 16 13:46:48 2021 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2021 13:46:48 -0500 Subject: [Governance] =?utf-8?q?WEBCAST_TODAY=3A_EURALO_Round_Table=3A_In?= =?utf-8?q?ternet_Governance_=E2=80=93_Encryption_challenges_in_the?= =?utf-8?q?_French_and_European_regulatory_space?= Message-ID: While the webcast is in English. French, Spanish, and Russian are available on the call. Real time text is at https://bit.ly/3oy6rM0. ISOC Live posted: "On Tuesday, 16 November 2021 at 18:00-19:30 UTC the European Regional At-Large Organization (EURALO) hosts a roundtable 'Internet Governance Encryption challenges in the French and European regulatory space'. HOST Sébastien Bachollet, EURALO Chair GUEST" [image: livestream] On *Tuesday, 16 November 2021* at *18:00-19:30 UTC* the *European Regional At-Large Organization * (EURALO) hosts a roundtable '*Internet Governance Encryption challenges in the French and European regulatory space *'. *HOST* *Sébastien Bachollet*, EURALO Chair *GUEST SPEAKERS* *Lucien Castex*, Representative for Public Affairs, Afnic *Jean-Christophe Le Toquin*, Coordinator, Encryption Europe *MODERATOR* *Pari Esfandiari,* ALAC *LIVESTREAM http://livestream.com/internetsociety/euralo8 * *AGENDA https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=180027880 * *PARTICIPATE VIA ZOOM **https://bit.ly/3ozULZd* (EN/FR/ES/RU) *REAL TIME TEXT* (see ISOC.LIVE ) *TWITTER #encryption #euralo @icann @LucienCastex @Afnic Jean-Christophe Le Toquin @EncryptEurope #GlobalEncryption* *SIMULCASTS* *https://www.twitter.com/ISOC_Live/ * *https://www.twitch.tv/isoclive * *https://www.facebook.com/liveisoc*/ (AI Captions) *ARCHIVE* *https://archive.org/details/euralo8 * *Permalink* https://isoc.live/14774/ -------------------------------------- - -- -------------------------------------- Joly MacFie +12185659365 -------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anriette at apc.org Wed Nov 17 07:39:49 2021 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2021 14:39:49 +0200 Subject: [Governance] =?utf-8?q?Today_-_16_Years_of_IGF_Evolution_and_Str?= =?utf-8?q?engthening_=E2=80=93_Taking_Stock_and_Looking_Forward?= In-Reply-To: <7e56289e-95d5-033e-9a97-069bfdfde3a4@apc.org> References: <7e56289e-95d5-033e-9a97-069bfdfde3a4@apc.org> Message-ID: Dear all As we move closer to celebrating the IGF's 15th anniversary, please do join this IGF2021 Preparatory and Engagement Phase session on Wednesday, 17 November, at 13h00 UTC https://www.intgovforum.org/en/node/15588 Looking forward to lively and useful discussion. Anriette *16 Years of IGF Evolution and Strengthening – Taking Stock and Looking Forward* Wednesday, 17th November, 2021 (15:00 SAST) - Wednesday, 17th November, 2021 (16:30 SAST) /Facilitated by MAG Chair in collaboration with the MAG Working Group on IGF Strategy and Strengthening/ Interactive moderated panel that will look back and take stock of how the IGF has evolved and what its key achievements have been; reflect on the current and future internet governance ecosystem and the IGF’s role in this ecosystem, particularly in the context of ‘digital cooperation’ and the UN-Secretary General’s proposed ‘global digital compact’. The panel will consider the role the IGF has and can play in inclusive internet governance, both through the further development of the multistakeholder approach and through closer engagement with multilateral processes. Finally the session will consider what is meant by the idea of a “stronger, more focused and impactful IGF” and propose specific steps to be taken to establish a stronger, more strategic IGF that operates on the basis of a multi-year plan working to the goal of the idea of an “IGF plus” with the institutional capacity, leadership and oversight needed to see it through the renewal of its mandate in 2025 and beyond. Process: The meeting will divided into roughly three parts with panelists speaking @ 20 minutes in each, with the remaining time reserved for open discussion with all participants.   Moderators: Anriette Esterhuysen, MAG chair and William Drake, Columbia University, former MAG and WGIG member Rapporteurs:  Giacomo Mazzone, past MAG member and member, MAG WG-strategy, Roman Chukov and Amrita Choudhury (MAG WG-strategy co-chairs) Panelists: Part I: Past/Origins  1. Markus Kummer – IGF Support Association,  WGIG and past IGF Executive Coordinator and interim MAG chair - CONFIRMED 2. Wolfgang Kleinwächter – WGIG and EuroSSIG - CONFIRMED 3. Christine Arida - Strategic Planning Sector Head at National Telecommunications Regulatory Authority (NTRA) of Egypt a past host country of the IGF - CONFIRMED PART II – Present dynamics 4. Fiona Alexander – past MAG member and previously with the NTIA and member of MAG WG strategy - CONFIRMED 5. Flavio Wagner - past MAG member and member of MAG WG-strategy - CONFIRMED 6. Parminder Jeet Singh, IT For Change (cs) - CONFIRMED  7. Esteve Sanz, Head of Sector EC - member of MAG WG-strategy (gov) - CONFIRMED Part III: Futures/Options 8. Yu Ping Chan, Office of the UN SG’s Envoy on Technology - CONFIRMED 9. Concettina Cassa - past MAG member and co-chair WG-strategy (Gov) - CONFIRMED 10. Mark Carvell - EuroDIG Member and former UK government policy advisers and MAG member. Member of MAG WG-strategy - CONFIRMED Questions and topics to be addressed  Part I: Past/Origins   1. Over the years there have been various expressions of frustration with the IGF supposedly being just a “talk shop” that does not take binding decisions.  But this is an essential part of the IGF’s DNA, as it is what governments and stakeholders at the 2005 Tunis WSIS summit thought was needed and what they could agree to.  To set the stage for our discussion, please reflect on the considerations and processes that shaped the fundamental features of the IGF’s design and made it what it has become today. 2.  The IGF Mandate approved by the 2005 Tunis WSIS summit included provisions stating that the IGF should “Promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet Governance processes;” and “Identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of the relevant bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make recommendations.”  To what extent has the IGF pursued these objectives?  What has been achieved or not regarding these functions, and why? 3.  The global Internet governance agenda has evolved significantly over the past sixteen years, with many of the issues and political dynamics that animated early IGFs drifting from center stage while new ones came to the fore.  What have been the key shifts in substantive focus and institutional dynamics over the course of the IGF’s history to date? Part II – Present dynamics 1.  Name one positive change or achievement that you feel can be attributed to the IGF. Is there anything significant that might have turned out differently if we had not had the IGF? 2. Has the IGF altered the global discourse or debate in any significant ways? How much does such discourse and soft norms matter, relative to negotiated formal agreements? 3.  The IGF has spawned new collaborative processes that work on an intersessional basis and then feed into the meetings, e.g. the policy networks, the NRIs, the DCs and the BPFs.  Have these efforts yielded any important results? What could be done to increase their salience? What roles could they play going forward as the landscape of Internet governance and digital cooperation continues to evolve? 4.  How has the multistakeholder approach worked in the IGF? Is it continuing to develop conceptually and practically, or has it stagnated? If it has, what can be done to renew it? Part III: Futures/Options 1.  There have been various calls, including from high-level government figures, for the IGF to produce more tangible outcomes.  What forms could these take? What would be needed for the international community to agree to such a process and outcome? 2.  With regard to the United Nations’ Roadmap and Common Agenda, what roles and value-added do you see for the IGF?  Do you see a specific role of the IGF with regard to the proposed Global Digital Compact? 3.  What is your view of the terms of reference for the new Leadership Panel (formerly referred to as the MHLB)? How can we make this a useful grouping?  What about the MAG, do its terms of reference and functioning need to change?  4. Proposals have been made for the IGF Secretariat and MAG to work collaboratively on a multi-year plan. Do you think this is feasible? How would you go about developing and implementing such a plan? 5.  Name one aspect of how the IGF operates that you would change, and one aspect you would like to retain. -- Anriette Esterhuysen - anriette at apc.org//anriette at gmail.com Chair, United Nations Internet Governance Forum Multistakeholder Advisory Group www.intgovforum.org Senior advisor global and regional internet governance Association for Progressive Communications www.apc.org // afrisig.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ayden at ferdeline.com Wed Nov 17 15:13:56 2021 From: ayden at ferdeline.com (=?utf-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2021 20:13:56 +0000 Subject: [Governance] =?utf-8?q?Today_-_16_Years_of_IGF_Evolution_and_Str?= =?utf-8?q?engthening_=E2=80=93_Taking_Stock_and_Looking_Forward?= In-Reply-To: References: <7e56289e-95d5-033e-9a97-069bfdfde3a4@apc.org> Message-ID: I really enjoyed this session; thank you Anriette and Bill for moderating! A recording is on YouTube here for those who were unable to attend live: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85gIrQd5RNo Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Wednesday, November 17th, 2021 at 13:39, Anriette Esterhuysen via Governance wrote: > Dear all > > As we move closer to celebrating the IGF's 15th anniversary, please do join this IGF2021 Preparatory and Engagement Phase session on Wednesday, 17 November, at 13h00 UTC > > https://www.intgovforum.org/en/node/15588 > > Looking forward to lively and useful discussion. > > Anriette > > 16 Years of IGF Evolution and Strengthening – Taking Stock and Looking Forward > > Wednesday, 17th November, 2021 (15:00 SAST) - Wednesday, 17th November, 2021 (16:30 SAST) > > Facilitated by MAG Chair in collaboration with the MAG Working Group on IGF Strategy and Strengthening > > Interactive moderated panel that will look back and take stock of how the IGF has evolved and what its key achievements have been; reflect on the current and future internet governance ecosystem and the IGF’s role in this ecosystem, particularly in the context of ‘digital cooperation’ and the UN-Secretary General’s proposed ‘global digital compact’. The panel will consider the role the IGF has and can play in inclusive internet governance, both through the further development of the multistakeholder approach and through closer engagement with multilateral processes. Finally the session will consider what is meant by the idea of a “stronger, more focused and impactful IGF” and propose specific steps to be taken to establish a stronger, more strategic IGF that operates on the basis of a multi-year plan working to the goal of the idea of an “IGF plus” with the institutional capacity, leadership and oversight needed to see it through the renewal of its mandate in 2025 and beyond. > > Process: The meeting will divided into roughly three parts with panelists speaking @ 20 minutes in each, with the remaining time reserved for open discussion with all participants. > > Moderators: Anriette Esterhuysen, MAG chair and William Drake, Columbia University, former MAG and WGIG member > > Rapporteurs: Giacomo Mazzone, past MAG member and member, MAG WG-strategy, Roman Chukov and Amrita Choudhury (MAG WG-strategy co-chairs) > > Panelists: > > Part I: Past/Origins > > - Markus Kummer – IGF Support Association, WGIG and past IGF Executive Coordinator and interim MAG chair - CONFIRMED > - Wolfgang Kleinwächter – WGIG and EuroSSIG - CONFIRMED > - Christine Arida - Strategic Planning Sector Head at National Telecommunications Regulatory Authority (NTRA) of Egypt a past host country of the IGF - CONFIRMED > > PART II – Present dynamics > > - Fiona Alexander – past MAG member and previously with the NTIA and member of MAG WG strategy - CONFIRMED > - Flavio Wagner - past MAG member and member of MAG WG-strategy - CONFIRMED > - Parminder Jeet Singh, IT For Change (cs) - CONFIRMED > - Esteve Sanz, Head of Sector EC - member of MAG WG-strategy (gov) - CONFIRMED > > Part III: Futures/Options > > - Yu Ping Chan, Office of the UN SG’s Envoy on Technology - CONFIRMED > - Concettina Cassa - past MAG member and co-chair WG-strategy (Gov) - CONFIRMED > - Mark Carvell - EuroDIG Member and former UK government policy advisers and MAG member. Member of MAG WG-strategy - CONFIRMED > > Questions and topics to be addressed > > Part I: Past/Origins > > 1. Over the years there have been various expressions of frustration with the IGF supposedly being just a “talk shop” that does not take binding decisions. But this is an essential part of the IGF’s DNA, as it is what governments and stakeholders at the 2005 Tunis WSIS summit thought was needed and what they could agree to. To set the stage for our discussion, please reflect on the considerations and processes that shaped the fundamental features of the IGF’s design and made it what it has become today. > > 2. The IGF Mandate approved by the 2005 Tunis WSIS summit included provisions stating that the IGF should “Promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet Governance processes;” and “Identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of the relevant bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make recommendations.” To what extent has the IGF pursued these objectives? What has been achieved or not regarding these functions, and why? > > 3. The global Internet governance agenda has evolved significantly over the past sixteen years, with many of the issues and political dynamics that animated early IGFs drifting from center stage while new ones came to the fore. What have been the key shifts in substantive focus and institutional dynamics over the course of the IGF’s history to date? > > Part II – Present dynamics > > 1. Name one positive change or achievement that you feel can be attributed to the IGF. Is there anything significant that might have turned out differently if we had not had the IGF? > > 2. Has the IGF altered the global discourse or debate in any significant ways? How much does such discourse and soft norms matter, relative to negotiated formal agreements? > > 3. The IGF has spawned new collaborative processes that work on an intersessional basis and then feed into the meetings, e.g. the policy networks, the NRIs, the DCs and the BPFs. Have these efforts yielded any important results? What could be done to increase their salience? What roles could they play going forward as the landscape of Internet governance and digital cooperation continues to evolve? > > 4. How has the multistakeholder approach worked in the IGF? Is it continuing to develop conceptually and practically, or has it stagnated? If it has, what can be done to renew it? > > Part III: Futures/Options > > 1. There have been various calls, including from high-level government figures, for the IGF to produce more tangible outcomes. What forms could these take? What would be needed for the international community to agree to such a process and outcome? > > 2. With regard to the United Nations’ Roadmap and Common Agenda, what roles and value-added do you see for the IGF? Do you see a specific role of the IGF with regard to the proposed Global Digital Compact? > > 3. What is your view of the terms of reference for the new Leadership Panel (formerly referred to as the MHLB)? How can we make this a useful grouping? What about the MAG, do its terms of reference and functioning need to change? > > 4. Proposals have been made for the IGF Secretariat and MAG to work collaboratively on a multi-year plan. Do you think this is feasible? How would you go about developing and implementing such a plan? > > 5. Name one aspect of how the IGF operates that you would change, and one aspect you would like to retain. > > -- > Anriette Esterhuysen - > anriette at apc.org//anriette at gmail.com > Chair, United Nations Internet Governance Forum Multistakeholder Advisory Group > www.intgovforum.org > Senior advisor global and regional internet governance > Association for Progressive Communications > www.apc.org > // afrisig.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From olgacavalli at gmail.com Wed Nov 17 16:50:42 2021 From: olgacavalli at gmail.com (Olga Cavalli) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2021 18:50:42 -0300 Subject: [Governance] =?utf-8?q?Today_-_16_Years_of_IGF_Evolution_and_Str?= =?utf-8?q?engthening_=E2=80=93_Taking_Stock_and_Looking_Forward?= In-Reply-To: References: <7e56289e-95d5-033e-9a97-069bfdfde3a4@apc.org> Message-ID: Hi many thanks Ayden for the recording I was not able to attend due to a conflicting activity regards to all best Olga El mié, 17 nov 2021 a las 17:14, Ayden Férdeline via Governance (< governance at lists.igcaucus.org>) escribió: > I really enjoyed this session; thank you Anriette and Bill for moderating! > > A recording is on YouTube here for those who were unable to attend live: > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85gIrQd5RNo > > Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline > > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ > On Wednesday, November 17th, 2021 at 13:39, Anriette Esterhuysen via > Governance wrote: > > > Dear all > > As we move closer to celebrating the IGF's 15th anniversary, please do > join this IGF2021 Preparatory and Engagement Phase session on Wednesday, 17 > November, at 13h00 UTC > > https://www.intgovforum.org/en/node/15588 > > Looking forward to lively and useful discussion. > > Anriette > > *16 Years of IGF Evolution and Strengthening – Taking Stock and Looking > Forward* > > Wednesday, 17th November, 2021 (15:00 SAST) - Wednesday, 17th November, > 2021 (16:30 SAST) > > *Facilitated by MAG Chair in collaboration with the MAG Working Group on > IGF Strategy and Strengthening* > > Interactive moderated panel that will look back and take stock of how the > IGF has evolved and what its key achievements have been; reflect on the > current and future internet governance ecosystem and the IGF’s role in > this ecosystem, particularly in the context of ‘digital cooperation’ and > the UN-Secretary General’s proposed ‘global digital compact’. The panel > will consider the role the IGF has and can play in inclusive internet > governance, both through the further development of the multistakeholder > approach and through closer engagement with multilateral processes. Finally > the session will consider what is meant by the idea of a “stronger, more > focused and impactful IGF” and propose specific steps to be taken to > establish a stronger, more strategic IGF that operates on the basis of a > multi-year plan working to the goal of the idea of an “IGF plus” with the > institutional capacity, leadership and oversight needed to see it through > the renewal of its mandate in 2025 and beyond. > > Process: The meeting will divided into roughly three parts with panelists > speaking @ 20 minutes in each, with the remaining time reserved for open > discussion with all participants. > > Moderators: Anriette Esterhuysen, MAG chair and William Drake, Columbia > University, former MAG and WGIG member > > Rapporteurs: Giacomo Mazzone, past MAG member and member, MAG WG-strategy, > Roman Chukov and Amrita Choudhury (MAG WG-strategy co-chairs) > > Panelists: > > Part I: Past/Origins > > 1. Markus Kummer – IGF Support Association, WGIG and past IGF > Executive Coordinator and interim MAG chair - CONFIRMED > 2. Wolfgang Kleinwächter – WGIG and EuroSSIG - CONFIRMED > 3. Christine Arida - Strategic Planning Sector Head at National > Telecommunications Regulatory Authority (NTRA) of Egypt a past host country > of the IGF - CONFIRMED > > PART II – Present dynamics > > 1. Fiona Alexander – past MAG member and previously with the NTIA and > member of MAG WG strategy - CONFIRMED > 2. Flavio Wagner - past MAG member and member of MAG WG-strategy - > CONFIRMED > 3. Parminder Jeet Singh, IT For Change (cs) - CONFIRMED > 4. Esteve Sanz, Head of Sector EC - member of MAG WG-strategy (gov) - > CONFIRMED > > Part III: Futures/Options > > 1. Yu Ping Chan, Office of the UN SG’s Envoy on Technology - CONFIRMED > 2. Concettina Cassa - past MAG member and co-chair WG-strategy (Gov) - > CONFIRMED > 3. Mark Carvell - EuroDIG Member and former UK government policy > advisers and MAG member. Member of MAG WG-strategy - CONFIRMED > > Questions and topics to be addressed > > Part I: Past/Origins > > 1. Over the years there have been various expressions of frustration with > the IGF supposedly being just a “talk shop” that does not take binding > decisions. But this is an essential part of the IGF’s DNA, as it is what > governments and stakeholders at the 2005 Tunis WSIS summit thought was > needed and what they could agree to. To set the stage for our discussion, > please reflect on the considerations and processes that shaped the > fundamental features of the IGF’s design and made it what it has become > today. > > 2. The IGF Mandate approved by the 2005 Tunis WSIS summit included > provisions stating that the IGF should “Promote and assess, on an ongoing > basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet Governance > processes;” and “Identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of > the relevant bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make > recommendations.” To what extent has the IGF pursued these objectives? > What has been achieved or not regarding these functions, and why? > > 3. The global Internet governance agenda has evolved significantly over > the past sixteen years, with many of the issues and political dynamics that > animated early IGFs drifting from center stage while new ones came to the > fore. What have been the key shifts in substantive focus and institutional > dynamics over the course of the IGF’s history to date? > > Part II – Present dynamics > > 1. Name one positive change or achievement that you feel can be > attributed to the IGF. Is there anything significant that might have > turned out differently if we had not had the IGF? > > 2. Has the IGF altered the global discourse or debate in any significant > ways? How much does such discourse and soft norms matter, relative to > negotiated formal agreements? > > 3. The IGF has spawned new collaborative processes that work on an > intersessional basis and then feed into the meetings, e.g. the policy > networks, the NRIs, the DCs and the BPFs. Have these efforts yielded any > important results? What could be done to increase their salience? What > roles could they play going forward as the landscape of Internet governance > and digital cooperation continues to evolve? > > 4. How has the multistakeholder approach worked in the IGF? Is it > continuing to develop conceptually and practically, or has it stagnated? If > it has, what can be done to renew it? > > Part III: Futures/Options > > 1. There have been various calls, including from high-level government > figures, for the IGF to produce more tangible outcomes. What forms could > these take? What would be needed for the international community to agree > to such a process and outcome? > > 2. With regard to the United Nations’ Roadmap and Common Agenda, what > roles and value-added do you see for the IGF? Do you see a specific role > of the IGF with regard to the proposed Global Digital Compact? > > 3. What is your view of the terms of reference for the new Leadership > Panel (formerly referred to as the MHLB)? How can we make this a useful > grouping? What about the MAG, do its terms of reference and functioning > need to change? > > 4. Proposals have been made for the IGF Secretariat and MAG to work > collaboratively on a multi-year plan. Do you think this is feasible? How > would you go about developing and implementing such a plan? > > 5. Name one aspect of how the IGF operates that you would change, and > one aspect you would like to retain. > > -- > Anriette Esterhuysen - anriette at apc.org//anriette at gmail.com > Chair, United Nations Internet Governance Forum Multistakeholder Advisory Groupwww.intgovforum.org > > Senior advisor global and regional internet governance > Association for Progressive Communicationswww.apc.org // afrisig.org > > > -- > Governance mailing list > Governance at lists.igcaucus.org > https://lists.igcaucus.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anriette at apc.org Thu Nov 18 04:16:06 2021 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2021 11:16:06 +0200 Subject: [Governance] =?utf-8?q?Today_-_16_Years_of_IGF_Evolution_and_Str?= =?utf-8?q?engthening_=E2=80=93_Taking_Stock_and_Looking_Forward?= In-Reply-To: References: <7e56289e-95d5-033e-9a97-069bfdfde3a4@apc.org> Message-ID: <1c26554f-08f3-50d0-dd91-4e0e8b477994@apc.org> Thanks for sharing the link Ayden. And thanks to all who participated. Anriette Anriette Esterhuysen - anriette at apc.org//anriette at gmail.com Chair, United Nations Internet Governance Forum Multistakeholder Advisory Group www.intgovforum.org Senior advisor global and regional internet governance Association for Progressive Communications www.apc.org // afrisig.org On 2021/11/17 22:13, Ayden Férdeline wrote: > I really enjoyed this session; thank you Anriette and Bill for moderating! > > A recording is on YouTube here for those who were unable to attend > live: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85gIrQd5RNo > > > Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline  > > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ > On Wednesday, November 17th, 2021 at 13:39, Anriette Esterhuysen via > Governance wrote: >> >> Dear all >> >> As we move closer to celebrating the IGF's 15th anniversary, please >> do join this IGF2021 Preparatory and Engagement Phase session on >> Wednesday, 17 November, at 13h00 UTC >> >> https://www.intgovforum.org/en/node/15588 >> >> >> Looking forward to lively and useful discussion. >> >> Anriette >> >> *16 Years of IGF Evolution and Strengthening – Taking Stock and >> Looking Forward* >> >> Wednesday, 17th November, 2021 (15:00 SAST) - Wednesday, 17th >> November, 2021 (16:30 SAST) >> >> /Facilitated by MAG Chair in collaboration with the MAG Working Group >> on IGF Strategy and Strengthening/ >> >> Interactive moderated panel that will look back and take stock of how >> the IGF has evolved and what its key achievements have been; reflect >> on the current and future internet governance ecosystem and the IGF’s >> role in this ecosystem, particularly in the context of ‘digital >> cooperation’ and the UN-Secretary General’s proposed ‘global digital >> compact’. The panel will consider the role the IGF has and can play >> in inclusive internet governance, both through the further >> development of the multistakeholder approach and through closer >> engagement with multilateral processes. Finally the session will >> consider what is meant by the idea of a “stronger, more focused and >> impactful IGF” and propose specific steps to be taken to establish a >> stronger, more strategic IGF that operates on the basis of a >> multi-year plan working to the goal of the idea of an “IGF plus” with >> the institutional capacity, leadership and oversight needed to see it >> through the renewal of its mandate in 2025 and beyond. >> >> Process: The meeting will divided into roughly three parts with >> panelists speaking @ 20 minutes in each, with the remaining time >> reserved for open discussion with all participants.   >> >> Moderators: Anriette Esterhuysen, MAG chair and William Drake, >> Columbia University, former MAG and WGIG member >> >> Rapporteurs:  Giacomo Mazzone, past MAG member and member, MAG >> WG-strategy, Roman Chukov and Amrita Choudhury (MAG WG-strategy >> co-chairs) >> >> Panelists: >> >> Part I: Past/Origins  >> >> 1. Markus Kummer – IGF Support Association,  WGIG and past IGF >> Executive Coordinator and interim MAG chair - CONFIRMED >> 2. Wolfgang Kleinwächter – WGIG and EuroSSIG - CONFIRMED >> 3. Christine Arida - Strategic Planning Sector Head at National >> Telecommunications Regulatory Authority (NTRA) of Egypt a past >> host country of the IGF - CONFIRMED >> >> PART II – Present dynamics >> >> 4. Fiona Alexander – past MAG member and previously with the NTIA >> and member of MAG WG strategy - CONFIRMED >> 5. Flavio Wagner - past MAG member and member of MAG WG-strategy - >> CONFIRMED >> 6. Parminder Jeet Singh, IT For Change (cs) - CONFIRMED  >> 7. Esteve Sanz, Head of Sector EC - member of MAG WG-strategy (gov) >> - CONFIRMED >> >> Part III: Futures/Options >> >> 8. Yu Ping Chan, Office of the UN SG’s Envoy on Technology - CONFIRMED >> 9. Concettina Cassa - past MAG member and co-chair WG-strategy (Gov) >> - CONFIRMED >> 10. Mark Carvell - EuroDIG Member and former UK government policy >> advisers and MAG member. Member of MAG WG-strategy - CONFIRMED >> >> Questions and topics to be addressed  >> >> Part I: Past/Origins   >> >> 1. Over the years there have been various expressions of frustration >> with the IGF supposedly being just a “talk shop” that does not take >> binding decisions.  But this is an essential part of the IGF’s DNA, >> as it is what governments and stakeholders at the 2005 Tunis WSIS >> summit thought was needed and what they could agree to.  To set the >> stage for our discussion, please reflect on the considerations and >> processes that shaped the fundamental features of the IGF’s design >> and made it what it has become today. >> >> 2.  The IGF Mandate approved by the 2005 Tunis WSIS summit included >> provisions stating that the IGF should “Promote and assess, on an >> ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet >> Governance processes;” and “Identify emerging issues, bring them to >> the attention of the relevant bodies and the general public, and, >> where appropriate, make recommendations.”  To what extent has the IGF >> pursued these objectives?  What has been achieved or not regarding >> these functions, and why? >> >> 3.  The global Internet governance agenda has evolved significantly >> over the past sixteen years, with many of the issues and political >> dynamics that animated early IGFs drifting from center stage while >> new ones came to the fore.  What have been the key shifts in >> substantive focus and institutional dynamics over the course of the >> IGF’s history to date? >> >> Part II – Present dynamics >> >> 1.  Name one positive change or achievement that you feel can be >> attributed to the IGF. Is there anything significant that might have >> turned out differently if we had not had the IGF? >> >> 2. Has the IGF altered the global discourse or debate in any >> significant ways? How much does such discourse and soft norms matter, >> relative to negotiated formal agreements? >> >> 3.  The IGF has spawned new collaborative processes that work on an >> intersessional basis and then feed into the meetings, e.g. the policy >> networks, the NRIs, the DCs and the BPFs.  Have these efforts yielded >> any important results? What could be done to increase their salience? >> What roles could they play going forward as the landscape of Internet >> governance and digital cooperation continues to evolve? >> >> 4.  How has the multistakeholder approach worked in the IGF? Is it >> continuing to develop conceptually and practically, or has it >> stagnated? If it has, what can be done to renew it? >> >> Part III: Futures/Options >> >> 1.  There have been various calls, including from high-level >> government figures, for the IGF to produce more tangible outcomes.  >> What forms could these take? What would be needed for the >> international community to agree to such a process and outcome? >> >> 2.  With regard to the United Nations’ Roadmap and Common Agenda, >> what roles and value-added do you see for the IGF?  Do you see a >> specific role of the IGF with regard to the proposed Global Digital >> Compact? >> >> 3.  What is your view of the terms of reference for the new >> Leadership Panel (formerly referred to as the MHLB)? How can we make >> this a useful grouping?  What about the MAG, do its terms of >> reference and functioning need to change?  >> >> 4. Proposals have been made for the IGF Secretariat and MAG to work >> collaboratively on a multi-year plan. Do you think this is feasible? >> How would you go about developing and implementing such a plan? >> >> 5.  Name one aspect of how the IGF operates that you would change, >> and one aspect you would like to retain. >> >> -- >> Anriette Esterhuysen - anriette at apc.org//anriette at gmail.com >> Chair, United Nations Internet Governance Forum Multistakeholder Advisory Group >> www.intgovforum.org >> >> Senior advisor global and regional internet governance >> Association for Progressive Communications >> www.apc.org // afrisig.org > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joly at punkcast.com Fri Nov 19 00:05:58 2021 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2021 00:05:58 -0500 Subject: [Governance] VIDEO: NANOG 83 Keynote: Who really controls the Internet? And should they? - Bert Hubert Message-ID: Bert really nails this presentation, which is easily digestible via slides / transcript as well as video. Other NANOG 83 session videos include Famous Internet Outages and IPv6 - The next 10 years [image: YouTube] On *November 2 2021*, *Bert Hubert * delivered a keynote at *NANOG 83* - '*Who really controls the Internet? And should they? *'. The presentation discusses how control of the internet experience is moving more and more into the hands of browser and phone vendors. If governments don't agree, they have to resort to heavy measures to impose their will. The shifting of control between governments and industry is nothing new. Which developments are good and which aren't? There are no easy answers. *VIEW ON YOUTUBE https://youtu.be/K62fiw7inKE * *TRANSCRIPT https://berthub.eu/articles/posts/who-controls-the-internet/ * *SLIDES https://bit.ly/3x9M9fS * *TWITTER #NANOG83 @bert_hu_bert @nanog* *NANOG83 PLAYLIST http://bit.ly/nanog83 * *Permalink* https://isoc.live/14791/ - -- -------------------------------------- Joly MacFie +12185659365 -------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Nov 19 04:50:44 2021 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2021 15:20:44 +0530 Subject: [Governance] How strongly captured by Big Tech is the field of AI research Message-ID: <7b12d5b4-c5d7-4ac2-a414-2d318e364d00@itforchange.net> An excellent and eye opening article in ACM's journal on how strongly captured by Big Tech most AI research is today. There also seem not many alternatives on the horizon. https://interactions.acm.org/archive/view/november-december-2021/the-steep-cost-of-capture If AI is the future, and everything AI is shaped by the Big Tech, then public interest actors of the world have something that must be addressed urgently.. But many apparently are busy handing even tech governance spaces over to Big Tech, so nothing ever comes in the latter's way. parminder -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From suresh at hserus.net Fri Nov 19 05:21:58 2021 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2021 10:21:58 +0000 Subject: [Governance] How strongly captured by Big Tech is the field of AI research In-Reply-To: <7b12d5b4-c5d7-4ac2-a414-2d318e364d00@itforchange.net> References: <7b12d5b4-c5d7-4ac2-a414-2d318e364d00@itforchange.net> Message-ID: In other words, civil society needs to work on its own AI, and on AI ethics, as a multi stakeholder effort. Are you aware of any such efforts? Or do you plan to launch such an effort? From: Governance on behalf of parminder via Governance Date: Friday, 19 November 2021 at 3:20 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [Governance] How strongly captured by Big Tech is the field of AI research An excellent and eye opening article in ACM's journal on how strongly captured by Big Tech most AI research is today. There also seem not many alternatives on the horizon. https://interactions.acm.org/archive/view/november-december-2021/the-steep-cost-of-capture If AI is the future, and everything AI is shaped by the Big Tech, then public interest actors of the world have something that must be addressed urgently.. But many apparently are busy handing even tech governance spaces over to Big Tech, so nothing ever comes in the latter's way. parminder -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From info at freshmail.de Fri Nov 19 06:29:47 2021 From: info at freshmail.de (Matthias Pfeifer) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2021 12:29:47 +0100 Subject: [Governance] How strongly captured by Big Tech is the field of AI research In-Reply-To: References: <7b12d5b4-c5d7-4ac2-a414-2d318e364d00@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <00a201d7dd38$c294aeb0$47be0c10$@freshmail.de> Parminder, Civil society should have worked (more) on this issue decades ago. Today AI is one of the most lightning business (look at siri and alexa - the civil society is training KI models for years and they also pay for it.) And it not only about KI - an example: Some Companys and also LEAs make use of natual language processing software which determines whether a post or an mail should be treated in some way. All of those tools are based on wordlists or (so called) corpora which are pre-defined packages of text with sentences. Here is the mess since there are absolutely NO standards which defines how to treat a post/text. So at least, its about standards again. Best, Matthias Von: Governance Im Auftrag von Suresh Ramasubramanian via Governance Gesendet: Freitag, 19. November 2021 11:22 An: parminder ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Betreff: Re: [Governance] How strongly captured by Big Tech is the field of AI research In other words, civil society needs to work on its own AI, and on AI ethics, as a multi stakeholder effort. Are you aware of any such efforts? Or do you plan to launch such an effort? From: Governance on behalf of parminder via Governance Date: Friday, 19 November 2021 at 3:20 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [Governance] How strongly captured by Big Tech is the field of AI research An excellent and eye opening article in ACM's journal on how strongly captured by Big Tech most AI research is today. There also seem not many alternatives on the horizon. https://interactions.acm.org/archive/view/november-december-2021/the-steep-c ost-of-capture If AI is the future, and everything AI is shaped by the Big Tech, then public interest actors of the world have something that must be addressed urgently.. But many apparently are busy handing even tech governance spaces over to Big Tech, so nothing ever comes in the latter's way. parminder -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Fri Nov 19 07:22:58 2021 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2021 08:22:58 -0400 Subject: [Governance] VIDEO: NANOG 83 Keynote: Who really controls the Internet? And should they? - Bert Hubert In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: When I read this paper recently I was surprised that ICANN was not included in the lineup? Or did I miss it? Stay safe Deirdre On Fri, 19 Nov 2021 at 01:07, Joly MacFie via Governance < governance at lists.igcaucus.org> wrote: > Bert really nails this presentation, which is easily digestible via slides > / transcript as well as video. > > Other NANOG 83 session videos include Famous Internet Outages > > and IPv6 - The next 10 years > > > > > [image: YouTube] On *November 2 2021* > , *Bert Hubert * delivered a keynote at *NANOG 83* - > '*Who really controls the Internet? And should they? > *'. > The presentation discusses how control of the internet experience is moving > more and more into the hands of browser and phone vendors. If governments > don't agree, they have to resort to heavy measures to impose their will. > The shifting of control between governments and industry is nothing new. > Which developments are good and which aren't? There are no easy answers. > > *VIEW ON YOUTUBE https://youtu.be/K62fiw7inKE > * > > *TRANSCRIPT https://berthub.eu/articles/posts/who-controls-the-internet/ > * > > *SLIDES https://bit.ly/3x9M9fS * > > *TWITTER #NANOG83 @bert_hu_bert @nanog* > > *NANOG83 PLAYLIST http://bit.ly/nanog83 * > > *Permalink* > https://isoc.live/14791/ > > > > - > > -- > -------------------------------------- > Joly MacFie +12185659365 > -------------------------------------- > - > -- > Governance mailing list > Governance at lists.igcaucus.org > https://lists.igcaucus.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sheetal at gp-digital.org Fri Nov 19 07:25:17 2021 From: sheetal at gp-digital.org (Sheetal Kumar) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2021 16:25:17 +0400 Subject: [Governance] NOTICE: CSCG nomination process for IGF Leadership Panel In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear all, This is a polite reminder to share your nominations to the CSCG for the IGF's leadership panel, as per the process outlined below. We request this is done by *COB November 22 *so that we are able to submit by the deadline of *November 29. * We look forward to receiving your nomination/s. Best Sheetal On Mon, 15 Nov 2021 at 13:51, Sheetal Kumar wrote: > Dear all, > > As you may have seen, the IGF Secretariat has launched the nomination > process at the request of the Executive Office of the United Nations > Secretary-General for the *inaugural Leadership Panel of the 2022 and > 2023 Internet Governance Forum (IGF) cycles* > . > > > > > Following several rounds of open consultations, the Leadership Panel is a > response to the Secretary-General’s Roadmap for Digital Cooperation > , which calls for strengthening of the IGF > through, among other aspects, *’’creating a strategic and empowered > multi-stakeholder high-level body, building on the experience of the > existing multi-stakeholder advisory group, which would address urgent > issues, coordinate follow-up action on Forum discussions and relay proposed > policy approaches and recommendations from the Forum to the appropriate > normative and decision-making forums*.’’ > > > CSCG, and for this process, this includes APC and IGC, will run a > nomination process to identify nominees for the two categories: > > - Two [2] at-large members (distinguished or prominent persons who do > not fall under above stakeholder groups) and > - Two [2] CEO-level (or deputy-level) representatives from each of the > other three stakeholder groups (civil society) > > Please note, this does not mean we endorse the process or the mechanism > itself. We will send a letter with the nominations that clearly reiterates > our previous publicly stated positions (such as this Open letter on the > interpretation of paragraph 93(a) of the UNSG's Roadmap on Digital > Cooperation > > and this on the future of the IGF > on > the Leadership Panel/Higher-level MAG > ), > including the importance of maintaining the MAG's current role and not > supplanting it, the importance of diversity and inclusion, transparency etc > and make clear that our submission of nominees should not be read as > endorsement. > > > We intend that our nominations reflect the above criteria. Please note > that to receive a CSCG nomination for the IGF leadership panel you'll need > to send us (me and Valeria and Bruna cc'd) the information required on the online > form > . > We request this is done by *COB November 22 *so that we are able to > submit by the deadline of > *November 29. * > > > We look forward to receiving your nomination/s. > Best > Sheetal > > > -- > > *Sheetal Kumar* > Head of Global Engagement and Advocacy | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| Time zone: GMT | M: +44 (0)7739569514 | > PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 > DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| > > > > -- *Sheetal Kumar* Head of Global Engagement and Advocacy | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| Time zone: GMT | M: +44 (0)7739569514 | PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Nov 20 10:14:29 2021 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2021 20:44:29 +0530 Subject: [Governance] NOTICE: CSCG nomination process for IGF Leadership Panel In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <75f5c9b4-0ff9-b83a-a259-28707d4875f6@itforchange.net> Dear All, the forming of this Leadership Panel is neither in accordance with the mandate from the World Summit on the Information Society, not is it as per the wishes of what has been called as the ' IGF community'. Almost all civil society and even ISOC (and thus the technical community) was opposed to such a structure as has been formed. The letter linked in below email from Sheetal also makes it clear, which is signed by APC, ISOC, Access, Global digital Partners, and others . Just Net Coalition has already made its position on the whole process clear , and stand full against the formation of this Leadership Panel. It has no logic, and place in the Internet Governance ecosystem, and is completely an imposition from the Secretary General's office, which has of recent been busy forming new governance bodies with considerable dominance of corporations in many sectors.  This has been opposed by much of global civil society, also in an inter-sectoral manner. Just Net Coalition therefore refuses to participate in the process of any kind of civil society nomination process for this Panel, much less give any nomination of its own for it. We also appeal to all civil society groups, and ISOC and the technical community boycott the nomination process as an expression of their opposition to the formation of the Leadership Panel. There is no point in opposing any such structure, and moment such a structure is made despite civil society and technical community's opposition, immediately line up to make nominations for it. Our Coalition also understands the need for engaging sometimes even with imperfect governance systems, but in this case at least we can boycott the first cycle of nominations to make our point. Else our opposition to be will ne meaningless, and civil society loses its bite entirely. This indeed has happened already in the Internet Governance space, in the name of 'engagement'.  Indeed, I call upon all the involved groups, and the CSCG group as well, to get together to write a letter to UN SG opposing the formation of the Leadership Panel, and laying out our problems with it. If we do no such thing, our opposition and views in the future can hardly be expected to be taken seriously. Look forward to comments from other groups/ all. parminder On 15/11/21 3:21 pm, Sheetal Kumar via Governance wrote: > Dear all, > > As you may have seen, the IGF Secretariat has launched the nomination > process at the request of the Executive Office of the United Nations > Secretary-General for the *inaugural Leadership Panel of the 2022 and > 2023 Internet Governance Forum (IGF) cycles* > . > > >   > > Following several rounds of open consultations, the Leadership Panel > is a response to the Secretary-General’s Roadmap for Digital > Cooperation , which calls for > strengthening of the IGF through, among other aspects, /’’creating a > strategic and empowered multi-stakeholder high-level body, building on > the experience of the existing multi-stakeholder advisory group, which > would address urgent issues, coordinate follow-up action on Forum > discussions and relay proposed policy approaches and recommendations > from the Forum to the appropriate normative and decision-making > forums/.’’ > > > CSCG, and for this process, this includes APC and IGC, will run a > nomination process to identify nominees for the two categories: > > * Two [2] at-large members (distinguished or prominent persons who > do not fall under above stakeholder groups) and > * Two [2] CEO-level (or deputy-level) representatives from each of > the other three stakeholder groups (civil society) > > Please note, this does not mean we endorse the process or the > mechanism itself. We will send a letter with the nominations that > clearly reiterates our previous publicly stated positions (such as > this Open letter on the interpretation of paragraph 93(a) of the > UNSG's Roadmap on Digital Cooperation > > and this on the future of the IGF > on > the Leadership Panel/Higher-level MAG > ), > including the importance of maintaining the MAG's current role and not > supplanting it, the importance of diversity and inclusion, > transparency etc and make clear that our submission of nominees should > not be read as endorsement. > > > We intend that our nominations reflect the above criteria. Please note > that to receive a CSCG nomination for the IGF leadership panel you'll > need to send us (me and Valeria and Bruna cc'd) the information > required on the online form > . > We request this is done by _*COB November 22 *_so that we are able to > submit by the deadline of _*November 29. > *_ > > _* > *_ > > We look forward to receiving your nomination/s._* > *_ > > Best > Sheetal > > > -- > * > * > *Sheetal Kumar* > Head of Global Engagement and Advocacy | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| Time zone: GMT | M: +44 (0)7739569514  | > PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31  | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 > DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From milton at gatech.edu Sat Nov 20 13:38:41 2021 From: milton at gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L) Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2021 18:38:41 +0000 Subject: [Governance] How strongly captured by Big Tech is the field of AI research In-Reply-To: References: <7b12d5b4-c5d7-4ac2-a414-2d318e364d00@itforchange.net> Message-ID: I look at this article and see no measurements or even qualitative estimates of the sources of AI funding, the share controlled by "big tech" as opposed to universities, government civilian research institutes, or by governmental military projects. All I see are assertions that everything is under the control of "big tech" - although there are useful notes about how governments - not big tech - are now pouring money into "AI" research based on a narrative about geopolitical military competition. And our project (IGP) has already sounded the alarm about Schmidt's and the U.S. military's attempt to make AI research into a "race" with the Chinese. More specifically, they are aiming at "AI supremacy," a rather scary term in our opinion, but in that case the source of the problem is nation-state competition not a demonized big tech. The author, Meredith Whitaker, ironically, is a former Google employee and sang a quite different tune when she participated in multistakeholder IG organizations in that capacity. This article may be worth paying attention to, but it's not research, it wasn't written by a scholar, it's basically an opinion piece upholding the advocacy views of the organization Meredith now works for, whose position is that big tech is bad and should be controlled more by people like, uh, Meredith and Tristan Harris and Francis Haugen. I'd also remind you not to be manipulated by framing. AI is basically software interacting with large data sets. The idea that commercial platforms who generate and collect lots of data and provide software applications and tools to billions of users are at the forefront of AI research should surprise or shock no one. It's like saying that EV companies are at the forefront of battery research. Would we feel better if all the data was being collected and research done by nation-states? Or do we fantasize about the large amounts of capital and data somehow being magically in the hands of "the people"? In what institutional capacity? Is the message that we are supposed to be against AI research per se? Or to eliminate big tech companies altogether? Or to be against "capitalism" because, well, the Chinese Communist Party does so much nicer things with big data and does such a better job controlling its tech companies? Is the goal to "regulate" big tech? If so, how, exactly, and how does that prevent tech/data firms from being at the forefront of AI research anyway? What exactly is the problem being identified here and what is proposed as the solution? Thoughts to consider as we prepare to meet in IGF 😉 Dr Milton L Mueller, Professor School of Public Policy Georgia Institute of Technology Internet Governance Project ________________________________ From: Governance on behalf of Suresh Ramasubramanian via Governance Sent: Friday, November 19, 2021 5:21 AM To: parminder ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [Governance] How strongly captured by Big Tech is the field of AI research In other words, civil society needs to work on its own AI, and on AI ethics, as a multi stakeholder effort. Are you aware of any such efforts? Or do you plan to launch such an effort? From: Governance on behalf of parminder via Governance Date: Friday, 19 November 2021 at 3:20 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [Governance] How strongly captured by Big Tech is the field of AI research An excellent and eye opening article in ACM's journal on how strongly captured by Big Tech most AI research is today. There also seem not many alternatives on the horizon. https://interactions.acm.org/archive/view/november-december-2021/the-steep-cost-of-capture If AI is the future, and everything AI is shaped by the Big Tech, then public interest actors of the world have something that must be addressed urgently.. But many apparently are busy handing even tech governance spaces over to Big Tech, so nothing ever comes in the latter's way. parminder -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From milton at gatech.edu Sat Nov 20 20:55:36 2021 From: milton at gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L) Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2021 01:55:36 +0000 Subject: [Governance] NOTICE: CSCG nomination process for IGF Leadership Panel In-Reply-To: <75f5c9b4-0ff9-b83a-a259-28707d4875f6@itforchange.net> References: <75f5c9b4-0ff9-b83a-a259-28707d4875f6@itforchange.net> Message-ID: IGP joins all these groups in refusing to participate in the nomination process for the "Leadership" Panel. Dr Milton L Mueller, Professor School of Public Policy Georgia Institute of Technology Internet Governance Project ________________________________ From: Governance on behalf of parminder via Governance Sent: Saturday, November 20, 2021 10:14 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [Governance] NOTICE: CSCG nomination process for IGF Leadership Panel Dear All, the forming of this Leadership Panel is neither in accordance with the mandate from the World Summit on the Information Society, not is it as per the wishes of what has been called as the ' IGF community'. Almost all civil society and even ISOC (and thus the technical community) was opposed to such a structure as has been formed. The letter linked in below email from Sheetal also makes it clear, which is signed by APC, ISOC, Access, Global digital Partners, and others. Just Net Coalition has already made its position on the whole process clear, and stand full against the formation of this Leadership Panel. It has no logic, and place in the Internet Governance ecosystem, and is completely an imposition from the Secretary General's office, which has of recent been busy forming new governance bodies with considerable dominance of corporations in many sectors. This has been opposed by much of global civil society, also in an inter-sectoral manner. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Nov 21 01:26:26 2021 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2021 11:56:26 +0530 Subject: [Governance] How strongly captured by Big Tech is the field of AI research In-Reply-To: References: <7b12d5b4-c5d7-4ac2-a414-2d318e364d00@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <32f2f50e-71d9-438e-9c4a-4b569330c1ed@itforchange.net> Milton, happy to respond to substantive points, but disappointed that you chose to attack this outstanding article on extraneous even ad hominem grounds. I'd come to them in a different email, not to distract from main points. You ask in the end. "What exactly is the problem being identified here and what is proposed as the solution?" I thought Meredith had made both absolutely clear. the problem especially, which is extremely profound and disturbing, and also her 'solution' (focused on tech employees and academics), which btw I do not think is adequate. The problem is that in a world where AI is set to become a prime force determining much in all walks of life, it is nearly impossible to do any AI research without Big Tech weighing down heavily on it. Whether it be about how our education processes and content should be determined, to the basis of public health strategies, to almost everything. I find it incredulous that you see no problem in this. Meredeth herself points to the time when military had an extra-ordinary say in a lot of scientific and technical research, and she calls it a 'dark history' from which we should take lesson. But then at least even if technologies like Internet and others were born in defense labs, when theses technologies and applications entered our lives, these were mediated by business and others, which meant a useful division of power in determining the directions of development and use of these technologies. But today, from framing questions, to research to application to feedback, it is a single Big Tech captured system. That, dear Milton, is the problem. It is just that we do not want commercial logic of a few Big Tech owners to determine the future of the world and humanity, whether this disturbs you at all or not. Access to all the needed data, it, along with means of collecting it, all being with Big Tech is the biggest problem, even bigger than high computational power, which with the help of public resources may still be able to be mustered. But all data and its mining shafts are captive with Big Tech. That is one of the biggest contemporary problem, and many have recognized it as such. To which your flippant response is: "Would we feel better if all the data was being collected and research done by nation-states?" Well, no, that is not what we want. Your next, rhetorically meant ,question is in fact more to the point: " Or do we fantasize about the large amounts of capital and data somehow being magically in the hands of "the people"? In what institutional capacity? " No, we do not fantasize. There is real work happening on this. I see two ways of doing it - both being actively pursued by many worthwhile actors. (1) Making many kinds of data sharing mandatory for Big Tech. So that data they collect from the society is mandated to be contributed in a social commons that all or many can use. I know you would consider this fantastical. But India's committee on data governance framework has laid out elaborate legal basis as well as practical implementation means for achieving it. (Disclosure: I am a committee member). This is the second draft report , but the final one, quite a bit better, will be out soon. But I know how youd treat a policy document from a poor, developing country like India. So I may inform you that within a few months EU will be coming out with its Data Act that will contain some mandatory data sharing provisions. Apart from it, the EU is working on many projects to ensure sector wide data availability and sharing, like its GAIA-X project. One of the man objectives of wide data sharing through the above means is to decentralise digital business concentration with a few Big Tech. It also works the other way which brings me to my second point. (2) Breaking up big tech by various legal means -- employing platform- dependent actors separation (Lisa Khan and in India's ecom law) or in other ways ( see for instance our paper on 'Separating data, cloud and intelligence layers ' )  .... Even the US is mulling new laws to curb Big Tech's power and ensure more competition, as are many other jurisdictions. Enforcing platform interoperability is a good way to break platform power concentration (we are working on a proposal to do so for social media platforms to start with, while India's commerce ministry has a group to develop a platform for e-com interoperability) ... Once you have a multiplicity of actors and platforms in any sector, instead of a monopoly or two, it mitigated the problem of data availability, as well as of concentrated control over AI research.. parminder On 21/11/21 12:08 am, Mueller, Milton L wrote: > I look at this article and see no measurements or even qualitative > estimates of the sources of AI funding, the share controlled by "big > tech" as opposed to universities,  government civilian research > institutes, or by governmental military projects. > > All I see are assertions that everything is under the control of "big > tech" - although there are useful notes about how governments - not > big tech - are now pouring money into "AI" research based on a > narrative about geopolitical military competition. And our project > (IGP) has already sounded the alarm about Schmidt's and the U.S. > military's attempt to make AI research into a "race" with the Chinese. > More specifically, they are aiming at "AI supremacy," a rather scary > term in our opinion, but in that case the source of the problem is > nation-state competition not a demonized big tech. > > The author, Meredith Whitaker, ironically, is a former Google employee > and sang a quite different tune when she participated in > multistakeholder IG organizations in that capacity. > > This article may be worth paying attention to, but it's not research, > it wasn't written by a scholar, it's basically an opinion piece > upholding the advocacy views of the organization Meredith now works > for, whose position is that big tech is bad and should be controlled > more by people like, uh, Meredith and Tristan Harris and Francis Haugen. > > I'd also remind you not to be manipulated by framing. AI is basically > software interacting with large data sets. The idea that commercial > platforms who generate and collect lots of data and provide software > applications and tools to billions of users are at the forefront of AI > research should surprise or shock no one. It's like saying that EV > companies are at the forefront of battery research. Would we feel > better if all the data was being collected and research done by > nation-states? Or do we fantasize about the large amounts of capital > and data somehow being magically in the hands of "the people"? In what > institutional capacity? > > Is the message that we are supposed to be against AI research per se? > Or to eliminate big tech companies altogether? Or to be against > "capitalism" because, well,  the Chinese Communist Party does so much > nicer things with big data and does such a better job controlling its > tech companies? Is the goal to "regulate" big tech? If so, how, > exactly, and how does that prevent tech/data firms from being at the > forefront of AI research anyway? What exactly is the problem being > identified here and what is proposed as the solution? > > Thoughts to consider as we prepare to meet in IGF 😉 > > Dr Milton L Mueller, Professor > > School of Public Policy > > Georgia Institute of Technology > > Internet Governance Project   > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* Governance on behalf > of Suresh Ramasubramanian via Governance > *Sent:* Friday, November 19, 2021 5:21 AM > *To:* parminder ; > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > *Subject:* Re: [Governance] How strongly captured by Big Tech is the > field of AI research >   > > In other words, civil society needs to work on its own AI, and on AI > ethics, as a multi stakeholder effort. Are you aware of any such > efforts?  Or do you plan to launch such an effort? > >   > > *From: *Governance on behalf > of parminder via Governance > *Date: *Friday, 19 November 2021 at 3:20 PM > *To: *governance at lists.igcaucus.org > *Subject: *[Governance] How strongly captured by Big Tech is the field > of AI research > > An excellent and eye opening article in ACM's journal on how strongly > captured by Big Tech most AI research is today. There also seem not > many alternatives on the horizon. > > https://interactions.acm.org/archive/view/november-december-2021/the-steep-cost-of-capture > > > If AI is the future, and everything AI is shaped by the Big Tech, then > public interest actors of the world have something that must be > addressed urgently.. > > But many apparently are busy handing even tech governance spaces over > to Big Tech, so nothing ever comes in the latter's way. > > parminder > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From suresh at hserus.net Sun Nov 21 02:11:18 2021 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2021 07:11:18 +0000 Subject: [Governance] How strongly captured by Big Tech is the field of AI research In-Reply-To: <32f2f50e-71d9-438e-9c4a-4b569330c1ed@itforchange.net> References: <7b12d5b4-c5d7-4ac2-a414-2d318e364d00@itforchange.net> <32f2f50e-71d9-438e-9c4a-4b569330c1ed@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Poor developing country? I’m kind of scared about big data in this current Indian government’s hands even more than they currently have access to, which with aadhaar is a lot. Given the uses to which voter data has already been put nearly two decades back .. https://m.timesofindia.com/india/misuse-of-voters-list-in-gujarat-riots-alleged/articleshow/3541858.cms --srs ________________________________ From: Governance on behalf of parminder via Governance Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2021 11:56:26 AM To: Mueller, Milton L ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [Governance] How strongly captured by Big Tech is the field of AI research Milton, happy to respond to substantive points, but disappointed that you chose to attack this outstanding article on extraneous even ad hominem grounds. I'd come to them in a different email, not to distract from main points. You ask in the end. "What exactly is the problem being identified here and what is proposed as the solution?" I thought Meredith had made both absolutely clear. the problem especially, which is extremely profound and disturbing, and also her 'solution' (focused on tech employees and academics), which btw I do not think is adequate. The problem is that in a world where AI is set to become a prime force determining much in all walks of life, it is nearly impossible to do any AI research without Big Tech weighing down heavily on it. Whether it be about how our education processes and content should be determined, to the basis of public health strategies, to almost everything. I find it incredulous that you see no problem in this. Meredeth herself points to the time when military had an extra-ordinary say in a lot of scientific and technical research, and she calls it a 'dark history' from which we should take lesson. But then at least even if technologies like Internet and others were born in defense labs, when theses technologies and applications entered our lives, these were mediated by business and others, which meant a useful division of power in determining the directions of development and use of these technologies. But today, from framing questions, to research to application to feedback, it is a single Big Tech captured system. That, dear Milton, is the problem. It is just that we do not want commercial logic of a few Big Tech owners to determine the future of the world and humanity, whether this disturbs you at all or not. Access to all the needed data, it, along with means of collecting it, all being with Big Tech is the biggest problem, even bigger than high computational power, which with the help of public resources may still be able to be mustered. But all data and its mining shafts are captive with Big Tech. That is one of the biggest contemporary problem, and many have recognized it as such. To which your flippant response is: "Would we feel better if all the data was being collected and research done by nation-states?" Well, no, that is not what we want. Your next, rhetorically meant ,question is in fact more to the point: " Or do we fantasize about the large amounts of capital and data somehow being magically in the hands of "the people"? In what institutional capacity? " No, we do not fantasize. There is real work happening on this. I see two ways of doing it - both being actively pursued by many worthwhile actors. (1) Making many kinds of data sharing mandatory for Big Tech. So that data they collect from the society is mandated to be contributed in a social commons that all or many can use. I know you would consider this fantastical. But India's committee on data governance framework has laid out elaborate legal basis as well as practical implementation means for achieving it. (Disclosure: I am a committee member). This is the second draft report, but the final one, quite a bit better, will be out soon. But I know how youd treat a policy document from a poor, developing country like India. So I may inform you that within a few months EU will be coming out with its Data Act that will contain some mandatory data sharing provisions. Apart from it, the EU is working on many projects to ensure sector wide data availability and sharing, like its GAIA-X project. One of the man objectives of wide data sharing through the above means is to decentralise digital business concentration with a few Big Tech. It also works the other way which brings me to my second point. (2) Breaking up big tech by various legal means -- employing platform- dependent actors separation (Lisa Khan and in India's ecom law) or in other ways ( see for instance our paper on 'Separating data, cloud and intelligence layers' ) .... Even the US is mulling new laws to curb Big Tech's power and ensure more competition, as are many other jurisdictions. Enforcing platform interoperability is a good way to break platform power concentration (we are working on a proposal to do so for social media platforms to start with, while India's commerce ministry has a group to develop a platform for e-com interoperability) ... Once you have a multiplicity of actors and platforms in any sector, instead of a monopoly or two, it mitigated the problem of data availability, as well as of concentrated control over AI research.. parminder On 21/11/21 12:08 am, Mueller, Milton L wrote: I look at this article and see no measurements or even qualitative estimates of the sources of AI funding, the share controlled by "big tech" as opposed to universities, government civilian research institutes, or by governmental military projects. All I see are assertions that everything is under the control of "big tech" - although there are useful notes about how governments - not big tech - are now pouring money into "AI" research based on a narrative about geopolitical military competition. And our project (IGP) has already sounded the alarm about Schmidt's and the U.S. military's attempt to make AI research into a "race" with the Chinese. More specifically, they are aiming at "AI supremacy," a rather scary term in our opinion, but in that case the source of the problem is nation-state competition not a demonized big tech. The author, Meredith Whitaker, ironically, is a former Google employee and sang a quite different tune when she participated in multistakeholder IG organizations in that capacity. This article may be worth paying attention to, but it's not research, it wasn't written by a scholar, it's basically an opinion piece upholding the advocacy views of the organization Meredith now works for, whose position is that big tech is bad and should be controlled more by people like, uh, Meredith and Tristan Harris and Francis Haugen. I'd also remind you not to be manipulated by framing. AI is basically software interacting with large data sets. The idea that commercial platforms who generate and collect lots of data and provide software applications and tools to billions of users are at the forefront of AI research should surprise or shock no one. It's like saying that EV companies are at the forefront of battery research. Would we feel better if all the data was being collected and research done by nation-states? Or do we fantasize about the large amounts of capital and data somehow being magically in the hands of "the people"? In what institutional capacity? Is the message that we are supposed to be against AI research per se? Or to eliminate big tech companies altogether? Or to be against "capitalism" because, well, the Chinese Communist Party does so much nicer things with big data and does such a better job controlling its tech companies? Is the goal to "regulate" big tech? If so, how, exactly, and how does that prevent tech/data firms from being at the forefront of AI research anyway? What exactly is the problem being identified here and what is proposed as the solution? Thoughts to consider as we prepare to meet in IGF 😉 Dr Milton L Mueller, Professor School of Public Policy Georgia Institute of Technology Internet Governance Project ________________________________ From: Governance on behalf of Suresh Ramasubramanian via Governance Sent: Friday, November 19, 2021 5:21 AM To: parminder ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [Governance] How strongly captured by Big Tech is the field of AI research In other words, civil society needs to work on its own AI, and on AI ethics, as a multi stakeholder effort. Are you aware of any such efforts? Or do you plan to launch such an effort? From: Governance on behalf of parminder via Governance Date: Friday, 19 November 2021 at 3:20 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [Governance] How strongly captured by Big Tech is the field of AI research An excellent and eye opening article in ACM's journal on how strongly captured by Big Tech most AI research is today. There also seem not many alternatives on the horizon. https://interactions.acm.org/archive/view/november-december-2021/the-steep-cost-of-capture If AI is the future, and everything AI is shaped by the Big Tech, then public interest actors of the world have something that must be addressed urgently.. But many apparently are busy handing even tech governance spaces over to Big Tech, so nothing ever comes in the latter's way. parminder -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Nov 21 02:19:51 2021 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2021 12:49:51 +0530 Subject: [Governance] How strongly captured by Big Tech is the field of AI research In-Reply-To: References: <7b12d5b4-c5d7-4ac2-a414-2d318e364d00@itforchange.net> <32f2f50e-71d9-438e-9c4a-4b569330c1ed@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <0c5f3385-f2a1-8393-7043-435fd964fdf3@itforchange.net> I think I may be excused to think that Suresh Ramasubramanian is a bot that dutifully acts within 60 minutes of my every posting to this list, to trash it, choosing some random part of my message and aligning it with some criticism selected from publicly available  data :) ... List managers, any way such bots can be  turned off :)  ... thanks, parminder On 21/11/21 12:41 pm, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Poor developing country? I’m kind of scared about big data in this > current Indian government’s hands even more than they currently have > access to, which with aadhaar is a lot.   > > Given the uses to which voter data has already been put nearly two > decades back > .. https://m.timesofindia.com/india/misuse-of-voters-list-in-gujarat-riots-alleged/articleshow/3541858.cms > > > > > --srs > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* Governance on behalf > of parminder via Governance > *Sent:* Sunday, November 21, 2021 11:56:26 AM > *To:* Mueller, Milton L ; > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > *Subject:* Re: [Governance] How strongly captured by Big Tech is the > field of AI research >   > > Milton, happy to respond to substantive points, but disappointed that > you chose to attack this outstanding article on extraneous even ad > hominem grounds. I'd come to them in a different email, not to > distract from main points. > > > You ask in the end. "What exactly is the problem being identified here > and what is proposed as the solution?" > > > I thought Meredith had made both absolutely clear. the problem > especially, which is extremely profound and disturbing, and also her > 'solution' (focused on tech employees and academics), which btw I do > not think is adequate. > > > The problem is that in a world where AI is set to become a prime force > determining much in all walks of life, it is nearly impossible to do > any AI research without Big Tech weighing down heavily on it. Whether > it be about how our education processes and content should be > determined, to the basis of public health strategies, to almost > everything. I find it incredulous that you see no problem in this. > Meredeth herself points to the time when military had an > extra-ordinary say in a lot of scientific and technical research, and > she calls it a 'dark history' from which we should take lesson. But > then at least even if technologies like Internet and others were born > in defense labs, when theses technologies and applications entered our > lives, these were mediated by business and others, which meant a > useful division of power in determining the directions of development > and use of these technologies. But today, from framing questions, to > research to application to feedback, it is a single Big Tech captured > system. That, dear Milton, is the problem. It is just that we do not > want commercial logic of a few Big Tech owners to determine the future > of the world and humanity, whether this disturbs you at all or not. > > > Access to all the needed data, it, along with means of collecting it, > all being with Big Tech is the biggest problem, even bigger than high > computational power, which with the help of public resources may still > be able to be mustered. But all data and its mining shafts are captive > with Big Tech. That is one of the biggest contemporary problem, and > many have recognized it as such. > > > To which your flippant response is: "Would we feel better if all the > data was being collected and research done by nation-states?" > > > Well, no, that is not what we want. > > > Your next, rhetorically meant ,question is in fact more to the point: > " Or do we fantasize about the large amounts of capital and data > somehow being magically in the hands of "the people"? In what > institutional capacity? " > > > No, we do not fantasize. There is real work happening on this. > > > I see two ways of doing it - both being actively pursued by many > worthwhile actors. > > > (1) Making many kinds of data sharing mandatory for Big Tech. So that > data they collect from the society is mandated to be contributed in a > social commons that all or many can use. I know you would consider > this fantastical. But India's committee on data governance framework > has laid out elaborate legal basis as well as practical implementation > means for achieving it. (Disclosure: I am a committee member). This is > the second draft report > , > but the final one, quite a bit better, will be out soon. But I know > how youd treat a policy document from a poor, developing country like > India. So I may inform you that within a few months EU will be coming > out with its Data Act that will contain some mandatory data sharing > provisions. Apart from it, the EU is working on many projects to > ensure sector wide data availability and sharing, like its GAIA-X project. > > > One of the man objectives of wide data sharing through the above means > is to decentralise digital business concentration with a few Big Tech. > It also works the other way which brings me to my second point. > > > (2) Breaking up big tech by various legal means -- employing platform- > dependent actors separation (Lisa Khan and in India's ecom law) or in > other ways ( see for instance our paper on 'Separating data, cloud and > intelligence layers > ' > )  .... Even the US is mulling new laws to curb Big Tech's power and > ensure more competition, as are many other jurisdictions. Enforcing > platform interoperability is a good way to break platform power > concentration (we are working on a proposal to do so for social media > platforms to start with, while India's commerce ministry has a group > to develop a platform for e-com interoperability) ... Once you have a > multiplicity of actors and platforms in any sector, instead of a > monopoly or two, it mitigated the problem of data availability, as > well as of concentrated control over AI research.. > > > parminder > > > > On 21/11/21 12:08 am, Mueller, Milton L wrote: >> I look at this article and see no measurements or even qualitative >> estimates of the sources of AI funding, the share controlled by "big >> tech" as opposed to universities,  government civilian research >> institutes, or by governmental military projects. >> >> All I see are assertions that everything is under the control of "big >> tech" - although there are useful notes about how governments - not >> big tech - are now pouring money into "AI" research based on a >> narrative about geopolitical military competition. And our project >> (IGP) has already sounded the alarm about Schmidt's and the U.S. >> military's attempt to make AI research into a "race" with the >> Chinese. More specifically, they are aiming at "AI supremacy," a >> rather scary term in our opinion, but in that case the source of the >> problem is nation-state competition not a demonized big tech. >> >> The author, Meredith Whitaker, ironically, is a former Google >> employee and sang a quite different tune when she participated in >> multistakeholder IG organizations in that capacity. >> >> This article may be worth paying attention to, but it's not research, >> it wasn't written by a scholar, it's basically an opinion piece >> upholding the advocacy views of the organization Meredith now works >> for, whose position is that big tech is bad and should be controlled >> more by people like, uh, Meredith and Tristan Harris and Francis Haugen. >> >> I'd also remind you not to be manipulated by framing. AI is basically >> software interacting with large data sets. The idea that commercial >> platforms who generate and collect lots of data and provide software >> applications and tools to billions of users are at the forefront of >> AI research should surprise or shock no one. It's like saying that EV >> companies are at the forefront of battery research. Would we feel >> better if all the data was being collected and research done by >> nation-states? Or do we fantasize about the large amounts of capital >> and data somehow being magically in the hands of "the people"? In >> what institutional capacity? >> >> Is the message that we are supposed to be against AI research per se? >> Or to eliminate big tech companies altogether? Or to be against >> "capitalism" because, well,  the Chinese Communist Party does so much >> nicer things with big data and does such a better job controlling its >> tech companies? Is the goal to "regulate" big tech? If so, how, >> exactly, and how does that prevent tech/data firms from being at the >> forefront of AI research anyway? What exactly is the problem being >> identified here and what is proposed as the solution? >> >> Thoughts to consider as we prepare to meet in IGF 😉 >> >> Dr Milton L Mueller, Professor >> >> School of Public Policy >> >> Georgia Institute of Technology >> >> Internet Governance Project   >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> *From:* Governance >> on behalf of Suresh >> Ramasubramanian via Governance >> >> *Sent:* Friday, November 19, 2021 5:21 AM >> *To:* parminder >> ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> >> *Subject:* Re: [Governance] How strongly captured by Big Tech is the >> field of AI research >>   >> >> In other words, civil society needs to work on its own AI, and on AI >> ethics, as a multi stakeholder effort. Are you aware of any such >> efforts?  Or do you plan to launch such an effort? >> >>   >> >> *From: *Governance >> on behalf of parminder >> via Governance >> >> *Date: *Friday, 19 November 2021 at 3:20 PM >> *To: *governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> >> *Subject: *[Governance] How strongly captured by Big Tech is the >> field of AI research >> >> An excellent and eye opening article in ACM's journal on how strongly >> captured by Big Tech most AI research is today. There also seem not >> many alternatives on the horizon. >> >> https://interactions.acm.org/archive/view/november-december-2021/the-steep-cost-of-capture >> >> >> If AI is the future, and everything AI is shaped by the Big Tech, >> then public interest actors of the world have something that must be >> addressed urgently.. >> >> But many apparently are busy handing even tech governance spaces over >> to Big Tech, so nothing ever comes in the latter's way. >> >> parminder >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From suresh at hserus.net Sun Nov 21 03:21:25 2021 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2021 08:21:25 +0000 Subject: [Governance] How strongly captured by Big Tech is the field of AI research In-Reply-To: <0c5f3385-f2a1-8393-7043-435fd964fdf3@itforchange.net> References: <7b12d5b4-c5d7-4ac2-a414-2d318e364d00@itforchange.net> <32f2f50e-71d9-438e-9c4a-4b569330c1ed@itforchange.net> <0c5f3385-f2a1-8393-7043-435fd964fdf3@itforchange.net> Message-ID: I’m asking you a simple question. You say civil society needs a stake in it. I can see where AI ethicists like Frances Haugen very definitely have a stake. What I also see is a blanket statement rejecting any right for industry or government to have a stake in it, and asking for civil society to step up. Step up and do what and with what capacity? --srs ________________________________ From: Governance on behalf of parminder via Governance Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2021 12:49:51 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [Governance] How strongly captured by Big Tech is the field of AI research I think I may be excused to think that Suresh Ramasubramanian is a bot that dutifully acts within 60 minutes of my every posting to this list, to trash it, choosing some random part of my message and aligning it with some criticism selected from publicly available data :) ... List managers, any way such bots can be turned off :) ... thanks, parminder On 21/11/21 12:41 pm, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: Poor developing country? I’m kind of scared about big data in this current Indian government’s hands even more than they currently have access to, which with aadhaar is a lot. Given the uses to which voter data has already been put nearly two decades back .. https://m.timesofindia.com/india/misuse-of-voters-list-in-gujarat-riots-alleged/articleshow/3541858.cms --srs ________________________________ From: Governance on behalf of parminder via Governance Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2021 11:56:26 AM To: Mueller, Milton L ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [Governance] How strongly captured by Big Tech is the field of AI research Milton, happy to respond to substantive points, but disappointed that you chose to attack this outstanding article on extraneous even ad hominem grounds. I'd come to them in a different email, not to distract from main points. You ask in the end. "What exactly is the problem being identified here and what is proposed as the solution?" I thought Meredith had made both absolutely clear. the problem especially, which is extremely profound and disturbing, and also her 'solution' (focused on tech employees and academics), which btw I do not think is adequate. The problem is that in a world where AI is set to become a prime force determining much in all walks of life, it is nearly impossible to do any AI research without Big Tech weighing down heavily on it. Whether it be about how our education processes and content should be determined, to the basis of public health strategies, to almost everything. I find it incredulous that you see no problem in this. Meredeth herself points to the time when military had an extra-ordinary say in a lot of scientific and technical research, and she calls it a 'dark history' from which we should take lesson. But then at least even if technologies like Internet and others were born in defense labs, when theses technologies and applications entered our lives, these were mediated by business and others, which meant a useful division of power in determining the directions of development and use of these technologies. But today, from framing questions, to research to application to feedback, it is a single Big Tech captured system. That, dear Milton, is the problem. It is just that we do not want commercial logic of a few Big Tech owners to determine the future of the world and humanity, whether this disturbs you at all or not. Access to all the needed data, it, along with means of collecting it, all being with Big Tech is the biggest problem, even bigger than high computational power, which with the help of public resources may still be able to be mustered. But all data and its mining shafts are captive with Big Tech. That is one of the biggest contemporary problem, and many have recognized it as such. To which your flippant response is: "Would we feel better if all the data was being collected and research done by nation-states?" Well, no, that is not what we want. Your next, rhetorically meant ,question is in fact more to the point: " Or do we fantasize about the large amounts of capital and data somehow being magically in the hands of "the people"? In what institutional capacity? " No, we do not fantasize. There is real work happening on this. I see two ways of doing it - both being actively pursued by many worthwhile actors. (1) Making many kinds of data sharing mandatory for Big Tech. So that data they collect from the society is mandated to be contributed in a social commons that all or many can use. I know you would consider this fantastical. But India's committee on data governance framework has laid out elaborate legal basis as well as practical implementation means for achieving it. (Disclosure: I am a committee member). This is the second draft report, but the final one, quite a bit better, will be out soon. But I know how youd treat a policy document from a poor, developing country like India. So I may inform you that within a few months EU will be coming out with its Data Act that will contain some mandatory data sharing provisions. Apart from it, the EU is working on many projects to ensure sector wide data availability and sharing, like its GAIA-X project. One of the man objectives of wide data sharing through the above means is to decentralise digital business concentration with a few Big Tech. It also works the other way which brings me to my second point. (2) Breaking up big tech by various legal means -- employing platform- dependent actors separation (Lisa Khan and in India's ecom law) or in other ways ( see for instance our paper on 'Separating data, cloud and intelligence layers' ) .... Even the US is mulling new laws to curb Big Tech's power and ensure more competition, as are many other jurisdictions. Enforcing platform interoperability is a good way to break platform power concentration (we are working on a proposal to do so for social media platforms to start with, while India's commerce ministry has a group to develop a platform for e-com interoperability) ... Once you have a multiplicity of actors and platforms in any sector, instead of a monopoly or two, it mitigated the problem of data availability, as well as of concentrated control over AI research.. parminder On 21/11/21 12:08 am, Mueller, Milton L wrote: I look at this article and see no measurements or even qualitative estimates of the sources of AI funding, the share controlled by "big tech" as opposed to universities, government civilian research institutes, or by governmental military projects. All I see are assertions that everything is under the control of "big tech" - although there are useful notes about how governments - not big tech - are now pouring money into "AI" research based on a narrative about geopolitical military competition. And our project (IGP) has already sounded the alarm about Schmidt's and the U.S. military's attempt to make AI research into a "race" with the Chinese. More specifically, they are aiming at "AI supremacy," a rather scary term in our opinion, but in that case the source of the problem is nation-state competition not a demonized big tech. The author, Meredith Whitaker, ironically, is a former Google employee and sang a quite different tune when she participated in multistakeholder IG organizations in that capacity. This article may be worth paying attention to, but it's not research, it wasn't written by a scholar, it's basically an opinion piece upholding the advocacy views of the organization Meredith now works for, whose position is that big tech is bad and should be controlled more by people like, uh, Meredith and Tristan Harris and Francis Haugen. I'd also remind you not to be manipulated by framing. AI is basically software interacting with large data sets. The idea that commercial platforms who generate and collect lots of data and provide software applications and tools to billions of users are at the forefront of AI research should surprise or shock no one. It's like saying that EV companies are at the forefront of battery research. Would we feel better if all the data was being collected and research done by nation-states? Or do we fantasize about the large amounts of capital and data somehow being magically in the hands of "the people"? In what institutional capacity? Is the message that we are supposed to be against AI research per se? Or to eliminate big tech companies altogether? Or to be against "capitalism" because, well, the Chinese Communist Party does so much nicer things with big data and does such a better job controlling its tech companies? Is the goal to "regulate" big tech? If so, how, exactly, and how does that prevent tech/data firms from being at the forefront of AI research anyway? What exactly is the problem being identified here and what is proposed as the solution? Thoughts to consider as we prepare to meet in IGF 😉 Dr Milton L Mueller, Professor School of Public Policy Georgia Institute of Technology Internet Governance Project ________________________________ From: Governance on behalf of Suresh Ramasubramanian via Governance Sent: Friday, November 19, 2021 5:21 AM To: parminder ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [Governance] How strongly captured by Big Tech is the field of AI research In other words, civil society needs to work on its own AI, and on AI ethics, as a multi stakeholder effort. Are you aware of any such efforts? Or do you plan to launch such an effort? From: Governance on behalf of parminder via Governance Date: Friday, 19 November 2021 at 3:20 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [Governance] How strongly captured by Big Tech is the field of AI research An excellent and eye opening article in ACM's journal on how strongly captured by Big Tech most AI research is today. There also seem not many alternatives on the horizon. https://interactions.acm.org/archive/view/november-december-2021/the-steep-cost-of-capture If AI is the future, and everything AI is shaped by the Big Tech, then public interest actors of the world have something that must be addressed urgently.. But many apparently are busy handing even tech governance spaces over to Big Tech, so nothing ever comes in the latter's way. parminder -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From milton at gatech.edu Mon Nov 22 00:25:48 2021 From: milton at gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2021 05:25:48 +0000 Subject: [Governance] How strongly captured by Big Tech is the field of AI research In-Reply-To: References: <7b12d5b4-c5d7-4ac2-a414-2d318e364d00@itforchange.net> <32f2f50e-71d9-438e-9c4a-4b569330c1ed@itforchange.net> <0c5f3385-f2a1-8393-7043-435fd964fdf3@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Suresh passes the Turing test ________________________________ From: Governance on behalf of Suresh Ramasubramanian via Governance Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2021 3:21 AM To: parminder ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [Governance] How strongly captured by Big Tech is the field of AI research I’m asking you a simple question. You say civil society needs a stake in it. I can see where AI ethicists like Frances Haugen very definitely have a stake. What I also see is a blanket statement rejecting any right for industry or government to have a stake in it, and asking for civil society to step up. Step up and do what and with what capacity? --srs ________________________________ From: Governance on behalf of parminder via Governance Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2021 12:49:51 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [Governance] How strongly captured by Big Tech is the field of AI research I think I may be excused to think that Suresh Ramasubramanian is a bot that dutifully acts within 60 minutes of my every posting to this list, to trash it, choosing some random part of my message and aligning it with some criticism selected from publicly available data :) ... List managers, any way such bots can be turned off :) ... thanks, parminder On 21/11/21 12:41 pm, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: Poor developing country? I’m kind of scared about big data in this current Indian government’s hands even more than they currently have access to, which with aadhaar is a lot. Given the uses to which voter data has already been put nearly two decades back .. https://m.timesofindia.com/india/misuse-of-voters-list-in-gujarat-riots-alleged/articleshow/3541858.cms --srs ________________________________ From: Governance on behalf of parminder via Governance Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2021 11:56:26 AM To: Mueller, Milton L ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [Governance] How strongly captured by Big Tech is the field of AI research Milton, happy to respond to substantive points, but disappointed that you chose to attack this outstanding article on extraneous even ad hominem grounds. I'd come to them in a different email, not to distract from main points. You ask in the end. "What exactly is the problem being identified here and what is proposed as the solution?" I thought Meredith had made both absolutely clear. the problem especially, which is extremely profound and disturbing, and also her 'solution' (focused on tech employees and academics), which btw I do not think is adequate. The problem is that in a world where AI is set to become a prime force determining much in all walks of life, it is nearly impossible to do any AI research without Big Tech weighing down heavily on it. Whether it be about how our education processes and content should be determined, to the basis of public health strategies, to almost everything. I find it incredulous that you see no problem in this. Meredeth herself points to the time when military had an extra-ordinary say in a lot of scientific and technical research, and she calls it a 'dark history' from which we should take lesson. But then at least even if technologies like Internet and others were born in defense labs, when theses technologies and applications entered our lives, these were mediated by business and others, which meant a useful division of power in determining the directions of development and use of these technologies. But today, from framing questions, to research to application to feedback, it is a single Big Tech captured system. That, dear Milton, is the problem. It is just that we do not want commercial logic of a few Big Tech owners to determine the future of the world and humanity, whether this disturbs you at all or not. Access to all the needed data, it, along with means of collecting it, all being with Big Tech is the biggest problem, even bigger than high computational power, which with the help of public resources may still be able to be mustered. But all data and its mining shafts are captive with Big Tech. That is one of the biggest contemporary problem, and many have recognized it as such. To which your flippant response is: "Would we feel better if all the data was being collected and research done by nation-states?" Well, no, that is not what we want. Your next, rhetorically meant ,question is in fact more to the point: " Or do we fantasize about the large amounts of capital and data somehow being magically in the hands of "the people"? In what institutional capacity? " No, we do not fantasize. There is real work happening on this. I see two ways of doing it - both being actively pursued by many worthwhile actors. (1) Making many kinds of data sharing mandatory for Big Tech. So that data they collect from the society is mandated to be contributed in a social commons that all or many can use. I know you would consider this fantastical. But India's committee on data governance framework has laid out elaborate legal basis as well as practical implementation means for achieving it. (Disclosure: I am a committee member). This is the second draft report, but the final one, quite a bit better, will be out soon. But I know how youd treat a policy document from a poor, developing country like India. So I may inform you that within a few months EU will be coming out with its Data Act that will contain some mandatory data sharing provisions. Apart from it, the EU is working on many projects to ensure sector wide data availability and sharing, like its GAIA-X project. One of the man objectives of wide data sharing through the above means is to decentralise digital business concentration with a few Big Tech. It also works the other way which brings me to my second point. (2) Breaking up big tech by various legal means -- employing platform- dependent actors separation (Lisa Khan and in India's ecom law) or in other ways ( see for instance our paper on 'Separating data, cloud and intelligence layers' ) .... Even the US is mulling new laws to curb Big Tech's power and ensure more competition, as are many other jurisdictions. Enforcing platform interoperability is a good way to break platform power concentration (we are working on a proposal to do so for social media platforms to start with, while India's commerce ministry has a group to develop a platform for e-com interoperability) ... Once you have a multiplicity of actors and platforms in any sector, instead of a monopoly or two, it mitigated the problem of data availability, as well as of concentrated control over AI research.. parminder On 21/11/21 12:08 am, Mueller, Milton L wrote: I look at this article and see no measurements or even qualitative estimates of the sources of AI funding, the share controlled by "big tech" as opposed to universities, government civilian research institutes, or by governmental military projects. All I see are assertions that everything is under the control of "big tech" - although there are useful notes about how governments - not big tech - are now pouring money into "AI" research based on a narrative about geopolitical military competition. And our project (IGP) has already sounded the alarm about Schmidt's and the U.S. military's attempt to make AI research into a "race" with the Chinese. More specifically, they are aiming at "AI supremacy," a rather scary term in our opinion, but in that case the source of the problem is nation-state competition not a demonized big tech. The author, Meredith Whitaker, ironically, is a former Google employee and sang a quite different tune when she participated in multistakeholder IG organizations in that capacity. This article may be worth paying attention to, but it's not research, it wasn't written by a scholar, it's basically an opinion piece upholding the advocacy views of the organization Meredith now works for, whose position is that big tech is bad and should be controlled more by people like, uh, Meredith and Tristan Harris and Francis Haugen. I'd also remind you not to be manipulated by framing. AI is basically software interacting with large data sets. The idea that commercial platforms who generate and collect lots of data and provide software applications and tools to billions of users are at the forefront of AI research should surprise or shock no one. It's like saying that EV companies are at the forefront of battery research. Would we feel better if all the data was being collected and research done by nation-states? Or do we fantasize about the large amounts of capital and data somehow being magically in the hands of "the people"? In what institutional capacity? Is the message that we are supposed to be against AI research per se? Or to eliminate big tech companies altogether? Or to be against "capitalism" because, well, the Chinese Communist Party does so much nicer things with big data and does such a better job controlling its tech companies? Is the goal to "regulate" big tech? If so, how, exactly, and how does that prevent tech/data firms from being at the forefront of AI research anyway? What exactly is the problem being identified here and what is proposed as the solution? Thoughts to consider as we prepare to meet in IGF 😉 Dr Milton L Mueller, Professor School of Public Policy Georgia Institute of Technology Internet Governance Project ________________________________ From: Governance on behalf of Suresh Ramasubramanian via Governance Sent: Friday, November 19, 2021 5:21 AM To: parminder ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [Governance] How strongly captured by Big Tech is the field of AI research In other words, civil society needs to work on its own AI, and on AI ethics, as a multi stakeholder effort. Are you aware of any such efforts? Or do you plan to launch such an effort? From: Governance on behalf of parminder via Governance Date: Friday, 19 November 2021 at 3:20 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [Governance] How strongly captured by Big Tech is the field of AI research An excellent and eye opening article in ACM's journal on how strongly captured by Big Tech most AI research is today. There also seem not many alternatives on the horizon. https://interactions.acm.org/archive/view/november-december-2021/the-steep-cost-of-capture If AI is the future, and everything AI is shaped by the Big Tech, then public interest actors of the world have something that must be addressed urgently.. But many apparently are busy handing even tech governance spaces over to Big Tech, so nothing ever comes in the latter's way. parminder -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From david_allen_ab63 at post.harvard.edu Mon Nov 22 10:04:38 2021 From: david_allen_ab63 at post.harvard.edu (david_allen_ab63 at post.harvard.edu) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2021 10:04:38 -0500 Subject: [Governance] How strongly captured by Big Tech is the field of AI research In-Reply-To: References: <7b12d5b4-c5d7-4ac2-a414-2d318e364d00@itforchange.net> <32f2f50e-71d9-438e-9c4a-4b569330c1ed@itforchange.net> <0c5f3385-f2a1-8393-7043-435fd964fdf3@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <0681FB71-FA1D-4A1D-A40A-6E9969B0E350@post.harvard.edu> Yes, on which side, machine or …? It would be nice to see thoughtful exchange among different views, something that could not only enlighten discourse but make this forum proud for the quality of dialogue it engenders. Rather than reflexive few-line sniping, and unfortunately even ad hominem drivel that disgraces the forum. David > On Nov 22, 2021, at 12:25 AM, Mueller, Milton L via Governance wrote: > > Suresh passes the Turing test > > From: Governance on behalf of Suresh Ramasubramanian via Governance > Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2021 3:21 AM > To: parminder ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [Governance] How strongly captured by Big Tech is the field of AI research > > I’m asking you a simple question. You say civil society needs a stake in it. I can see where AI ethicists like Frances Haugen very definitely have a stake. What I also see is a blanket statement rejecting any right for industry or government to have a stake in it, and asking for civil society to step up. Step up and do what and with what capacity? > > --srs > From: Governance on behalf of parminder via Governance > Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2021 12:49:51 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [Governance] How strongly captured by Big Tech is the field of AI research > > I think I may be excused to think that Suresh Ramasubramanian is a bot that dutifully acts within 60 minutes of my every posting to this list, to trash it, choosing some random part of my message and aligning it with some criticism selected from publicly available data :) ... > > List managers, any way such bots can be turned off :) ... thanks, parminder > > > On 21/11/21 12:41 pm, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> Poor developing country? I’m kind of scared about big data in this current Indian government’s hands even more than they currently have access to, which with aadhaar is a lot. >> >> Given the uses to which voter data has already been put nearly two decades back .. https://m.timesofindia.com/india/misuse-of-voters-list-in-gujarat-riots-alleged/articleshow/3541858.cms >> >> >> >> --srs >> From: Governance on behalf of parminder via Governance >> Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2021 11:56:26 AM >> To: Mueller, Milton L ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Subject: Re: [Governance] How strongly captured by Big Tech is the field of AI research >> >> Milton, happy to respond to substantive points, but disappointed that you chose to attack this outstanding article on extraneous even ad hominem grounds. I'd come to them in a different email, not to distract from main points. >> >> You ask in the end. "What exactly is the problem being identified here and what is proposed as the solution?" >> >> I thought Meredith had made both absolutely clear. the problem especially, which is extremely profound and disturbing, and also her 'solution' (focused on tech employees and academics), which btw I do not think is adequate. >> >> The problem is that in a world where AI is set to become a prime force determining much in all walks of life, it is nearly impossible to do any AI research without Big Tech weighing down heavily on it. Whether it be about how our education processes and content should be determined, to the basis of public health strategies, to almost everything. I find it incredulous that you see no problem in this. Meredeth herself points to the time when military had an extra-ordinary say in a lot of scientific and technical research, and she calls it a 'dark history' from which we should take lesson. But then at least even if technologies like Internet and others were born in defense labs, when theses technologies and applications entered our lives, these were mediated by business and others, which meant a useful division of power in determining the directions of development and use of these technologies. But today, from framing questions, to research to application to feedback, it is a single Big Tech captured system. That, dear Milton, is the problem. It is just that we do not want commercial logic of a few Big Tech owners to determine the future of the world and humanity, whether this disturbs you at all or not. >> >> Access to all the needed data, it, along with means of collecting it, all being with Big Tech is the biggest problem, even bigger than high computational power, which with the help of public resources may still be able to be mustered. But all data and its mining shafts are captive with Big Tech. That is one of the biggest contemporary problem, and many have recognized it as such. >> >> To which your flippant response is: "Would we feel better if all the data was being collected and research done by nation-states?" >> >> Well, no, that is not what we want. >> >> Your next, rhetorically meant ,question is in fact more to the point: " Or do we fantasize about the large amounts of capital and data somehow being magically in the hands of "the people"? In what institutional capacity? " >> >> No, we do not fantasize. There is real work happening on this. >> >> I see two ways of doing it - both being actively pursued by many worthwhile actors. >> >> (1) Making many kinds of data sharing mandatory for Big Tech. So that data they collect from the society is mandated to be contributed in a social commons that all or many can use. I know you would consider this fantastical. But India's committee on data governance framework has laid out elaborate legal basis as well as practical implementation means for achieving it. (Disclosure: I am a committee member). This is the second draft report , but the final one, quite a bit better, will be out soon. But I know how youd treat a policy document from a poor, developing country like India. So I may inform you that within a few months EU will be coming out with its Data Act that will contain some mandatory data sharing provisions. Apart from it, the EU is working on many projects to ensure sector wide data availability and sharing, like its GAIA-X project. >> >> One of the man objectives of wide data sharing through the above means is to decentralise digital business concentration with a few Big Tech. It also works the other way which brings me to my second point. >> >> (2) Breaking up big tech by various legal means -- employing platform- dependent actors separation (Lisa Khan and in India's ecom law) or in other ways ( see for instance our paper on 'Separating data, cloud and intelligence layers ' ) .... Even the US is mulling new laws to curb Big Tech's power and ensure more competition, as are many other jurisdictions. Enforcing platform interoperability is a good way to break platform power concentration (we are working on a proposal to do so for social media platforms to start with, while India's commerce ministry has a group to develop a platform for e-com interoperability) ... Once you have a multiplicity of actors and platforms in any sector, instead of a monopoly or two, it mitigated the problem of data availability, as well as of concentrated control over AI research.. >> >> parminder >> >> >> On 21/11/21 12:08 am, Mueller, Milton L wrote: >>> I look at this article and see no measurements or even qualitative estimates of the sources of AI funding, the share controlled by "big tech" as opposed to universities, government civilian research institutes, or by governmental military projects. >>> >>> All I see are assertions that everything is under the control of "big tech" - although there are useful notes about how governments - not big tech - are now pouring money into "AI" research based on a narrative about geopolitical military competition. And our project (IGP) has already sounded the alarm about Schmidt's and the U.S. military's attempt to make AI research into a "race" with the Chinese. More specifically, they are aiming at "AI supremacy," a rather scary term in our opinion, but in that case the source of the problem is nation-state competition not a demonized big tech. >>> >>> The author, Meredith Whitaker, ironically, is a former Google employee and sang a quite different tune when she participated in multistakeholder IG organizations in that capacity. >>> >>> This article may be worth paying attention to, but it's not research, it wasn't written by a scholar, it's basically an opinion piece upholding the advocacy views of the organization Meredith now works for, whose position is that big tech is bad and should be controlled more by people like, uh, Meredith and Tristan Harris and Francis Haugen. >>> >>> I'd also remind you not to be manipulated by framing. AI is basically software interacting with large data sets. The idea that commercial platforms who generate and collect lots of data and provide software applications and tools to billions of users are at the forefront of AI research should surprise or shock no one. It's like saying that EV companies are at the forefront of battery research. Would we feel better if all the data was being collected and research done by nation-states? Or do we fantasize about the large amounts of capital and data somehow being magically in the hands of "the people"? In what institutional capacity? >>> >>> Is the message that we are supposed to be against AI research per se? Or to eliminate big tech companies altogether? Or to be against "capitalism" because, well, the Chinese Communist Party does so much nicer things with big data and does such a better job controlling its tech companies? Is the goal to "regulate" big tech? If so, how, exactly, and how does that prevent tech/data firms from being at the forefront of AI research anyway? What exactly is the problem being identified here and what is proposed as the solution? >>> >>> Thoughts to consider as we prepare to meet in IGF 😉 >>> >>> Dr Milton L Mueller, Professor >>> School of Public Policy >>> Georgia Institute of Technology >>> Internet Governance Project >>> >>> From: Governance on behalf of Suresh Ramasubramanian via Governance >>> Sent: Friday, November 19, 2021 5:21 AM >>> To: parminder ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> Subject: Re: [Governance] How strongly captured by Big Tech is the field of AI research >>> >>> In other words, civil society needs to work on its own AI, and on AI ethics, as a multi stakeholder effort. Are you aware of any such efforts? Or do you plan to launch such an effort? >>> >>> From: Governance on behalf of parminder via Governance >>> Date: Friday, 19 November 2021 at 3:20 PM >>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> Subject: [Governance] How strongly captured by Big Tech is the field of AI research >>> >>> An excellent and eye opening article in ACM's journal on how strongly captured by Big Tech most AI research is today. There also seem not many alternatives on the horizon. >>> https://interactions.acm.org/archive/view/november-december-2021/the-steep-cost-of-capture >>> If AI is the future, and everything AI is shaped by the Big Tech, then public interest actors of the world have something that must be addressed urgently.. >>> But many apparently are busy handing even tech governance spaces over to Big Tech, so nothing ever comes in the latter's way. >>> 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 Mon Nov 22 10:12:12 2021 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2021 15:12:12 +0000 Subject: [Governance] How strongly captured by Big Tech is the field of AI research In-Reply-To: <0681FB71-FA1D-4A1D-A40A-6E9969B0E350@post.harvard.edu> References: <7b12d5b4-c5d7-4ac2-a414-2d318e364d00@itforchange.net> <32f2f50e-71d9-438e-9c4a-4b569330c1ed@itforchange.net> <0c5f3385-f2a1-8393-7043-435fd964fdf3@itforchange.net> <0681FB71-FA1D-4A1D-A40A-6E9969B0E350@post.harvard.edu> Message-ID: David, when the entire point of a long screed posted to this list is simply to “other” specific groups and deny their right to participate in any particular activity, besides insiting on civil society primacy [which sections of civil society is the next interesting question to ask], there is no scope for thoughtful exchange rather than rejection of the views in question. From: Governance on behalf of david_allen_ab63--- via Governance Date: Monday, 22 November 2021 at 8:35 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [Governance] How strongly captured by Big Tech is the field of AI research Yes, on which side, machine or …? It would be nice to see thoughtful exchange among different views, something that could not only enlighten discourse but make this forum proud for the quality of dialogue it engenders. Rather than reflexive few-line sniping, and unfortunately even ad hominem drivel that disgraces the forum. David On Nov 22, 2021, at 12:25 AM, Mueller, Milton L via Governance > wrote: Suresh passes the Turing test ________________________________ From: Governance > on behalf of Suresh Ramasubramanian via Governance > Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2021 3:21 AM To: parminder >; governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [Governance] How strongly captured by Big Tech is the field of AI research I’m asking you a simple question. You say civil society needs a stake in it. I can see where AI ethicists like Frances Haugen very definitely have a stake. What I also see is a blanket statement rejecting any right for industry or government to have a stake in it, and asking for civil society to step up. Step up and do what and with what capacity? --srs ________________________________ From: Governance > on behalf of parminder via Governance > Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2021 12:49:51 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [Governance] How strongly captured by Big Tech is the field of AI research I think I may be excused to think that Suresh Ramasubramanian is a bot that dutifully acts within 60 minutes of my every posting to this list, to trash it, choosing some random part of my message and aligning it with some criticism selected from publicly available data :) ... List managers, any way such bots can be turned off :) ... thanks, parminder On 21/11/21 12:41 pm, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: Poor developing country? I’m kind of scared about big data in this current Indian government’s hands even more than they currently have access to, which with aadhaar is a lot. Given the uses to which voter data has already been put nearly two decades back .. https://m.timesofindia.com/india/misuse-of-voters-list-in-gujarat-riots-alleged/articleshow/3541858.cms --srs ________________________________ From: Governance on behalf of parminder via Governance Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2021 11:56:26 AM To: Mueller, Milton L ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [Governance] How strongly captured by Big Tech is the field of AI research Milton, happy to respond to substantive points, but disappointed that you chose to attack this outstanding article on extraneous even ad hominem grounds. I'd come to them in a different email, not to distract from main points. You ask in the end. "What exactly is the problem being identified here and what is proposed as the solution?" I thought Meredith had made both absolutely clear. the problem especially, which is extremely profound and disturbing, and also her 'solution' (focused on tech employees and academics), which btw I do not think is adequate. The problem is that in a world where AI is set to become a prime force determining much in all walks of life, it is nearly impossible to do any AI research without Big Tech weighing down heavily on it. Whether it be about how our education processes and content should be determined, to the basis of public health strategies, to almost everything. I find it incredulous that you see no problem in this. Meredeth herself points to the time when military had an extra-ordinary say in a lot of scientific and technical research, and she calls it a 'dark history' from which we should take lesson. But then at least even if technologies like Internet and others were born in defense labs, when theses technologies and applications entered our lives, these were mediated by business and others, which meant a useful division of power in determining the directions of development and use of these technologies. But today, from framing questions, to research to application to feedback, it is a single Big Tech captured system. That, dear Milton, is the problem. It is just that we do not want commercial logic of a few Big Tech owners to determine the future of the world and humanity, whether this disturbs you at all or not. Access to all the needed data, it, along with means of collecting it, all being with Big Tech is the biggest problem, even bigger than high computational power, which with the help of public resources may still be able to be mustered. But all data and its mining shafts are captive with Big Tech. That is one of the biggest contemporary problem, and many have recognized it as such. To which your flippant response is: "Would we feel better if all the data was being collected and research done by nation-states?" Well, no, that is not what we want. Your next, rhetorically meant ,question is in fact more to the point: " Or do we fantasize about the large amounts of capital and data somehow being magically in the hands of "the people"? In what institutional capacity? " No, we do not fantasize. There is real work happening on this. I see two ways of doing it - both being actively pursued by many worthwhile actors. (1) Making many kinds of data sharing mandatory for Big Tech. So that data they collect from the society is mandated to be contributed in a social commons that all or many can use. I know you would consider this fantastical. But India's committee on data governance framework has laid out elaborate legal basis as well as practical implementation means for achieving it. (Disclosure: I am a committee member). This is the second draft report, but the final one, quite a bit better, will be out soon. But I know how youd treat a policy document from a poor, developing country like India. So I may inform you that within a few months EU will be coming out with its Data Act that will contain some mandatory data sharing provisions. Apart from it, the EU is working on many projects to ensure sector wide data availability and sharing, like its GAIA-X project. One of the man objectives of wide data sharing through the above means is to decentralise digital business concentration with a few Big Tech. It also works the other way which brings me to my second point. (2) Breaking up big tech by various legal means -- employing platform- dependent actors separation (Lisa Khan and in India's ecom law) or in other ways ( see for instance our paper on 'Separating data, cloud and intelligence layers' ) .... Even the US is mulling new laws to curb Big Tech's power and ensure more competition, as are many other jurisdictions. Enforcing platform interoperability is a good way to break platform power concentration (we are working on a proposal to do so for social media platforms to start with, while India's commerce ministry has a group to develop a platform for e-com interoperability) ... Once you have a multiplicity of actors and platforms in any sector, instead of a monopoly or two, it mitigated the problem of data availability, as well as of concentrated control over AI research.. parminder On 21/11/21 12:08 am, Mueller, Milton L wrote: I look at this article and see no measurements or even qualitative estimates of the sources of AI funding, the share controlled by "big tech" as opposed to universities, government civilian research institutes, or by governmental military projects. All I see are assertions that everything is under the control of "big tech" - although there are useful notes about how governments - not big tech - are now pouring money into "AI" research based on a narrative about geopolitical military competition. And our project (IGP) has already sounded the alarm about Schmidt's and the U.S. military's attempt to make AI research into a "race" with the Chinese. More specifically, they are aiming at "AI supremacy," a rather scary term in our opinion, but in that case the source of the problem is nation-state competition not a demonized big tech. The author, Meredith Whitaker, ironically, is a former Google employee and sang a quite different tune when she participated in multistakeholder IG organizations in that capacity. This article may be worth paying attention to, but it's not research, it wasn't written by a scholar, it's basically an opinion piece upholding the advocacy views of the organization Meredith now works for, whose position is that big tech is bad and should be controlled more by people like, uh, Meredith and Tristan Harris and Francis Haugen. I'd also remind you not to be manipulated by framing. AI is basically software interacting with large data sets. The idea that commercial platforms who generate and collect lots of data and provide software applications and tools to billions of users are at the forefront of AI research should surprise or shock no one. It's like saying that EV companies are at the forefront of battery research. Would we feel better if all the data was being collected and research done by nation-states? Or do we fantasize about the large amounts of capital and data somehow being magically in the hands of "the people"? In what institutional capacity? Is the message that we are supposed to be against AI research per se? Or to eliminate big tech companies altogether? Or to be against "capitalism" because, well, the Chinese Communist Party does so much nicer things with big data and does such a better job controlling its tech companies? Is the goal to "regulate" big tech? If so, how, exactly, and how does that prevent tech/data firms from being at the forefront of AI research anyway? What exactly is the problem being identified here and what is proposed as the solution? Thoughts to consider as we prepare to meet in IGF 😉 Dr Milton L Mueller, Professor School of Public Policy Georgia Institute of Technology Internet Governance Project ________________________________ From: Governance on behalf of Suresh Ramasubramanian via Governance Sent: Friday, November 19, 2021 5:21 AM To: parminder ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [Governance] How strongly captured by Big Tech is the field of AI research In other words, civil society needs to work on its own AI, and on AI ethics, as a multi stakeholder effort. Are you aware of any such efforts? Or do you plan to launch such an effort? From: Governance on behalf of parminder via Governance Date: Friday, 19 November 2021 at 3:20 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [Governance] How strongly captured by Big Tech is the field of AI research An excellent and eye opening article in ACM's journal on how strongly captured by Big Tech most AI research is today. There also seem not many alternatives on the horizon. https://interactions.acm.org/archive/view/november-december-2021/the-steep-cost-of-capture If AI is the future, and everything AI is shaped by the Big Tech, then public interest actors of the world have something that must be addressed urgently.. But many apparently are busy handing even tech governance spaces over to Big Tech, so nothing ever comes in the latter's way. 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 david_allen_ab63 at post.harvard.edu Mon Nov 22 10:22:32 2021 From: david_allen_ab63 at post.harvard.edu (david_allen_ab63 at post.harvard.edu) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2021 10:22:32 -0500 Subject: [Governance] How strongly captured by Big Tech is the field of AI research In-Reply-To: References: <7b12d5b4-c5d7-4ac2-a414-2d318e364d00@itforchange.net> <32f2f50e-71d9-438e-9c4a-4b569330c1ed@itforchange.net> <0c5f3385-f2a1-8393-7043-435fd964fdf3@itforchange.net> <0681FB71-FA1D-4A1D-A40A-6E9969B0E350@post.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <13F374F0-576E-4027-AF5E-99A328CBA5E0@post.harvard.edu> If, for instance, you would discuss what you see as ‘othering' – rather than simply, imperiously, decide the matter, as putatively ‘our' sole source of intelligence – then there could be a forum, for exchange. As an immediate 'for instance.' David > On Nov 22, 2021, at 10:12 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > David, when the entire point of a long screed posted to this list is simply to “other” specific groups and deny their right to participate in any particular activity, besides insiting on civil society primacy [which sections of civil society is the next interesting question to ask], there is no scope for thoughtful exchange rather than rejection of the views in question. > > From: Governance on behalf of david_allen_ab63--- via Governance > Date: Monday, 22 November 2021 at 8:35 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [Governance] How strongly captured by Big Tech is the field of AI research > > Yes, on which side, machine or …? > > It would be nice to see thoughtful exchange among different views, something that could not only enlighten discourse but make this forum proud for the quality of dialogue it engenders. Rather than reflexive few-line sniping, and unfortunately even ad hominem drivel that disgraces the forum. > > David > > > > On Nov 22, 2021, at 12:25 AM, Mueller, Milton L via Governance > wrote: > > Suresh passes the Turing test > > From: Governance > on behalf of Suresh Ramasubramanian via Governance > > Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2021 3:21 AM > To: parminder >; governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > Subject: Re: [Governance] How strongly captured by Big Tech is the field of AI research > > I’m asking you a simple question. You say civil society needs a stake in it. I can see where AI ethicists like Frances Haugen very definitely have a stake. What I also see is a blanket statement rejecting any right for industry or government to have a stake in it, and asking for civil society to step up. Step up and do what and with what capacity? > > --srs > From: Governance > on behalf of parminder via Governance > > Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2021 12:49:51 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > Subject: Re: [Governance] How strongly captured by Big Tech is the field of AI research > > I think I may be excused to think that Suresh Ramasubramanian is a bot that dutifully acts within 60 minutes of my every posting to this list, to trash it, choosing some random part of my message and aligning it with some criticism selected from publicly available data :) ... > > List managers, any way such bots can be turned off :) ... thanks, parminder > > > On 21/11/21 12:41 pm, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Poor developing country? I’m kind of scared about big data in this current Indian government’s hands even more than they currently have access to, which with aadhaar is a lot. > > Given the uses to which voter data has already been put nearly two decades back .. https://m.timesofindia.com/india/misuse-of-voters-list-in-gujarat-riots-alleged/articleshow/3541858.cms > > > > --srs > From: Governance on behalf of parminder via Governance > Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2021 11:56:26 AM > To: Mueller, Milton L ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [Governance] How strongly captured by Big Tech is the field of AI research > > Milton, happy to respond to substantive points, but disappointed that you chose to attack this outstanding article on extraneous even ad hominem grounds. I'd come to them in a different email, not to distract from main points. > > You ask in the end. "What exactly is the problem being identified here and what is proposed as the solution?" > > I thought Meredith had made both absolutely clear. the problem especially, which is extremely profound and disturbing, and also her 'solution' (focused on tech employees and academics), which btw I do not think is adequate. > > The problem is that in a world where AI is set to become a prime force determining much in all walks of life, it is nearly impossible to do any AI research without Big Tech weighing down heavily on it. Whether it be about how our education processes and content should be determined, to the basis of public health strategies, to almost everything. I find it incredulous that you see no problem in this. Meredeth herself points to the time when military had an extra-ordinary say in a lot of scientific and technical research, and she calls it a 'dark history' from which we should take lesson. But then at least even if technologies like Internet and others were born in defense labs, when theses technologies and applications entered our lives, these were mediated by business and others, which meant a useful division of power in determining the directions of development and use of these technologies. But today, from framing questions, to research to application to feedback, it is a single Big Tech captured system. That, dear Milton, is the problem. It is just that we do not want commercial logic of a few Big Tech owners to determine the future of the world and humanity, whether this disturbs you at all or not. > > Access to all the needed data, it, along with means of collecting it, all being with Big Tech is the biggest problem, even bigger than high computational power, which with the help of public resources may still be able to be mustered. But all data and its mining shafts are captive with Big Tech. That is one of the biggest contemporary problem, and many have recognized it as such. > > To which your flippant response is: "Would we feel better if all the data was being collected and research done by nation-states?" > > Well, no, that is not what we want. > > Your next, rhetorically meant ,question is in fact more to the point: " Or do we fantasize about the large amounts of capital and data somehow being magically in the hands of "the people"? In what institutional capacity? " > > No, we do not fantasize. There is real work happening on this. > > I see two ways of doing it - both being actively pursued by many worthwhile actors. > > (1) Making many kinds of data sharing mandatory for Big Tech. So that data they collect from the society is mandated to be contributed in a social commons that all or many can use. I know you would consider this fantastical. But India's committee on data governance framework has laid out elaborate legal basis as well as practical implementation means for achieving it. (Disclosure: I am a committee member). This is the second draft report , but the final one, quite a bit better, will be out soon. But I know how youd treat a policy document from a poor, developing country like India. So I may inform you that within a few months EU will be coming out with its Data Act that will contain some mandatory data sharing provisions. Apart from it, the EU is working on many projects to ensure sector wide data availability and sharing, like its GAIA-X project. > > One of the man objectives of wide data sharing through the above means is to decentralise digital business concentration with a few Big Tech. It also works the other way which brings me to my second point. > > (2) Breaking up big tech by various legal means -- employing platform- dependent actors separation (Lisa Khan and in India's ecom law) or in other ways ( see for instance our paper on 'Separating data, cloud and intelligence layers ' ) .... Even the US is mulling new laws to curb Big Tech's power and ensure more competition, as are many other jurisdictions. Enforcing platform interoperability is a good way to break platform power concentration (we are working on a proposal to do so for social media platforms to start with, while India's commerce ministry has a group to develop a platform for e-com interoperability) ... Once you have a multiplicity of actors and platforms in any sector, instead of a monopoly or two, it mitigated the problem of data availability, as well as of concentrated control over AI research.. > > parminder > > > On 21/11/21 12:08 am, Mueller, Milton L wrote: > I look at this article and see no measurements or even qualitative estimates of the sources of AI funding, the share controlled by "big tech" as opposed to universities, government civilian research institutes, or by governmental military projects. > > All I see are assertions that everything is under the control of "big tech" - although there are useful notes about how governments - not big tech - are now pouring money into "AI" research based on a narrative about geopolitical military competition. And our project (IGP) has already sounded the alarm about Schmidt's and the U.S. military's attempt to make AI research into a "race" with the Chinese. More specifically, they are aiming at "AI supremacy," a rather scary term in our opinion, but in that case the source of the problem is nation-state competition not a demonized big tech. > > The author, Meredith Whitaker, ironically, is a former Google employee and sang a quite different tune when she participated in multistakeholder IG organizations in that capacity. > > This article may be worth paying attention to, but it's not research, it wasn't written by a scholar, it's basically an opinion piece upholding the advocacy views of the organization Meredith now works for, whose position is that big tech is bad and should be controlled more by people like, uh, Meredith and Tristan Harris and Francis Haugen. > > I'd also remind you not to be manipulated by framing. AI is basically software interacting with large data sets. The idea that commercial platforms who generate and collect lots of data and provide software applications and tools to billions of users are at the forefront of AI research should surprise or shock no one. It's like saying that EV companies are at the forefront of battery research. Would we feel better if all the data was being collected and research done by nation-states? Or do we fantasize about the large amounts of capital and data somehow being magically in the hands of "the people"? In what institutional capacity? > > Is the message that we are supposed to be against AI research per se? Or to eliminate big tech companies altogether? Or to be against "capitalism" because, well, the Chinese Communist Party does so much nicer things with big data and does such a better job controlling its tech companies? Is the goal to "regulate" big tech? If so, how, exactly, and how does that prevent tech/data firms from being at the forefront of AI research anyway? What exactly is the problem being identified here and what is proposed as the solution? > > Thoughts to consider as we prepare to meet in IGF 😉 > > Dr Milton L Mueller, Professor > School of Public Policy > Georgia Institute of Technology > Internet Governance Project > > From: Governance on behalf of Suresh Ramasubramanian via Governance > Sent: Friday, November 19, 2021 5:21 AM > To: parminder ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [Governance] How strongly captured by Big Tech is the field of AI research > > In other words, civil society needs to work on its own AI, and on AI ethics, as a multi stakeholder effort. Are you aware of any such efforts? Or do you plan to launch such an effort? > > From: Governance on behalf of parminder via Governance > Date: Friday, 19 November 2021 at 3:20 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: [Governance] How strongly captured by Big Tech is the field of AI research > > An excellent and eye opening article in ACM's journal on how strongly captured by Big Tech most AI research is today. There also seem not many alternatives on the horizon. > https://interactions.acm.org/archive/view/november-december-2021/the-steep-cost-of-capture > If AI is the future, and everything AI is shaped by the Big Tech, then public interest actors of the world have something that must be addressed urgently.. > But many apparently are busy handing even tech governance spaces over to Big Tech, so nothing ever comes in the latter's way. > 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 Mon Nov 22 10:28:36 2021 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2021 15:28:36 +0000 Subject: [Governance] How strongly captured by Big Tech is the field of AI research In-Reply-To: References: <7b12d5b4-c5d7-4ac2-a414-2d318e364d00@itforchange.net> <32f2f50e-71d9-438e-9c4a-4b569330c1ed@itforchange.net> <0c5f3385-f2a1-8393-7043-435fd964fdf3@itforchange.net> <0681FB71-FA1D-4A1D-A40A-6E9969B0E350@post.harvard.edu> Message-ID: These two paragraphs 1. big tech in the same vein as big lumber big whatever - a negative characterisation of an evil and monopolistic cartel, just to start with 2. “Handing over tech governance”? In a multi stakeholder environment it is inevitable that one organisation may be better equipped than another in terms of technical expertise, background in specific policies or whatever else. Is the solution to that developing capacity oneself, or just complaining that tech governance is “handed over” to whichever organisation participates more in the process and has an actual stake in terms of time, people and money invested to participate? 3. This entire attitude smacks of othering. I am glad to be proved wrong. If AI is the future, and everything AI is shaped by the Big Tech, then public interest actors of the world have something that must be addressed urgently.. But many apparently are busy handing even tech governance spaces over to Big Tech, so nothing ever comes in the latter's way. --srs ________________________________ From: Suresh Ramasubramanian Sent: Monday, November 22, 2021 8:42:12 PM To: david_allen_ab63 at post.harvard.edu ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [Governance] How strongly captured by Big Tech is the field of AI research David, when the entire point of a long screed posted to this list is simply to “other” specific groups and deny their right to participate in any particular activity, besides insiting on civil society primacy [which sections of civil society is the next interesting question to ask], there is no scope for thoughtful exchange rather than rejection of the views in question. From: Governance on behalf of david_allen_ab63--- via Governance Date: Monday, 22 November 2021 at 8:35 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [Governance] How strongly captured by Big Tech is the field of AI research Yes, on which side, machine or …? It would be nice to see thoughtful exchange among different views, something that could not only enlighten discourse but make this forum proud for the quality of dialogue it engenders. Rather than reflexive few-line sniping, and unfortunately even ad hominem drivel that disgraces the forum. David On Nov 22, 2021, at 12:25 AM, Mueller, Milton L via Governance > wrote: Suresh passes the Turing test ________________________________ From: Governance > on behalf of Suresh Ramasubramanian via Governance > Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2021 3:21 AM To: parminder >; governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [Governance] How strongly captured by Big Tech is the field of AI research I’m asking you a simple question. You say civil society needs a stake in it. I can see where AI ethicists like Frances Haugen very definitely have a stake. What I also see is a blanket statement rejecting any right for industry or government to have a stake in it, and asking for civil society to step up. Step up and do what and with what capacity? --srs ________________________________ From: Governance > on behalf of parminder via Governance > Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2021 12:49:51 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [Governance] How strongly captured by Big Tech is the field of AI research I think I may be excused to think that Suresh Ramasubramanian is a bot that dutifully acts within 60 minutes of my every posting to this list, to trash it, choosing some random part of my message and aligning it with some criticism selected from publicly available data :) ... List managers, any way such bots can be turned off :) ... thanks, parminder On 21/11/21 12:41 pm, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: Poor developing country? I’m kind of scared about big data in this current Indian government’s hands even more than they currently have access to, which with aadhaar is a lot. Given the uses to which voter data has already been put nearly two decades back .. https://m.timesofindia.com/india/misuse-of-voters-list-in-gujarat-riots-alleged/articleshow/3541858.cms --srs ________________________________ From: Governance on behalf of parminder via Governance Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2021 11:56:26 AM To: Mueller, Milton L ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [Governance] How strongly captured by Big Tech is the field of AI research Milton, happy to respond to substantive points, but disappointed that you chose to attack this outstanding article on extraneous even ad hominem grounds. I'd come to them in a different email, not to distract from main points. You ask in the end. "What exactly is the problem being identified here and what is proposed as the solution?" I thought Meredith had made both absolutely clear. the problem especially, which is extremely profound and disturbing, and also her 'solution' (focused on tech employees and academics), which btw I do not think is adequate. The problem is that in a world where AI is set to become a prime force determining much in all walks of life, it is nearly impossible to do any AI research without Big Tech weighing down heavily on it. Whether it be about how our education processes and content should be determined, to the basis of public health strategies, to almost everything. I find it incredulous that you see no problem in this. Meredeth herself points to the time when military had an extra-ordinary say in a lot of scientific and technical research, and she calls it a 'dark history' from which we should take lesson. But then at least even if technologies like Internet and others were born in defense labs, when theses technologies and applications entered our lives, these were mediated by business and others, which meant a useful division of power in determining the directions of development and use of these technologies. But today, from framing questions, to research to application to feedback, it is a single Big Tech captured system. That, dear Milton, is the problem. It is just that we do not want commercial logic of a few Big Tech owners to determine the future of the world and humanity, whether this disturbs you at all or not. Access to all the needed data, it, along with means of collecting it, all being with Big Tech is the biggest problem, even bigger than high computational power, which with the help of public resources may still be able to be mustered. But all data and its mining shafts are captive with Big Tech. That is one of the biggest contemporary problem, and many have recognized it as such. To which your flippant response is: "Would we feel better if all the data was being collected and research done by nation-states?" Well, no, that is not what we want. Your next, rhetorically meant ,question is in fact more to the point: " Or do we fantasize about the large amounts of capital and data somehow being magically in the hands of "the people"? In what institutional capacity? " No, we do not fantasize. There is real work happening on this. I see two ways of doing it - both being actively pursued by many worthwhile actors. (1) Making many kinds of data sharing mandatory for Big Tech. So that data they collect from the society is mandated to be contributed in a social commons that all or many can use. I know you would consider this fantastical. But India's committee on data governance framework has laid out elaborate legal basis as well as practical implementation means for achieving it. (Disclosure: I am a committee member). This is the second draft report, but the final one, quite a bit better, will be out soon. But I know how youd treat a policy document from a poor, developing country like India. So I may inform you that within a few months EU will be coming out with its Data Act that will contain some mandatory data sharing provisions. Apart from it, the EU is working on many projects to ensure sector wide data availability and sharing, like its GAIA-X project. One of the man objectives of wide data sharing through the above means is to decentralise digital business concentration with a few Big Tech. It also works the other way which brings me to my second point. (2) Breaking up big tech by various legal means -- employing platform- dependent actors separation (Lisa Khan and in India's ecom law) or in other ways ( see for instance our paper on 'Separating data, cloud and intelligence layers' ) .... Even the US is mulling new laws to curb Big Tech's power and ensure more competition, as are many other jurisdictions. Enforcing platform interoperability is a good way to break platform power concentration (we are working on a proposal to do so for social media platforms to start with, while India's commerce ministry has a group to develop a platform for e-com interoperability) ... Once you have a multiplicity of actors and platforms in any sector, instead of a monopoly or two, it mitigated the problem of data availability, as well as of concentrated control over AI research.. parminder On 21/11/21 12:08 am, Mueller, Milton L wrote: I look at this article and see no measurements or even qualitative estimates of the sources of AI funding, the share controlled by "big tech" as opposed to universities, government civilian research institutes, or by governmental military projects. All I see are assertions that everything is under the control of "big tech" - although there are useful notes about how governments - not big tech - are now pouring money into "AI" research based on a narrative about geopolitical military competition. And our project (IGP) has already sounded the alarm about Schmidt's and the U.S. military's attempt to make AI research into a "race" with the Chinese. More specifically, they are aiming at "AI supremacy," a rather scary term in our opinion, but in that case the source of the problem is nation-state competition not a demonized big tech. The author, Meredith Whitaker, ironically, is a former Google employee and sang a quite different tune when she participated in multistakeholder IG organizations in that capacity. This article may be worth paying attention to, but it's not research, it wasn't written by a scholar, it's basically an opinion piece upholding the advocacy views of the organization Meredith now works for, whose position is that big tech is bad and should be controlled more by people like, uh, Meredith and Tristan Harris and Francis Haugen. I'd also remind you not to be manipulated by framing. AI is basically software interacting with large data sets. The idea that commercial platforms who generate and collect lots of data and provide software applications and tools to billions of users are at the forefront of AI research should surprise or shock no one. It's like saying that EV companies are at the forefront of battery research. Would we feel better if all the data was being collected and research done by nation-states? Or do we fantasize about the large amounts of capital and data somehow being magically in the hands of "the people"? In what institutional capacity? Is the message that we are supposed to be against AI research per se? Or to eliminate big tech companies altogether? Or to be against "capitalism" because, well, the Chinese Communist Party does so much nicer things with big data and does such a better job controlling its tech companies? Is the goal to "regulate" big tech? If so, how, exactly, and how does that prevent tech/data firms from being at the forefront of AI research anyway? What exactly is the problem being identified here and what is proposed as the solution? Thoughts to consider as we prepare to meet in IGF ?? Dr Milton L Mueller, Professor School of Public Policy Georgia Institute of Technology Internet Governance Project ________________________________ From: Governance on behalf of Suresh Ramasubramanian via Governance Sent: Friday, November 19, 2021 5:21 AM To: parminder ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [Governance] How strongly captured by Big Tech is the field of AI research In other words, civil society needs to work on its own AI, and on AI ethics, as a multi stakeholder effort. Are you aware of any such efforts? Or do you plan to launch such an effort? From: Governance on behalf of parminder via Governance Date: Friday, 19 November 2021 at 3:20 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [Governance] How strongly captured by Big Tech is the field of AI research An excellent and eye opening article in ACM's journal on how strongly captured by Big Tech most AI research is today. There also seem not many alternatives on the horizon. https://interactions.acm.org/archive/view/november-december-2021/the-steep-cost-of-capture If AI is the future, and everything AI is shaped by the Big Tech, then public interest actors of the world have something that must be addressed urgently.. But many apparently are busy handing even tech governance spaces over to Big Tech, so nothing ever comes in the latter's way. 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 david_allen_ab63 at post.harvard.edu Mon Nov 22 10:42:04 2021 From: david_allen_ab63 at post.harvard.edu (david_allen_ab63 at post.harvard.edu) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2021 10:42:04 -0500 Subject: [Governance] How strongly captured by Big Tech is the field of AI research In-Reply-To: References: <7b12d5b4-c5d7-4ac2-a414-2d318e364d00@itforchange.net> <32f2f50e-71d9-438e-9c4a-4b569330c1ed@itforchange.net> <0c5f3385-f2a1-8393-7043-435fd964fdf3@itforchange.net> <0681FB71-FA1D-4A1D-A40A-6E9969B0E350@post.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <336576C4-54FC-409D-BD9A-00C8FB413FF0@post.harvard.edu> Discussion, as we all know, is about putting forth evidence and logic and inviting a response. Respectfully. Appreciating and hoping for civil dialogue, in an ongoing stream. David > On Nov 22, 2021, at 10:28 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > These two paragraphs > > big tech in the same vein as big lumber big whatever - a negative characterisation of an evil and monopolistic cartel, just to start with > “Handing over tech governance”? In a multi stakeholder environment it is inevitable that one organisation may be better equipped than another in terms of technical expertise, background in specific policies or whatever else. Is the solution to that developing capacity oneself, or just complaining that tech governance is “handed over” to whichever organisation participates more in the process and has an actual stake in terms of time, people and money invested to participate? > This entire attitude smacks of othering. I am glad to be proved wrong. > If AI is the future, and everything AI is shaped by the Big Tech, then public interest actors of the world have something that must be addressed urgently.. > > But many apparently are busy handing even tech governance spaces over to Big Tech, so nothing ever comes in the latter's way. > > > > --srs > From: Suresh Ramasubramanian > Sent: Monday, November 22, 2021 8:42:12 PM > To: david_allen_ab63 at post.harvard.edu ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [Governance] How strongly captured by Big Tech is the field of AI research > > David, when the entire point of a long screed posted to this list is simply to “other” specific groups and deny their right to participate in any particular activity, besides insiting on civil society primacy [which sections of civil society is the next interesting question to ask], there is no scope for thoughtful exchange rather than rejection of the views in question. > > From: Governance on behalf of david_allen_ab63--- via Governance > Date: Monday, 22 November 2021 at 8:35 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [Governance] How strongly captured by Big Tech is the field of AI research > > Yes, on which side, machine or …? > > It would be nice to see thoughtful exchange among different views, something that could not only enlighten discourse but make this forum proud for the quality of dialogue it engenders. Rather than reflexive few-line sniping, and unfortunately even ad hominem drivel that disgraces the forum. > > David > > > > On Nov 22, 2021, at 12:25 AM, Mueller, Milton L via Governance > wrote: > > Suresh passes the Turing test > > From: Governance > on behalf of Suresh Ramasubramanian via Governance > > Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2021 3:21 AM > To: parminder >; governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > Subject: Re: [Governance] How strongly captured by Big Tech is the field of AI research > > I’m asking you a simple question. You say civil society needs a stake in it. I can see where AI ethicists like Frances Haugen very definitely have a stake. What I also see is a blanket statement rejecting any right for industry or government to have a stake in it, and asking for civil society to step up. Step up and do what and with what capacity? > > --srs > From: Governance > on behalf of parminder via Governance > > Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2021 12:49:51 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > Subject: Re: [Governance] How strongly captured by Big Tech is the field of AI research > > I think I may be excused to think that Suresh Ramasubramanian is a bot that dutifully acts within 60 minutes of my every posting to this list, to trash it, choosing some random part of my message and aligning it with some criticism selected from publicly available data :) ... > > List managers, any way such bots can be turned off :) ... thanks, parminder > > > On 21/11/21 12:41 pm, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Poor developing country? I’m kind of scared about big data in this current Indian government’s hands even more than they currently have access to, which with aadhaar is a lot. > > Given the uses to which voter data has already been put nearly two decades back .. https://m.timesofindia.com/india/misuse-of-voters-list-in-gujarat-riots-alleged/articleshow/3541858.cms > > > > --srs > From: Governance on behalf of parminder via Governance > Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2021 11:56:26 AM > To: Mueller, Milton L ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [Governance] How strongly captured by Big Tech is the field of AI research > > Milton, happy to respond to substantive points, but disappointed that you chose to attack this outstanding article on extraneous even ad hominem grounds. I'd come to them in a different email, not to distract from main points. > > You ask in the end. "What exactly is the problem being identified here and what is proposed as the solution?" > > I thought Meredith had made both absolutely clear. the problem especially, which is extremely profound and disturbing, and also her 'solution' (focused on tech employees and academics), which btw I do not think is adequate. > > The problem is that in a world where AI is set to become a prime force determining much in all walks of life, it is nearly impossible to do any AI research without Big Tech weighing down heavily on it. Whether it be about how our education processes and content should be determined, to the basis of public health strategies, to almost everything. I find it incredulous that you see no problem in this. Meredeth herself points to the time when military had an extra-ordinary say in a lot of scientific and technical research, and she calls it a 'dark history' from which we should take lesson. But then at least even if technologies like Internet and others were born in defense labs, when theses technologies and applications entered our lives, these were mediated by business and others, which meant a useful division of power in determining the directions of development and use of these technologies. But today, from framing questions, to research to application to feedback, it is a single Big Tech captured system. That, dear Milton, is the problem. It is just that we do not want commercial logic of a few Big Tech owners to determine the future of the world and humanity, whether this disturbs you at all or not. > > Access to all the needed data, it, along with means of collecting it, all being with Big Tech is the biggest problem, even bigger than high computational power, which with the help of public resources may still be able to be mustered. But all data and its mining shafts are captive with Big Tech. That is one of the biggest contemporary problem, and many have recognized it as such. > > To which your flippant response is: "Would we feel better if all the data was being collected and research done by nation-states?" > > Well, no, that is not what we want. > > Your next, rhetorically meant ,question is in fact more to the point: " Or do we fantasize about the large amounts of capital and data somehow being magically in the hands of "the people"? In what institutional capacity? " > > No, we do not fantasize. There is real work happening on this. > > I see two ways of doing it - both being actively pursued by many worthwhile actors. > > (1) Making many kinds of data sharing mandatory for Big Tech. So that data they collect from the society is mandated to be contributed in a social commons that all or many can use. I know you would consider this fantastical. But India's committee on data governance framework has laid out elaborate legal basis as well as practical implementation means for achieving it. (Disclosure: I am a committee member). This is the second draft report , but the final one, quite a bit better, will be out soon. But I know how youd treat a policy document from a poor, developing country like India. So I may inform you that within a few months EU will be coming out with its Data Act that will contain some mandatory data sharing provisions. Apart from it, the EU is working on many projects to ensure sector wide data availability and sharing, like its GAIA-X project. > > One of the man objectives of wide data sharing through the above means is to decentralise digital business concentration with a few Big Tech. It also works the other way which brings me to my second point. > > (2) Breaking up big tech by various legal means -- employing platform- dependent actors separation (Lisa Khan and in India's ecom law) or in other ways ( see for instance our paper on 'Separating data, cloud and intelligence layers ' ) .... Even the US is mulling new laws to curb Big Tech's power and ensure more competition, as are many other jurisdictions. Enforcing platform interoperability is a good way to break platform power concentration (we are working on a proposal to do so for social media platforms to start with, while India's commerce ministry has a group to develop a platform for e-com interoperability) ... Once you have a multiplicity of actors and platforms in any sector, instead of a monopoly or two, it mitigated the problem of data availability, as well as of concentrated control over AI research.. > > parminder > > > On 21/11/21 12:08 am, Mueller, Milton L wrote: > I look at this article and see no measurements or even qualitative estimates of the sources of AI funding, the share controlled by "big tech" as opposed to universities, government civilian research institutes, or by governmental military projects. > > All I see are assertions that everything is under the control of "big tech" - although there are useful notes about how governments - not big tech - are now pouring money into "AI" research based on a narrative about geopolitical military competition. And our project (IGP) has already sounded the alarm about Schmidt's and the U.S. military's attempt to make AI research into a "race" with the Chinese. More specifically, they are aiming at "AI supremacy," a rather scary term in our opinion, but in that case the source of the problem is nation-state competition not a demonized big tech. > > The author, Meredith Whitaker, ironically, is a former Google employee and sang a quite different tune when she participated in multistakeholder IG organizations in that capacity. > > This article may be worth paying attention to, but it's not research, it wasn't written by a scholar, it's basically an opinion piece upholding the advocacy views of the organization Meredith now works for, whose position is that big tech is bad and should be controlled more by people like, uh, Meredith and Tristan Harris and Francis Haugen. > > I'd also remind you not to be manipulated by framing. AI is basically software interacting with large data sets. The idea that commercial platforms who generate and collect lots of data and provide software applications and tools to billions of users are at the forefront of AI research should surprise or shock no one. It's like saying that EV companies are at the forefront of battery research. Would we feel better if all the data was being collected and research done by nation-states? Or do we fantasize about the large amounts of capital and data somehow being magically in the hands of "the people"? In what institutional capacity? > > Is the message that we are supposed to be against AI research per se? Or to eliminate big tech companies altogether? Or to be against "capitalism" because, well, the Chinese Communist Party does so much nicer things with big data and does such a better job controlling its tech companies? Is the goal to "regulate" big tech? If so, how, exactly, and how does that prevent tech/data firms from being at the forefront of AI research anyway? What exactly is the problem being identified here and what is proposed as the solution? > > Thoughts to consider as we prepare to meet in IGF 😉 > > Dr Milton L Mueller, Professor > School of Public Policy > Georgia Institute of Technology > Internet Governance Project > > From: Governance on behalf of Suresh Ramasubramanian via Governance > Sent: Friday, November 19, 2021 5:21 AM > To: parminder ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [Governance] How strongly captured by Big Tech is the field of AI research > > In other words, civil society needs to work on its own AI, and on AI ethics, as a multi stakeholder effort. Are you aware of any such efforts? Or do you plan to launch such an effort? > > From: Governance on behalf of parminder via Governance > Date: Friday, 19 November 2021 at 3:20 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: [Governance] How strongly captured by Big Tech is the field of AI research > > An excellent and eye opening article in ACM's journal on how strongly captured by Big Tech most AI research is today. There also seem not many alternatives on the horizon. > https://interactions.acm.org/archive/view/november-december-2021/the-steep-cost-of-capture > If AI is the future, and everything AI is shaped by the Big Tech, then public interest actors of the world have something that must be addressed urgently.. > But many apparently are busy handing even tech governance spaces over to Big Tech, so nothing ever comes in the latter's way. > 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 Mon Nov 22 11:20:25 2021 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2021 16:20:25 +0000 Subject: [Governance] How strongly captured by Big Tech is the field of AI research In-Reply-To: <336576C4-54FC-409D-BD9A-00C8FB413FF0@post.harvard.edu> References: <7b12d5b4-c5d7-4ac2-a414-2d318e364d00@itforchange.net> <32f2f50e-71d9-438e-9c4a-4b569330c1ed@itforchange.net> <0c5f3385-f2a1-8393-7043-435fd964fdf3@itforchange.net> <0681FB71-FA1D-4A1D-A40A-6E9969B0E350@post.harvard.edu> <336576C4-54FC-409D-BD9A-00C8FB413FF0@post.harvard.edu> Message-ID: A prerequisite for a productive discussion is the avoidance of loaded language and polemic in defining whatever the topic of discussion is. --srs ________________________________ From: Governance on behalf of david_allen_ab63--- via Governance Sent: Monday, November 22, 2021 9:12:04 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [Governance] How strongly captured by Big Tech is the field of AI research Discussion, as we all know, is about putting forth evidence and logic and inviting a response. Respectfully. Appreciating and hoping for civil dialogue, in an ongoing stream. David On Nov 22, 2021, at 10:28 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian > wrote: These two paragraphs 1. big tech in the same vein as big lumber big whatever - a negative characterisation of an evil and monopolistic cartel, just to start with 2. “Handing over tech governance”? In a multi stakeholder environment it is inevitable that one organisation may be better equipped than another in terms of technical expertise, background in specific policies or whatever else. Is the solution to that developing capacity oneself, or just complaining that tech governance is “handed over” to whichever organisation participates more in the process and has an actual stake in terms of time, people and money invested to participate? 3. This entire attitude smacks of othering. I am glad to be proved wrong. If AI is the future, and everything AI is shaped by the Big Tech, then public interest actors of the world have something that must be addressed urgently.. But many apparently are busy handing even tech governance spaces over to Big Tech, so nothing ever comes in the latter's way. --srs ________________________________ From: Suresh Ramasubramanian > Sent: Monday, November 22, 2021 8:42:12 PM To: david_allen_ab63 at post.harvard.edu >; governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [Governance] How strongly captured by Big Tech is the field of AI research David, when the entire point of a long screed posted to this list is simply to “other” specific groups and deny their right to participate in any particular activity, besides insiting on civil society primacy [which sections of civil society is the next interesting question to ask], there is no scope for thoughtful exchange rather than rejection of the views in question. From: Governance > on behalf of david_allen_ab63--- via Governance > Date: Monday, 22 November 2021 at 8:35 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [Governance] How strongly captured by Big Tech is the field of AI research Yes, on which side, machine or …? It would be nice to see thoughtful exchange among different views, something that could not only enlighten discourse but make this forum proud for the quality of dialogue it engenders. Rather than reflexive few-line sniping, and unfortunately even ad hominem drivel that disgraces the forum. David On Nov 22, 2021, at 12:25 AM, Mueller, Milton L via Governance > wrote: Suresh passes the Turing test ________________________________ From: Governance > on behalf of Suresh Ramasubramanian via Governance > Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2021 3:21 AM To: parminder >; governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [Governance] How strongly captured by Big Tech is the field of AI research I’m asking you a simple question. You say civil society needs a stake in it. I can see where AI ethicists like Frances Haugen very definitely have a stake. What I also see is a blanket statement rejecting any right for industry or government to have a stake in it, and asking for civil society to step up. Step up and do what and with what capacity? --srs ________________________________ From: Governance > on behalf of parminder via Governance > Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2021 12:49:51 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [Governance] How strongly captured by Big Tech is the field of AI research I think I may be excused to think that Suresh Ramasubramanian is a bot that dutifully acts within 60 minutes of my every posting to this list, to trash it, choosing some random part of my message and aligning it with some criticism selected from publicly available data :) ... List managers, any way such bots can be turned off :) ... thanks, parminder On 21/11/21 12:41 pm, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: Poor developing country? I’m kind of scared about big data in this current Indian government’s hands even more than they currently have access to, which with aadhaar is a lot. Given the uses to which voter data has already been put nearly two decades back .. https://m.timesofindia.com/india/misuse-of-voters-list-in-gujarat-riots-alleged/articleshow/3541858.cms --srs ________________________________ From: Governance on behalf of parminder via Governance Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2021 11:56:26 AM To: Mueller, Milton L ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [Governance] How strongly captured by Big Tech is the field of AI research Milton, happy to respond to substantive points, but disappointed that you chose to attack this outstanding article on extraneous even ad hominem grounds. I'd come to them in a different email, not to distract from main points. You ask in the end. "What exactly is the problem being identified here and what is proposed as the solution?" I thought Meredith had made both absolutely clear. the problem especially, which is extremely profound and disturbing, and also her 'solution' (focused on tech employees and academics), which btw I do not think is adequate. The problem is that in a world where AI is set to become a prime force determining much in all walks of life, it is nearly impossible to do any AI research without Big Tech weighing down heavily on it. Whether it be about how our education processes and content should be determined, to the basis of public health strategies, to almost everything. I find it incredulous that you see no problem in this. Meredeth herself points to the time when military had an extra-ordinary say in a lot of scientific and technical research, and she calls it a 'dark history' from which we should take lesson. But then at least even if technologies like Internet and others were born in defense labs, when theses technologies and applications entered our lives, these were mediated by business and others, which meant a useful division of power in determining the directions of development and use of these technologies. But today, from framing questions, to research to application to feedback, it is a single Big Tech captured system. That, dear Milton, is the problem. It is just that we do not want commercial logic of a few Big Tech owners to determine the future of the world and humanity, whether this disturbs you at all or not. Access to all the needed data, it, along with means of collecting it, all being with Big Tech is the biggest problem, even bigger than high computational power, which with the help of public resources may still be able to be mustered. But all data and its mining shafts are captive with Big Tech. That is one of the biggest contemporary problem, and many have recognized it as such. To which your flippant response is: "Would we feel better if all the data was being collected and research done by nation-states?" Well, no, that is not what we want. Your next, rhetorically meant ,question is in fact more to the point: " Or do we fantasize about the large amounts of capital and data somehow being magically in the hands of "the people"? In what institutional capacity? " No, we do not fantasize. There is real work happening on this. I see two ways of doing it - both being actively pursued by many worthwhile actors. (1) Making many kinds of data sharing mandatory for Big Tech. So that data they collect from the society is mandated to be contributed in a social commons that all or many can use. I know you would consider this fantastical. But India's committee on data governance framework has laid out elaborate legal basis as well as practical implementation means for achieving it. (Disclosure: I am a committee member). This is the second draft report, but the final one, quite a bit better, will be out soon. But I know how youd treat a policy document from a poor, developing country like India. So I may inform you that within a few months EU will be coming out with its Data Act that will contain some mandatory data sharing provisions. Apart from it, the EU is working on many projects to ensure sector wide data availability and sharing, like its GAIA-X project. One of the man objectives of wide data sharing through the above means is to decentralise digital business concentration with a few Big Tech. It also works the other way which brings me to my second point. (2) Breaking up big tech by various legal means -- employing platform- dependent actors separation (Lisa Khan and in India's ecom law) or in other ways ( see for instance our paper on 'Separating data, cloud and intelligence layers' ) .... Even the US is mulling new laws to curb Big Tech's power and ensure more competition, as are many other jurisdictions. Enforcing platform interoperability is a good way to break platform power concentration (we are working on a proposal to do so for social media platforms to start with, while India's commerce ministry has a group to develop a platform for e-com interoperability) ... Once you have a multiplicity of actors and platforms in any sector, instead of a monopoly or two, it mitigated the problem of data availability, as well as of concentrated control over AI research.. parminder On 21/11/21 12:08 am, Mueller, Milton L wrote: I look at this article and see no measurements or even qualitative estimates of the sources of AI funding, the share controlled by "big tech" as opposed to universities, government civilian research institutes, or by governmental military projects. All I see are assertions that everything is under the control of "big tech" - although there are useful notes about how governments - not big tech - are now pouring money into "AI" research based on a narrative about geopolitical military competition. And our project (IGP) has already sounded the alarm about Schmidt's and the U.S. military's attempt to make AI research into a "race" with the Chinese. More specifically, they are aiming at "AI supremacy," a rather scary term in our opinion, but in that case the source of the problem is nation-state competition not a demonized big tech. The author, Meredith Whitaker, ironically, is a former Google employee and sang a quite different tune when she participated in multistakeholder IG organizations in that capacity. This article may be worth paying attention to, but it's not research, it wasn't written by a scholar, it's basically an opinion piece upholding the advocacy views of the organization Meredith now works for, whose position is that big tech is bad and should be controlled more by people like, uh, Meredith and Tristan Harris and Francis Haugen. I'd also remind you not to be manipulated by framing. AI is basically software interacting with large data sets. The idea that commercial platforms who generate and collect lots of data and provide software applications and tools to billions of users are at the forefront of AI research should surprise or shock no one. It's like saying that EV companies are at the forefront of battery research. Would we feel better if all the data was being collected and research done by nation-states? Or do we fantasize about the large amounts of capital and data somehow being magically in the hands of "the people"? In what institutional capacity? Is the message that we are supposed to be against AI research per se? Or to eliminate big tech companies altogether? Or to be against "capitalism" because, well, the Chinese Communist Party does so much nicer things with big data and does such a better job controlling its tech companies? Is the goal to "regulate" big tech? If so, how, exactly, and how does that prevent tech/data firms from being at the forefront of AI research anyway? What exactly is the problem being identified here and what is proposed as the solution? Thoughts to consider as we prepare to meet in IGF 😉 Dr Milton L Mueller, Professor School of Public Policy Georgia Institute of Technology Internet Governance Project ________________________________ From: Governance on behalf of Suresh Ramasubramanian via Governance Sent: Friday, November 19, 2021 5:21 AM To: parminder ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [Governance] How strongly captured by Big Tech is the field of AI research In other words, civil society needs to work on its own AI, and on AI ethics, as a multi stakeholder effort. Are you aware of any such efforts? Or do you plan to launch such an effort? From: Governance on behalf of parminder via Governance Date: Friday, 19 November 2021 at 3:20 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [Governance] How strongly captured by Big Tech is the field of AI research An excellent and eye opening article in ACM's journal on how strongly captured by Big Tech most AI research is today. There also seem not many alternatives on the horizon. https://interactions.acm.org/archive/view/november-december-2021/the-steep-cost-of-capture If AI is the future, and everything AI is shaped by the Big Tech, then public interest actors of the world have something that must be addressed urgently.. But many apparently are busy handing even tech governance spaces over to Big Tech, so nothing ever comes in the latter's way. 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 david_allen_ab63 at post.harvard.edu Mon Nov 22 12:59:40 2021 From: david_allen_ab63 at post.harvard.edu (david_allen_ab63 at post.harvard.edu) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2021 12:59:40 -0500 Subject: [Governance] How strongly captured by Big Tech is the field of AI research In-Reply-To: References: <7b12d5b4-c5d7-4ac2-a414-2d318e364d00@itforchange.net> <32f2f50e-71d9-438e-9c4a-4b569330c1ed@itforchange.net> <0c5f3385-f2a1-8393-7043-435fd964fdf3@itforchange.net> <0681FB71-FA1D-4A1D-A40A-6E9969B0E350@post.harvard.edu> <336576C4-54FC-409D-BD9A-00C8FB413FF0@post.harvard.edu> Message-ID: Well stated, in my view. Pointedly applicable, to all. In the US, we currently – on the political front – have the poster child for how NOT to do it. Two sides, opposite each other across the ramparts, fling verbal firebombs back-and-forth. There is no communication. Only crass, ugly, stupid people who suppose they are accomplishing something by their childish verbal antics. When in fact only an unbreachable divide grows higher. To move away, from entrenched bunker mentality, to a better place, means a shift in mindset. For all. Out of the defensive posture, in the bunker. To a space, in the mindset, open to learn what those with opposite views may – surprise, surprise – bring as insight. Which those with opposite persuasion had not yet seen. Where all may contribute. A common view may, or may not, emerge. But, there will be adult conversation that offers the prospect for thinking forward. And we might hold our head up as a respectable forum. David > On Nov 22, 2021, at 11:20 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > A prerequisite for a productive discussion is the avoidance of loaded language and polemic in defining whatever the topic of discussion is. > > > --srs > From: Governance on behalf of david_allen_ab63--- via Governance > Sent: Monday, November 22, 2021 9:12:04 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [Governance] How strongly captured by Big Tech is the field of AI research > > Discussion, as we all know, is about putting forth evidence and logic and inviting a response. Respectfully. Appreciating and hoping for civil dialogue, in an ongoing stream. > > David > > >> On Nov 22, 2021, at 10:28 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian > wrote: >> >> These two paragraphs >> >> big tech in the same vein as big lumber big whatever - a negative characterisation of an evil and monopolistic cartel, just to start with >> “Handing over tech governance”? In a multi stakeholder environment it is inevitable that one organisation may be better equipped than another in terms of technical expertise, background in specific policies or whatever else. Is the solution to that developing capacity oneself, or just complaining that tech governance is “handed over” to whichever organisation participates more in the process and has an actual stake in terms of time, people and money invested to participate? >> This entire attitude smacks of othering. I am glad to be proved wrong. >> If AI is the future, and everything AI is shaped by the Big Tech, then public interest actors of the world have something that must be addressed urgently.. >> >> But many apparently are busy handing even tech governance spaces over to Big Tech, so nothing ever comes in the latter's way. >> >> >> >> --srs >> From: Suresh Ramasubramanian > >> Sent: Monday, November 22, 2021 8:42:12 PM >> To: david_allen_ab63 at post.harvard.edu >; governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> Subject: Re: [Governance] How strongly captured by Big Tech is the field of AI research >> >> David, when the entire point of a long screed posted to this list is simply to “other” specific groups and deny their right to participate in any particular activity, besides insiting on civil society primacy [which sections of civil society is the next interesting question to ask], there is no scope for thoughtful exchange rather than rejection of the views in question. >> >> From: Governance > on behalf of david_allen_ab63--- via Governance > >> Date: Monday, 22 November 2021 at 8:35 PM >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> Subject: Re: [Governance] How strongly captured by Big Tech is the field of AI research >> >> Yes, on which side, machine or …? >> >> It would be nice to see thoughtful exchange among different views, something that could not only enlighten discourse but make this forum proud for the quality of dialogue it engenders. Rather than reflexive few-line sniping, and unfortunately even ad hominem drivel that disgraces the forum. >> >> David >> >> >> >> On Nov 22, 2021, at 12:25 AM, Mueller, Milton L via Governance > wrote: >> >> Suresh passes the Turing test >> >> From: Governance > on behalf of Suresh Ramasubramanian via Governance > >> Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2021 3:21 AM >> To: parminder >; governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> Subject: Re: [Governance] How strongly captured by Big Tech is the field of AI research >> >> I’m asking you a simple question. You say civil society needs a stake in it. I can see where AI ethicists like Frances Haugen very definitely have a stake. What I also see is a blanket statement rejecting any right for industry or government to have a stake in it, and asking for civil society to step up. Step up and do what and with what capacity? >> >> --srs >> From: Governance > on behalf of parminder via Governance > >> Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2021 12:49:51 PM >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> Subject: Re: [Governance] How strongly captured by Big Tech is the field of AI research >> >> I think I may be excused to think that Suresh Ramasubramanian is a bot that dutifully acts within 60 minutes of my every posting to this list, to trash it, choosing some random part of my message and aligning it with some criticism selected from publicly available data :) ... >> >> List managers, any way such bots can be turned off :) ... thanks, parminder >> >> >> On 21/11/21 12:41 pm, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> Poor developing country? I’m kind of scared about big data in this current Indian government’s hands even more than they currently have access to, which with aadhaar is a lot. >> >> Given the uses to which voter data has already been put nearly two decades back .. https://m.timesofindia.com/india/misuse-of-voters-list-in-gujarat-riots-alleged/articleshow/3541858.cms >> >> >> >> --srs >> From: Governance on behalf of parminder via Governance >> Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2021 11:56:26 AM >> To: Mueller, Milton L ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Subject: Re: [Governance] How strongly captured by Big Tech is the field of AI research >> >> Milton, happy to respond to substantive points, but disappointed that you chose to attack this outstanding article on extraneous even ad hominem grounds. I'd come to them in a different email, not to distract from main points. >> >> You ask in the end. "What exactly is the problem being identified here and what is proposed as the solution?" >> >> I thought Meredith had made both absolutely clear. the problem especially, which is extremely profound and disturbing, and also her 'solution' (focused on tech employees and academics), which btw I do not think is adequate. >> >> The problem is that in a world where AI is set to become a prime force determining much in all walks of life, it is nearly impossible to do any AI research without Big Tech weighing down heavily on it. Whether it be about how our education processes and content should be determined, to the basis of public health strategies, to almost everything. I find it incredulous that you see no problem in this. Meredeth herself points to the time when military had an extra-ordinary say in a lot of scientific and technical research, and she calls it a 'dark history' from which we should take lesson. But then at least even if technologies like Internet and others were born in defense labs, when theses technologies and applications entered our lives, these were mediated by business and others, which meant a useful division of power in determining the directions of development and use of these technologies. But today, from framing questions, to research to application to feedback, it is a single Big Tech captured system. That, dear Milton, is the problem. It is just that we do not want commercial logic of a few Big Tech owners to determine the future of the world and humanity, whether this disturbs you at all or not. >> >> Access to all the needed data, it, along with means of collecting it, all being with Big Tech is the biggest problem, even bigger than high computational power, which with the help of public resources may still be able to be mustered. But all data and its mining shafts are captive with Big Tech. That is one of the biggest contemporary problem, and many have recognized it as such. >> >> To which your flippant response is: "Would we feel better if all the data was being collected and research done by nation-states?" >> >> Well, no, that is not what we want. >> >> Your next, rhetorically meant ,question is in fact more to the point: " Or do we fantasize about the large amounts of capital and data somehow being magically in the hands of "the people"? In what institutional capacity? " >> >> No, we do not fantasize. There is real work happening on this. >> >> I see two ways of doing it - both being actively pursued by many worthwhile actors. >> >> (1) Making many kinds of data sharing mandatory for Big Tech. So that data they collect from the society is mandated to be contributed in a social commons that all or many can use. I know you would consider this fantastical. But India's committee on data governance framework has laid out elaborate legal basis as well as practical implementation means for achieving it. (Disclosure: I am a committee member). This is the second draft report , but the final one, quite a bit better, will be out soon. But I know how youd treat a policy document from a poor, developing country like India. So I may inform you that within a few months EU will be coming out with its Data Act that will contain some mandatory data sharing provisions. Apart from it, the EU is working on many projects to ensure sector wide data availability and sharing, like its GAIA-X project. >> >> One of the man objectives of wide data sharing through the above means is to decentralise digital business concentration with a few Big Tech. It also works the other way which brings me to my second point. >> >> (2) Breaking up big tech by various legal means -- employing platform- dependent actors separation (Lisa Khan and in India's ecom law) or in other ways ( see for instance our paper on 'Separating data, cloud and intelligence layers ' ) .... Even the US is mulling new laws to curb Big Tech's power and ensure more competition, as are many other jurisdictions. Enforcing platform interoperability is a good way to break platform power concentration (we are working on a proposal to do so for social media platforms to start with, while India's commerce ministry has a group to develop a platform for e-com interoperability) ... Once you have a multiplicity of actors and platforms in any sector, instead of a monopoly or two, it mitigated the problem of data availability, as well as of concentrated control over AI research.. >> >> parminder >> >> >> On 21/11/21 12:08 am, Mueller, Milton L wrote: >> I look at this article and see no measurements or even qualitative estimates of the sources of AI funding, the share controlled by "big tech" as opposed to universities, government civilian research institutes, or by governmental military projects. >> >> All I see are assertions that everything is under the control of "big tech" - although there are useful notes about how governments - not big tech - are now pouring money into "AI" research based on a narrative about geopolitical military competition. And our project (IGP) has already sounded the alarm about Schmidt's and the U.S. military's attempt to make AI research into a "race" with the Chinese. More specifically, they are aiming at "AI supremacy," a rather scary term in our opinion, but in that case the source of the problem is nation-state competition not a demonized big tech. >> >> The author, Meredith Whitaker, ironically, is a former Google employee and sang a quite different tune when she participated in multistakeholder IG organizations in that capacity. >> >> This article may be worth paying attention to, but it's not research, it wasn't written by a scholar, it's basically an opinion piece upholding the advocacy views of the organization Meredith now works for, whose position is that big tech is bad and should be controlled more by people like, uh, Meredith and Tristan Harris and Francis Haugen. >> >> I'd also remind you not to be manipulated by framing. AI is basically software interacting with large data sets. The idea that commercial platforms who generate and collect lots of data and provide software applications and tools to billions of users are at the forefront of AI research should surprise or shock no one. It's like saying that EV companies are at the forefront of battery research. Would we feel better if all the data was being collected and research done by nation-states? Or do we fantasize about the large amounts of capital and data somehow being magically in the hands of "the people"? In what institutional capacity? >> >> Is the message that we are supposed to be against AI research per se? Or to eliminate big tech companies altogether? Or to be against "capitalism" because, well, the Chinese Communist Party does so much nicer things with big data and does such a better job controlling its tech companies? Is the goal to "regulate" big tech? If so, how, exactly, and how does that prevent tech/data firms from being at the forefront of AI research anyway? What exactly is the problem being identified here and what is proposed as the solution? >> >> Thoughts to consider as we prepare to meet in IGF 😉 >> >> Dr Milton L Mueller, Professor >> School of Public Policy >> Georgia Institute of Technology >> Internet Governance Project >> >> From: Governance on behalf of Suresh Ramasubramanian via Governance >> Sent: Friday, November 19, 2021 5:21 AM >> To: parminder ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Subject: Re: [Governance] How strongly captured by Big Tech is the field of AI research >> >> In other words, civil society needs to work on its own AI, and on AI ethics, as a multi stakeholder effort. Are you aware of any such efforts? Or do you plan to launch such an effort? >> >> From: Governance on behalf of parminder via Governance >> Date: Friday, 19 November 2021 at 3:20 PM >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Subject: [Governance] How strongly captured by Big Tech is the field of AI research >> >> An excellent and eye opening article in ACM's journal on how strongly captured by Big Tech most AI research is today. There also seem not many alternatives on the horizon. >> https://interactions.acm.org/archive/view/november-december-2021/the-steep-cost-of-capture >> If AI is the future, and everything AI is shaped by the Big Tech, then public interest actors of the world have something that must be addressed urgently.. >> But many apparently are busy handing even tech governance spaces over to Big Tech, so nothing ever comes in the latter's way. >> 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 joly at punkcast.com Mon Nov 22 15:05:04 2021 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2021 15:05:04 -0500 Subject: [Governance] WEBCAST TODAY: ISOC Canada - Defending Against Cyber Threats Message-ID: Double dose from ISOC Canada today. High quality hybrid event from the British High Commission in Ottawa. [image: livestream] On *Monday November 22 2021* at from *14:00-16:30 EST* (19:00-21:30 UTC) the *Internet Society Canada Chapter *, in association with *British High Commission Ottawa * and the *U.S. Embassy Canada *, hosts an online forum '*Defending Against Cyber Threats *'. With the digital transformation in full swing, cyber threats against businesses and critical infrastructure continue to increase—sparking a critical and ongoing discussion on the ever-evolving threat landscape and potential solutions. Cyber espionage is one of the most pervasive menaces afflicting the innovation economy. Universities are battling a series of IP theft vectors. These rising threats, and beyond, must be addressed to ensure the security and prosperity of both the economy and ourselves. *PANEL 1 Protecting Businesses and Critical Infrastructure from Cyber Attacks* *PANEL 2 IP Theft & Cyber Espionage* *HOSTS* *Franca Palazzo*, ISOC Canada *David Reed MBE*, British High Commission Ottawa *SPEAKERS* *Robert W. Gordon*, Canadian Cyber Threat Exchange (CCTX) *Kush M. Sharma*, former CISO, City of Toronto *Dr. Richard J. Harknett*, University of Cincinnati *Shawn M*., Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) *Amalia Barthel*, University of Toronto *Dr. Ramesh Rajaduray*, IIPCC *Scott Smith*, Kloke.ai / Managedprivacy.ca *Sara Wilshaw*, Chief Trade Commissioner, Canada *Bonnie Butlin*, Security Partners' Forum *MODERATOR* *Mary Jane Dykeman*, INQ Law *LIVESTREAM* *http://livestream.com/internetsociety/iscc-cyber * *PARTICIPATE VIA ZOOM: https://bit.ly/3czwJbj * *REAL TIME TEXT https://bit.ly/3CF32Qz * *TWITTER: #CyberThreats @ISCC_Canada @usembassyottawa @UKinCanada @mjdykeman @INQdatalaw* *SIMULCASTS* *https://www.twitter.com/ISOC_Live/ * *https://www.twitch.tv/isoclive * *https://www.facebook.com/liveisoc/ * (AI Captions) *https://youtu.be/GSrcULNe4uw * *ARCHIVE* *https://archive.org/details/iscc-cyber * *Permalink* https://isoc.live/14794/ -- -------------------------------------- Joly MacFie +12185659365 -------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sheetal at gp-digital.org Wed Nov 24 02:48:18 2021 From: sheetal at gp-digital.org (Sheetal Kumar) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2021 11:48:18 +0400 Subject: [Governance] IGF Day 0 pre-event: information Message-ID: Dear all, Bruna and I will follow up with more information on the agenda for the CS pre-event at this year's IGF but in the meantime,if you are interested in attending, please block the time and date below. IGF 2021 Day 0 Event #68 Civil Society Pre-event: Internet Governance in times of Crisis Ballroom A | 14:45 GMT (6 Dec) -16:15 GMT (6 Dec) Best -- *Sheetal Kumar* Head of Global Engagement and Advocacy | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| Time zone: GMT | M: +44 (0)7739569514 | PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Nov 24 09:32:32 2021 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2021 20:02:32 +0530 Subject: [Governance] Seeking roll back of IGF Leadership Panel Message-ID: <01253f6f-a799-528b-b822-cac8389e7065@itforchange.net> Dear All, Please find enclosed a letter addressed to the UN Secretary General appealing to him to roll back the decision for an IGF Leadership Panel. The letter is co-signed by Dr Milton Mueller, on behalf  of the Internet Governance Project, Georgia Institute of Technology School of Public Policy, and Parmider Jeet Singh, for IT for Change, and the Just Net Coalition. The letter is cc-ed to representatives of civil society and technical community groups requesting them to refrain from sending nominations for the IGF Leadership Panel, and thus legitimizing it. The letter argues how the IGF Leadership Panel militates against the basic idea, objectives and structure of the IGF, and will weaken it. Best, parminder -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Seeking roll back of IGF Leadership Panel.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 77600 bytes Desc: not available URL: From joly at punkcast.com Wed Nov 24 17:17:20 2021 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2021 17:17:20 -0500 Subject: [Governance] WEBCAST: Open Internet: Perspectivas in Debate | Internet Aberta: Perspectivas em Debate | Internet Abierta: Perspectivas en Debate Message-ID: This has just started. EN Real Time Text is at https://bit.ly/3CKHSjX [image: livestream] On *Wednesday 24 November 2021* at *19:00-20:00 BST* (22:00-23:00 UTC) The *Center for Teaching and Research in Innovation * (CEPI) of FGV Direito SP and the *Internet Society Brazil Chapter * (ISOC Brasil), with support from *Twitter Brasil *, host a webinar '*Open Internet: Perspectivas in Debate *'. The session marks the end of the free course '*Internet Structure and Functioning: Technical, Political and Regulatory Aspects*'. Na *quarta-feira, 24 de novembro de 2021*, às *19h às 20h BST* (22h às 23h UTC) O *Centro de Ensino e Pesquisa em Inovação * (CEPI) da FGV Direito SP e a *Internet Society Brazil Chapter * (ISOC Brasil), com apoio do Twitter Brasil, realizar o webinar “*Internet Aberta: Perspectivas em Debate *”. A sessão marca o fim do curso gratuito “*Estrutura e Funcionamento da Internet: Aspectos Técnicos, Políticos e Regulatórios*”. El *miércoles 24 de noviembre de 2021* a las *19: 00-20: 00 BST* (22: 00-23: 00 UTC) El *Centro de Docencia e Investigación en Innovación * (CEPI) de FGV Direito SP y el *Capítulo de Internet Society Brasil * (ISOC Brasil), con el apoyo de *Twitter Brasil *, realizar un webinar “*Internet Abierta: Perspectivas en Debate *”. La sesión marca el final del curso gratuito “*Estructura y funcionamiento de Internet: aspectos técnicos, políticos y regulatorios*”. *SPEAKERS / DEBATEDORES / PONENTES* *Alessandro Molon*, Deputado Federal (PSB-RJ) *Orlando Silva*, Deputado Federal (PC do B-SP) *MODERATOR / MEDIAÇÃO / MEDIACIÓN* *Natália Neris*, Senior Public Policy Associate, Twitter *LIVESTREAM EN http://livestream.com/internetsociety/internetaberta * *LIVESTREAM PT http://livestream.com/internetsociety2/internetaberta * *LIVESTREAM ES http://livestream.com/internetsociety3/internetaberta * *REAL TIME TEXT* (see *ISOC.LIVE *) (EN) *TWITTER #InternetAberta @ISOCBrasil @fgvcepi @alessandromolon @orlandosilva @NerisNati @TwitterBrasil* *SIMULCASTS* *https://youtube.com/c/CEPIFGVDireitoSP * (PT) *https://www.twitter.com/ISOC_Live/ * (EN/PT/ES) *https://www.twitch.tv/isoclive * (EN) *https://www.facebook.com/liveisoc/ * (EN/PT/ES) (AI Captions) *https://www.facebook.com/InternetSocietyAmericaLatinayCaribe *(EN/PT/ES) (AI Captions) *ARCHIVE* *https://archive.org/details/internetaberta * *Permalink* https://isoc.live/14806/ -- -------------------------------------- Joly MacFie +12185659365 -------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Nov 26 00:38:31 2021 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2021 11:08:31 +0530 Subject: [Governance] Fwd: [Internet Policy] Fwd: [WG-Strategy] [At-Large] Seeking roll back of the IGF Leadership Panel In-Reply-To: <95d433a7-f9c0-490b-cf21-f9098100f6c1@gmail.com> References: <95d433a7-f9c0-490b-cf21-f9098100f6c1@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5a33c08a-067c-2af3-0ee5-2b198f937440@itforchange.net> -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: [Internet Policy] Fwd: [WG-Strategy] [At-Large] Seeking roll back of the IGF Leadership Panel Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2021 09:46:58 +0530 From: parminder To: internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org I have views on both Wolfgang's and Evan's responses to our letter, and their position vis a vis the new IGF Leadership Panel. What however completely passes me is how anyone can agree with both Evan's and Wolfgang's positions, as some have some... Unless, no offense, but one is just desperate to somehow agree with whatever is happening, and looks difficult to change. Evan's and Wolfgang's positions come from fundamentally opposed premises, and have fundamentally different expectations from the Leadership Panel. In fact there positions like in two opposite extremes from mine, or in other words mine is actually somewhere in the middle. I therefore find it difficult to in the same email argue against the two positions. Meanwhile, I'd request those supporting both positions to help me understand how both can be right. Thanks. Evan considers the IGF to a bubble removed from world's reality, something which has entirely failed. It is so dead or nearly so, that Even is happy if it can be given a last squeeze, everything being otherwise so dismal, that something good may come out.. He himself says he is not sure, and I am paraphrasing, if his medicine is worse than the cure. He just thinks that the IGF is all talk, ineffective, etc, and anything outcome- oriented is better than that. He seems to have applied no mind to what that outcome- oriented would be, how it would work, and what kind of outcomes can be expected (obviously, not all outcomes are describable.) I consider it kind of desperate kind of view, which, my apologies, but does not deserve any serious consideration among people who concern themselves with long term nature and implications of governance institutions. It is quite like, and as desperate as, crying out, all this bloody liberal democracy just doesn't work, bring in a good dictator inside, we would at least see some action! This is despite that I normally have quite respected Evan's views, agree with him that the IGF has become an insiders bubble, and had a disease needing cure, etc. He is completely wrong that in indicated that we as letter writers have any intention to perpetuate the status quo, live off it, etc, which I think he need to know more about how much we fight the status quo every day, including the IGFs. He is also wrong that no alternatives are offered; we so regularly offer them, and we were also one of the most active members of the CSTD WG on IGF improvements. To sum; I take Evan's critique to be of an outsider, who has rightly seem a lot of problems with the IGF, but not been invested enough, nor thought through the new Leadership Panel's nature and likely implications, whereby his statement of the problem is fine, but accepting the Leadership Panel as a solution to try out way off .. Since he himself says he isnt sure if the cure is better than the disease, I think he confirms my summing of his position. I read it as genuine expression of desperation with the current IGF, which I considerably share, and nothing more -- Nothing that can really be taken serious about the actual discussion here, about the new Leadership Panel .. parminder On 25/11/21 5:37 pm, Winthrop Yu via InternetPolicy wrote: > > Not that i disagree with what Wolfgang is saying here, but i am more > fully in accord with the comments on this by Evan and Roberto on the > At-Large list. (We have a forked discussion.) > > WYn > > On 25 Nov 2021 7:18 pm, Carlos Afonso via InternetPolicy wrote: >> Careful and relevant considerations by Wolfgang. >> >> A lot is still on the discussion table regarding how this HL will >> work and relate to the overall IGF community. One option is to >> discard it, another is to keep it and make sure we participate in the >> process from the beginning. >> >> []s fraternos >> >> --c.a. >> >> On 24/11/2021 16:47, Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I disagree with the letter, signed by Parminder and Milton. I do not >>> share their arguments. I believe, that Parminders and Miltons >>> proposal, to "urge civil society and technical community, to refrain >>> from sending any nominations for the IGF Leadership Panel" is very >>> counterproductive, undermines the future role of the IGF and weakens >>> civil society engagement in Internet related public policy making at >>> the global level. >>> >>> The IGF is indeed a unique experiment in the UN system. Its key >>> purpose is to broaden the participatory base of digital policy >>> making. Since 2006 it has enabled a broad variety of voices to be >>> heard, including those voices otherwise marginalized.It was (and is) >>> a kitchen to cook new ideas. Discussion without barriers. Bottom Up. >>> This was the intention. It has worked, but it did have also its limits. >>> >>> As a member of the UN Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG), >>> which proposed the establishment of the IGF in 2005, I think we were >>> very right to create the IGF as a "discussion plattform" (forum >>> function) without any decision making capacity. The fear was, that >>> if the IGF becomes a negotiation body, this will kill free and frank >>> discussions. And indeed, the informal nature of the IGF did open >>> "mouths and minds" of all stakeholders. >>> >>> I was also a member of the UNCSTD IGF Improvement Working Group >>> (2012). In this group we agreed that the IGF should continue as a >>> discussion platform, but needs more tangible outputs. >>> >>> The outcome of the IGF are its (sometimes controversial) "messages". >>> There are no "IGF positions": some stakeholders say so, others say >>> so. It is a bottom up process. And this is good for a discussion >>> platform., >>> >>> However, the digital world has moved forward in the last 17 years. >>> Internet Governance isn´t anymore a "technical issue with political >>> implications", it is a "political issue with a technical component". >>> For many Internet related public policy issues new bodies have been >>> created outside the WSIS process and dislinked from the IGF. In the >>> 2020s, there are more than a dozen global negotiation bodies where >>> issues like cybersecurity, digital economy, sustainable development >>> or human rights in the digital age are disucssed. Those issues are >>> on the agenda of the IGF since its beginning. But the reality is, >>> that the policy makers in the new negotiation bodies, which are >>> primarily intergovernmental bodies, are in many cases not informed >>> about the IGF discussions. They even have very often no clue what >>> was discussed at the IGF. There is neither a formal nor an informal >>> linkage between the "discussion layer" (the multistakeholder IGF) >>> and the the "decision making layer" (new intergovernmental >>> negotiation bodies). >>> >>> There is a need to bring the expertise, knowledge and ideas from the >>> multistakeholder IGF to the intergovernmental negotiation table. And >>> the IGF will benefit, if the diplomats report back - formally or >>> informally - to the IGF sessions. The idea of the Multistakeholder >>> Leadership Panel (MLP) is driven by this idea to build bridges. >>> >>> The proposal for the Multistakeholder IGF Leadership Panel is the >>> result of a years long multistakeholder discussion process, where >>> all pros and cons of such a new unit were critically evaluated and >>> considered by many different groups, including many civil society >>> organisations. It was inspired by the UNCSTD work. It started with >>> the UNSG High Level Panel on Digital Cooperation (2018). It was >>> developed by the Option Paper 5A&B (2019) and further specified in >>> the UNSG Roadmap (2020). >>> >>> Risks, which were articulated in various statements of civil society >>> organisations, that a new unit will emerge outside the IGF and could >>> lead to a competitive situation, duplication or overlapping of >>> functions, with the potential to weaken the IGF, has been heard by >>> the UNSG. My understanding of the multistakeholder leadership panel >>> - with its very limited mandate - is, that it is part of the general >>> IGF structure and rooted in the (broader) MAG. It is like an >>> executive committee for the MAG and will make the work of the whole >>> MAG more efficent and effective.  It makes the IGF stronger, more >>> visible on the international scene and will open the door for a more >>> enhanced bottom up cooperation among all stakeholders in global >>> Internet policy making.  It is an IGF+. Members of the new Panel >>> will act as ambassadors between the discussion and decision-making >>> layers. They are not the "new Internet policy makers", they function >>> like a "post office", bringing the messages from the >>> multistakeholder IGF to the intergovernmental negotiation table and >>> vice versa. >>> >>> This is a unique opportunity for civil society. And civil society >>> organisations, in particular from the Global South, should make use >>> of it. Strong civil society representation in the multistakeholder >>> leadership panel will contribute to build a human centric >>> information society, based on the Civil Society WSIS Declaration >>> (2003), the Tunis Agenda (2005) and the Multistakeholder NetMundial >>> Statement (2014). And it will pave the way for a strong civil >>> society voice in the process towards a "Global Digital Compact" (2023). >>> >>> Best wishes >>> >>> Wolfgang >>> >>> Below are links to our "multistakeholder statement" for the Option >>> Paper 5A&B (2020) and the outcome from a multistakeholder expert >>> seminar (2021) where a lot of civil society organisations where >>> represented. >>> >>> https://circleid.com/posts/20210304-framing-the-internet-governance-debate-long-road-to-wsis-2025 >>> >>> >>> >>> https://circleid.com/posts/20200426-cross-pollination-in-cyberspace-internet-governance-spaghetti-ball >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> parminder via At-Large hat am >>>> 24.11.2021 16:12 geschrieben: >>>> >>>> >>>> Dear All, >>>> >>>> Please find enclosed a letter addressed to the UN Secretary General >>>> appealing to him to roll back the decision for an IGF Leadership >>>> Panel. >>>> >>>> The letter is co-signed by Dr Milton Mueller, on behalf  of the >>>> Internet Governance Project, Georgia Institute of Technology School >>>> of Public Policy, and Parmider Jeet Singh, for IT for Change, and >>>> the Just Net Coalition. >>>> >>>> It is cc-ed to representatives of civil society and technical >>>> community groups requesting them to refrain from sending >>>> nominations for the IGF Leadership Panel, and thus legitimizing it. >>>> >>>> The letter argues how the IGF Leadership Panel militates against >>>> the basic idea, objectives and structure of the IGF, and will >>>> weaken it. >>>> >>>> Best, parminder >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing >>>> list At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org >>>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large At-Large >>>> Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org >>>> _______________________________________________ By submitting your >>>> personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data >>>> for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with >>>> the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and >>>> the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). >>>> You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership >>>> status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting >>>> digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a >>>> vacation), and so on. >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> WG-Strategy mailing list >>> WG-Strategy at intgovforum.org >>> To unsubscribe or manage your options please go to >>> http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-strategy_intgovforum.org >>> >> > > _______________________________________________ > To manage your Internet Society subscriptions > or unsubscribe, log into the Member Portal at > https://admin.internetsociety.org/622619/User/Login > and go to the Preferences tab within your profile. > - > View the Internet Society Code of Conduct: https://www.internetsociety.org/become-a-member/code-of-conduct/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Nov 26 00:40:21 2021 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2021 11:10:21 +0530 Subject: [Governance] Fwd: [Internet Policy] Fwd: [WG-Strategy] [At-Large] Seeking roll back of the IGF Leadership Panel In-Reply-To: <4bb9c951-bebf-e51a-165c-c2d6f2db39e9@gmail.com> References: <4bb9c951-bebf-e51a-165c-c2d6f2db39e9@gmail.com> Message-ID: <26fb4b56-565d-15c3-f854-dbe4fea71b7f@itforchange.net> -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: [Internet Policy] Fwd: [WG-Strategy] [At-Large] Seeking roll back of the IGF Leadership Panel Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2021 10:57:21 +0530 From: parminder To: internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org Contrary to Evan's view, Wolfgang considers the IGF to be extremely successful, and it is in this path of its spectacular evolutionary success that the Leadership Panel (LP) is placed as a kind of necessary and very useful development ..  Not just the past, but the two also fundamentally disagree on there future expectations from the LP... Evan thinks that the LP will somehow magically address and solve pressing digital policy issues, about solving which he (like me) is very eager. Wolfgang is clear that the LP is "not the "new Internet policy makers", they function like a "post office", bringing the messages from the multistakeholder IGF to the intergovernmental negotiation table and vice versa". Since whatever little support the LP has focuses on this "messages" and "post office" and "bridge' function, and it is also the crux of Wolfgang's argument, let me focus on it. It should be noted that UN SG wants a star cast for the LP, and calls for only CEO and deputy CEO levels to apply... These are big-ego people very fond of expressing and touting their views... These are just not the people who act as message carriers and post office - an archetypical description of bureaucracy's function, enough of which exists and links between the IGF and decision making bodies. (If you want you can work on improving that part which is what meets the role and objective description you provide for the LP. Not a group of CEOs.). Therefore there is a fundamental, and in my view, fatal, dis-junction between the HR description and institutional objectives sought. May you please explain this.  I would invite you to expound your views with clear practical examples. To help that, lets take that a LP has been set up with an hypothetical membership of the ministers of France and Indonesia, a Senior VP of Microsoft and CEO of TCS (Indian software major), and CEOs of ISOC and APNIC, and ok let me not speculate on civil society leaders chosen (but believe me, their egos can be bigger than those of industry CEOs). Lets say one of these IGF Leaders is at an important global meeting, and is introduced as such , as being a part of IGF's Leadership Group/ Panel. Wolfgang, please try to give us some concrete examples of what s/he might do, in nature of a "post office" and carrier of messages from the IGF, and back... Would s/he hand over and describe, say the outcome document of an IGF's Best Practices Forum... Lets take the example of the BPF on data and new technologies ... I dont see a minister or an industry CEO (or ISOC CEO) setting aside her/ his views on such a globally hot topic like data, and share some lame as well as politically controversial views from this BFP's outcome paper . But I am happy to hear from you your description of what would likely happen in such a scenario, which is the embodiment of your main argument in favour of LP. And if the LP person is just to hand over the outcome paper to the meeting or read its summary (which s/he cannot do other than in a selective manner, given her/ his inevitable own strong views on data etc), why is this function not much better done by the bureaucracy, which does it best (and knows where to stop). So if you may, just add 2-3 more people to the IGF sect or the UNDESA's IGF desk ... But sure, Wolfgang, pl you illuminate us how such a thing will actually fold out -- using a hypothetical as above, or another of your own ... Speaking in abstract in terms of messages and post offices and bridges means nothing .. We are at a serious fork in the evolution of institutions of digital governance. So, please lets get real. Currently, the MAG Chair at a global meeting limits herself to describing the process functions and the greatness of the IGF .. Show us a picture of IGF leaders getting 'substantive' in their outside communication, and I'd show what is fatally wrong with the LP idea. Let us know how a groups of Leaders will actually perform the function you lay out, and why that function is not better performed by strengthening the bucreaucracy link between IGF and others, it being to my mind an archetypical bureacracy function. parminder On 26/11/21 9:46 am, parminder wrote: > I have views on both Wolfgang's and Evan's responses to our letter, > and their position vis a vis the new IGF Leadership Panel. > > What however completely passes me is how anyone can agree with both > Evan's and Wolfgang's positions, as some have some... Unless, no > offense, but one is just desperate to somehow agree with whatever is > happening, and looks difficult to change. > > Evan's and Wolfgang's positions come from fundamentally opposed > premises, and have fundamentally different expectations from the > Leadership Panel. In fact there positions like in two opposite > extremes from mine, or in other words mine is actually somewhere in > the middle. I therefore find it difficult to in the same email argue > against the two positions. > > Meanwhile, I'd request those supporting both positions to help me > understand how both can be right. Thanks. > > Evan considers the IGF to a bubble removed from world's reality, > something which has entirely failed. It is so dead or nearly so, that > Even is happy if it can be given a last squeeze, everything being > otherwise so dismal, that something good may come out.. He himself > says he is not sure, and I am paraphrasing, if his medicine is worse > than the cure. He just thinks that the IGF is all talk, ineffective, > etc, and anything outcome- oriented is better than that. He seems to > have applied no mind to what that outcome- oriented would be, how it > would work, and what kind of outcomes can be expected (obviously, not > all outcomes are describable.) I consider it kind of desperate kind of > view, which, my apologies, but does not deserve any serious > consideration among people who concern themselves with long term > nature and implications of governance institutions. It is quite like, > and as desperate as, crying out, all this bloody liberal democracy > just doesn't work, bring in a good dictator inside, we would at least > see some action! > > This is despite that I normally have quite respected Evan's views, > agree with him that the IGF has become an insiders bubble, and had a > disease needing cure, etc. He is completely wrong that in indicated > that we as letter writers have any intention to perpetuate the status > quo, live off it, etc, which I think he need to know more about how > much we fight the status quo every day, including the IGFs. He is also > wrong that no alternatives are offered; we so regularly offer them, > and we were also one of the most active members of the CSTD WG on IGF > improvements. > > To sum; I take Evan's critique to be of an outsider, who has rightly > seem a lot of problems with the IGF, but not been invested enough, nor > thought through the new Leadership Panel's nature and likely > implications, whereby his statement of the problem is fine, but > accepting the Leadership Panel as a solution to try out way off .. > Since he himself says he isnt sure if the uure is better than the > disease, I think he confirms my summing of his position. I read it as > genuine expression of desperation with the current IGF, which I > considerably share, and nothing more -- nothing that can really be > taken serious about the actual discussion here, about the new > Leadership Panel .. > > parminder > > On 25/11/21 5:37 pm, Winthrop Yu via InternetPolicy wrote: >> >> Not that i disagree with what Wolfgang is saying here, but i am more >> fully in accord with the comments on this by Evan and Roberto on the >> At-Large list. (We have a forked discussion.) >> >> WYn >> >> On 25 Nov 2021 7:18 pm, Carlos Afonso via InternetPolicy wrote: >>> Careful and relevant considerations by Wolfgang. >>> >>> A lot is still on the discussion table regarding how this HL will >>> work and relate to the overall IGF community. One option is to >>> discard it, another is to keep it and make sure we participate in >>> the process from the beginning. >>> >>> []s fraternos >>> >>> --c.a. >>> >>> On 24/11/2021 16:47, Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I disagree with the letter, signed by Parminder and Milton. I do >>>> not share their arguments. I believe, that Parminders and Miltons >>>> proposal, to "urge civil society and technical community, to >>>> refrain from sending any nominations for the IGF Leadership Panel" >>>> is very counterproductive, undermines the future role of the IGF >>>> and weakens civil society engagement in Internet related public >>>> policy making at the global level. >>>> >>>> The IGF is indeed a unique experiment in the UN system. Its key >>>> purpose is to broaden the participatory base of digital policy >>>> making. Since 2006 it has enabled a broad variety of voices to be >>>> heard, including those voices otherwise marginalized.It was (and >>>> is) a kitchen to cook new ideas. Discussion without barriers. >>>> Bottom Up. This was the intention. It has worked, but it did have >>>> also its limits. >>>> >>>> As a member of the UN Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG), >>>> which proposed the establishment of the IGF in 2005, I think we >>>> were very right to create the IGF as a "discussion plattform" >>>> (forum function) without any decision making capacity. The fear >>>> was, that if the IGF becomes a negotiation body, this will kill >>>> free and frank discussions. And indeed, the informal nature of the >>>> IGF did open "mouths and minds" of all stakeholders. >>>> >>>> I was also a member of the UNCSTD IGF Improvement Working Group >>>> (2012). In this group we agreed that the IGF should continue as a >>>> discussion platform, but needs more tangible outputs. >>>> >>>> The outcome of the IGF are its (sometimes controversial) >>>> "messages". There are no "IGF positions": some stakeholders say so, >>>> others say so. It is a bottom up process. And this is good for a >>>> discussion platform., >>>> >>>> However, the digital world has moved forward in the last 17 years. >>>> Internet Governance isn´t anymore a "technical issue with political >>>> implications", it is a "political issue with a technical >>>> component". For many Internet related public policy issues new >>>> bodies have been created outside the WSIS process and dislinked >>>> from the IGF. In the 2020s, there are more than a dozen global >>>> negotiation bodies where issues like cybersecurity, digital >>>> economy, sustainable development or human rights in the digital age >>>> are disucssed. Those issues are on the agenda of the IGF since its >>>> beginning. But the reality is, that the policy makers in the new >>>> negotiation bodies, which are primarily intergovernmental bodies, >>>> are in many cases not informed about the IGF discussions. They even >>>> have very often no clue what was discussed at the IGF. There is >>>> neither a formal nor an informal linkage between the "discussion >>>> layer" (the multistakeholder IGF) and the the "decision making >>>> layer" (new intergovernmental negotiation bodies). >>>> >>>> There is a need to bring the expertise, knowledge and ideas from >>>> the multistakeholder IGF to the intergovernmental negotiation >>>> table. And the IGF will benefit, if the diplomats report back - >>>> formally or informally - to the IGF sessions. The idea of the >>>> Multistakeholder Leadership Panel (MLP) is driven by this idea to >>>> build bridges. >>>> >>>> The proposal for the Multistakeholder IGF Leadership Panel is the >>>> result of a years long multistakeholder discussion process, where >>>> all pros and cons of such a new unit were critically evaluated and >>>> considered by many different groups, including many civil society >>>> organisations. It was inspired by the UNCSTD work. It started with >>>> the UNSG High Level Panel on Digital Cooperation (2018). It was >>>> developed by the Option Paper 5A&B (2019) and further specified in >>>> the UNSG Roadmap (2020). >>>> >>>> Risks, which were articulated in various statements of civil >>>> society organisations, that a new unit will emerge outside the IGF >>>> and could lead to a competitive situation, duplication or >>>> overlapping of functions, with the potential to weaken the IGF, has >>>> been heard by the UNSG. My understanding of the multistakeholder >>>> leadership panel - with its very limited mandate - is, that it is >>>> part of the general IGF structure and rooted in the (broader) MAG. >>>> It is like an executive committee for the MAG and will make the >>>> work of the whole MAG more efficent and effective.  It makes the >>>> IGF stronger, more visible on the international scene and will open >>>> the door for a more enhanced bottom up cooperation among all >>>> stakeholders in global Internet policy making.  It is an IGF+. >>>> Members of the new Panel will act as ambassadors between the >>>> discussion and decision-making layers. They are not the "new >>>> Internet policy makers", they function like a "post office", >>>> bringing the messages from the multistakeholder IGF to the >>>> intergovernmental negotiation table and vice versa. >>>> >>>> This is a unique opportunity for civil society. And civil society >>>> organisations, in particular from the Global South, should make use >>>> of it. Strong civil society representation in the multistakeholder >>>> leadership panel will contribute to build a human centric >>>> information society, based on the Civil Society WSIS Declaration >>>> (2003), the Tunis Agenda (2005) and the Multistakeholder NetMundial >>>> Statement (2014). And it will pave the way for a strong civil >>>> society voice in the process towards a "Global Digital Compact" >>>> (2023). >>>> >>>> Best wishes >>>> >>>> Wolfgang >>>> >>>> Below are links to our "multistakeholder statement" for the Option >>>> Paper 5A&B (2020) and the outcome from a multistakeholder expert >>>> seminar (2021) where a lot of civil society organisations where >>>> represented. >>>> >>>> https://circleid.com/posts/20210304-framing-the-internet-governance-debate-long-road-to-wsis-2025 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> https://circleid.com/posts/20200426-cross-pollination-in-cyberspace-internet-governance-spaghetti-ball >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> parminder via At-Large hat am >>>>> 24.11.2021 16:12 geschrieben: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Dear All, >>>>> >>>>> Please find enclosed a letter addressed to the UN Secretary >>>>> General appealing to him to roll back the decision for an IGF >>>>> Leadership Panel. >>>>> >>>>> The letter is co-signed by Dr Milton Mueller, on behalf  of the >>>>> Internet Governance Project, Georgia Institute of Technology >>>>> School of Public Policy, and Parmider Jeet Singh, for IT for >>>>> Change, and the Just Net Coalition. >>>>> >>>>> It is cc-ed to representatives of civil society and technical >>>>> community groups requesting them to refrain from sending >>>>> nominations for the IGF Leadership Panel, and thus legitimizing it. >>>>> >>>>> The letter argues how the IGF Leadership Panel militates against >>>>> the basic idea, objectives and structure of the IGF, and will >>>>> weaken it. >>>>> >>>>> Best, parminder >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing >>>>> list At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org >>>>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large At-Large >>>>> Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org >>>>> _______________________________________________ By submitting your >>>>> personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data >>>>> for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with >>>>> the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) >>>>> and the website Terms of Service >>>>> (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman >>>>> link above to change your membership status or configuration, >>>>> including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or >>>>> disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> WG-Strategy mailing list >>>> WG-Strategy at intgovforum.org >>>> To unsubscribe or manage your options please go to >>>> http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-strategy_intgovforum.org >>>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> To manage your Internet Society subscriptions >> or unsubscribe, log into the Member Portal at >> https://admin.internetsociety.org/622619/User/Login >> and go to the Preferences tab within your profile. >> - >> View the Internet Society Code of Conduct: https://www.internetsociety.org/become-a-member/code-of-conduct/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From suresh at hserus.net Fri Nov 26 01:03:54 2021 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2021 06:03:54 +0000 Subject: [Governance] Fwd: [Internet Policy] Fwd: [WG-Strategy] [At-Large] Seeking roll back of the IGF Leadership Panel In-Reply-To: <26fb4b56-565d-15c3-f854-dbe4fea71b7f@itforchange.net> References: <4bb9c951-bebf-e51a-165c-c2d6f2db39e9@gmail.com> <26fb4b56-565d-15c3-f854-dbe4fea71b7f@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Two considerations here that Wolfgang raised are valid 1. The decision and policy making has moved into several industry / inter government / multi stakeholder groups, some formed for the purpose while others predate IGF. Key stakeholders from various organisations go there rather than come to the IGF. So a bridge between igf and these organisations is needed. 2. The post office analogy is somewhat simplified. Recruiting senior and experienced people who have the contacts, the background and the experience of communicating to government, industry and civil society leaders is necessary. The ability to do this is however not automatically conferred by rank alone so the insistence on appointing only C suite officers or their equivalents is puzzling. --srs ________________________________ From: Governance on behalf of parminder via Governance Sent: Friday, November 26, 2021 11:10:21 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; At-Large Worldwide Subject: [Governance] Fwd: [Internet Policy] Fwd: [WG-Strategy] [At-Large] Seeking roll back of the IGF Leadership Panel -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: [Internet Policy] Fwd: [WG-Strategy] [At-Large] Seeking roll back of the IGF Leadership Panel Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2021 10:57:21 +0530 From: parminder To: internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org Contrary to Evan's view, Wolfgang considers the IGF to be extremely successful, and it is in this path of its spectacular evolutionary success that the Leadership Panel (LP) is placed as a kind of necessary and very useful development .. Not just the past, but the two also fundamentally disagree on there future expectations from the LP... Evan thinks that the LP will somehow magically address and solve pressing digital policy issues, about solving which he (like me) is very eager. Wolfgang is clear that the LP is "not the "new Internet policy makers", they function like a "post office", bringing the messages from the multistakeholder IGF to the intergovernmental negotiation table and vice versa". Since whatever little support the LP has focuses on this "messages" and "post office" and "bridge' function, and it is also the crux of Wolfgang's argument, let me focus on it. It should be noted that UN SG wants a star cast for the LP, and calls for only CEO and deputy CEO levels to apply... These are big-ego people very fond of expressing and touting their views... These are just not the people who act as message carriers and post office - an archetypical description of bureaucracy's function, enough of which exists and links between the IGF and decision making bodies. (If you want you can work on improving that part which is what meets the role and objective description you provide for the LP. Not a group of CEOs.). Therefore there is a fundamental, and in my view, fatal, dis-junction between the HR description and institutional objectives sought. May you please explain this. I would invite you to expound your views with clear practical examples. To help that, lets take that a LP has been set up with an hypothetical membership of the ministers of France and Indonesia, a Senior VP of Microsoft and CEO of TCS (Indian software major), and CEOs of ISOC and APNIC, and ok let me not speculate on civil society leaders chosen (but believe me, their egos can be bigger than those of industry CEOs). Lets say one of these IGF Leaders is at an important global meeting, and is introduced as such , as being a part of IGF's Leadership Group/ Panel. Wolfgang, please try to give us some concrete examples of what s/he might do, in nature of a "post office" and carrier of messages from the IGF, and back... Would s/he hand over and describe, say the outcome document of an IGF's Best Practices Forum... Lets take the example of the BPF on data and new technologies ... I dont see a minister or an industry CEO (or ISOC CEO) setting aside her/ his views on such a globally hot topic like data, and share some lame as well as politically controversial views from this BFP's outcome paper. But I am happy to hear from you your description of what would likely happen in such a scenario, which is the embodiment of your main argument in favour of LP. And if the LP person is just to hand over the outcome paper to the meeting or read its summary (which s/he cannot do other than in a selective manner, given her/ his inevitable own strong views on data etc), why is this function not much better done by the bureaucracy, which does it best (and knows where to stop). So if you may, just add 2-3 more people to the IGF sect or the UNDESA's IGF desk ... But sure, Wolfgang, pl you illuminate us how such a thing will actually fold out -- using a hypothetical as above, or another of your own ... Speaking in abstract in terms of messages and post offices and bridges means nothing .. We are at a serious fork in the evolution of institutions of digital governance. So, please lets get real. Currently, the MAG Chair at a global meeting limits herself to describing the process functions and the greatness of the IGF .. Show us a picture of IGF leaders getting 'substantive' in their outside communication, and I'd show what is fatally wrong with the LP idea. Let us know how a groups of Leaders will actually perform the function you lay out, and why that function is not better performed by strengthening the bucreaucracy link between IGF and others, it being to my mind an archetypical bureacracy function. parminder On 26/11/21 9:46 am, parminder wrote: I have views on both Wolfgang's and Evan's responses to our letter, and their position vis a vis the new IGF Leadership Panel. What however completely passes me is how anyone can agree with both Evan's and Wolfgang's positions, as some have some... Unless, no offense, but one is just desperate to somehow agree with whatever is happening, and looks difficult to change. Evan's and Wolfgang's positions come from fundamentally opposed premises, and have fundamentally different expectations from the Leadership Panel. In fact there positions like in two opposite extremes from mine, or in other words mine is actually somewhere in the middle. I therefore find it difficult to in the same email argue against the two positions. Meanwhile, I'd request those supporting both positions to help me understand how both can be right. Thanks. Evan considers the IGF to a bubble removed from world's reality, something which has entirely failed. It is so dead or nearly so, that Even is happy if it can be given a last squeeze, everything being otherwise so dismal, that something good may come out.. He himself says he is not sure, and I am paraphrasing, if his medicine is worse than the cure. He just thinks that the IGF is all talk, ineffective, etc, and anything outcome- oriented is better than that. He seems to have applied no mind to what that outcome- oriented would be, how it would work, and what kind of outcomes can be expected (obviously, not all outcomes are describable.) I consider it kind of desperate kind of view, which, my apologies, but does not deserve any serious consideration among people who concern themselves with long term nature and implications of governance institutions. It is quite like, and as desperate as, crying out, all this bloody liberal democracy just doesn't work, bring in a good dictator inside, we would at least see some action! This is despite that I normally have quite respected Evan's views, agree with him that the IGF has become an insiders bubble, and had a disease needing cure, etc. He is completely wrong that in indicated that we as letter writers have any intention to perpetuate the status quo, live off it, etc, which I think he need to know more about how much we fight the status quo every day, including the IGFs. He is also wrong that no alternatives are offered; we so regularly offer them, and we were also one of the most active members of the CSTD WG on IGF improvements. To sum; I take Evan's critique to be of an outsider, who has rightly seem a lot of problems with the IGF, but not been invested enough, nor thought through the new Leadership Panel's nature and likely implications, whereby his statement of the problem is fine, but accepting the Leadership Panel as a solution to try out way off .. Since he himself says he isnt sure if the uure is better than the disease, I think he confirms my summing of his position. I read it as genuine expression of desperation with the current IGF, which I considerably share, and nothing more -- nothing that can really be taken serious about the actual discussion here, about the new Leadership Panel .. parminder On 25/11/21 5:37 pm, Winthrop Yu via InternetPolicy wrote: Not that i disagree with what Wolfgang is saying here, but i am more fully in accord with the comments on this by Evan and Roberto on the At-Large list. (We have a forked discussion.) WYn On 25 Nov 2021 7:18 pm, Carlos Afonso via InternetPolicy wrote: Careful and relevant considerations by Wolfgang. A lot is still on the discussion table regarding how this HL will work and relate to the overall IGF community. One option is to discard it, another is to keep it and make sure we participate in the process from the beginning. []s fraternos --c.a. On 24/11/2021 16:47, Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote: Hi, I disagree with the letter, signed by Parminder and Milton. I do not share their arguments. I believe, that Parminders and Miltons proposal, to "urge civil society and technical community, to refrain from sending any nominations for the IGF Leadership Panel" is very counterproductive, undermines the future role of the IGF and weakens civil society engagement in Internet related public policy making at the global level. The IGF is indeed a unique experiment in the UN system. Its key purpose is to broaden the participatory base of digital policy making. Since 2006 it has enabled a broad variety of voices to be heard, including those voices otherwise marginalized.It was (and is) a kitchen to cook new ideas. Discussion without barriers. Bottom Up. This was the intention. It has worked, but it did have also its limits. As a member of the UN Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG), which proposed the establishment of the IGF in 2005, I think we were very right to create the IGF as a "discussion plattform" (forum function) without any decision making capacity. The fear was, that if the IGF becomes a negotiation body, this will kill free and frank discussions. And indeed, the informal nature of the IGF did open "mouths and minds" of all stakeholders. I was also a member of the UNCSTD IGF Improvement Working Group (2012). In this group we agreed that the IGF should continue as a discussion platform, but needs more tangible outputs. The outcome of the IGF are its (sometimes controversial) "messages". There are no "IGF positions": some stakeholders say so, others say so. It is a bottom up process. And this is good for a discussion platform., However, the digital world has moved forward in the last 17 years. Internet Governance isn´t anymore a "technical issue with political implications", it is a "political issue with a technical component". For many Internet related public policy issues new bodies have been created outside the WSIS process and dislinked from the IGF. In the 2020s, there are more than a dozen global negotiation bodies where issues like cybersecurity, digital economy, sustainable development or human rights in the digital age are disucssed. Those issues are on the agenda of the IGF since its beginning. But the reality is, that the policy makers in the new negotiation bodies, which are primarily intergovernmental bodies, are in many cases not informed about the IGF discussions. They even have very often no clue what was discussed at the IGF. There is neither a formal nor an informal linkage between the "discussion layer" (the multistakeholder IGF) and the the "decision making layer" (new intergovernmental negotiation bodies). There is a need to bring the expertise, knowledge and ideas from the multistakeholder IGF to the intergovernmental negotiation table. And the IGF will benefit, if the diplomats report back - formally or informally - to the IGF sessions. The idea of the Multistakeholder Leadership Panel (MLP) is driven by this idea to build bridges. The proposal for the Multistakeholder IGF Leadership Panel is the result of a years long multistakeholder discussion process, where all pros and cons of such a new unit were critically evaluated and considered by many different groups, including many civil society organisations. It was inspired by the UNCSTD work. It started with the UNSG High Level Panel on Digital Cooperation (2018). It was developed by the Option Paper 5A&B (2019) and further specified in the UNSG Roadmap (2020). Risks, which were articulated in various statements of civil society organisations, that a new unit will emerge outside the IGF and could lead to a competitive situation, duplication or overlapping of functions, with the potential to weaken the IGF, has been heard by the UNSG. My understanding of the multistakeholder leadership panel - with its very limited mandate - is, that it is part of the general IGF structure and rooted in the (broader) MAG. It is like an executive committee for the MAG and will make the work of the whole MAG more efficent and effective. It makes the IGF stronger, more visible on the international scene and will open the door for a more enhanced bottom up cooperation among all stakeholders in global Internet policy making. It is an IGF+. Members of the new Panel will act as ambassadors between the discussion and decision-making layers. They are not the "new Internet policy makers", they function like a "post office", bringing the messages from the multistakeholder IGF to the intergovernmental negotiation table and vice versa. This is a unique opportunity for civil society. And civil society organisations, in particular from the Global South, should make use of it. Strong civil society representation in the multistakeholder leadership panel will contribute to build a human centric information society, based on the Civil Society WSIS Declaration (2003), the Tunis Agenda (2005) and the Multistakeholder NetMundial Statement (2014). And it will pave the way for a strong civil society voice in the process towards a "Global Digital Compact" (2023). Best wishes Wolfgang Below are links to our "multistakeholder statement" for the Option Paper 5A&B (2020) and the outcome from a multistakeholder expert seminar (2021) where a lot of civil society organisations where represented. https://circleid.com/posts/20210304-framing-the-internet-governance-debate-long-road-to-wsis-2025 https://circleid.com/posts/20200426-cross-pollination-in-cyberspace-internet-governance-spaghetti-ball parminder via At-Large hat am 24.11.2021 16:12 geschrieben: Dear All, Please find enclosed a letter addressed to the UN Secretary General appealing to him to roll back the decision for an IGF Leadership Panel. The letter is co-signed by Dr Milton Mueller, on behalf of the Internet Governance Project, Georgia Institute of Technology School of Public Policy, and Parmider Jeet Singh, for IT for Change, and the Just Net Coalition. It is cc-ed to representatives of civil society and technical community groups requesting them to refrain from sending nominations for the IGF Leadership Panel, and thus legitimizing it. The letter argues how the IGF Leadership Panel militates against the basic idea, objectives and structure of the IGF, and will weaken it. Best, parminder _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ WG-Strategy mailing list WG-Strategy at intgovforum.org To unsubscribe or manage your options please go to http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-strategy_intgovforum.org _______________________________________________ To manage your Internet Society subscriptions or unsubscribe, log into the Member Portal at https://admin.internetsociety.org/622619/User/Login and go to the Preferences tab within your profile. - View the Internet Society Code of Conduct: https://www.internetsociety.org/become-a-member/code-of-conduct/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Nov 26 02:11:07 2021 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2021 12:41:07 +0530 Subject: [Governance] Fwd: [Internet Policy] Fwd: [WG-Strategy] [At-Large] Seeking roll back of the IGF Leadership Panel In-Reply-To: <5816449e-4938-0fef-2c79-d54d8cdbda79@gmail.com> References: <5816449e-4938-0fef-2c79-d54d8cdbda79@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1412e5a7-cd1d-c01b-3263-c9d22d0a119d@itforchange.net> -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: [Internet Policy] Fwd: [WG-Strategy] [At-Large] Seeking roll back of the IGF Leadership Panel Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2021 12:39:33 +0530 From: parminder To: sivasubramanian muthusamy <6.internet at gmail.com> CC: internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org On 26/11/21 11:44 am, sivasubramanian muthusamy wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 10:57 AM parminder via InternetPolicy > > wrote: > > Contrary to Evan's view, Wolfgang considers the IGF to be > extremely successful, and it is in this path of its spectacular > evolutionary success that the Leadership Panel (LP) is placed as a > kind of necessary and very useful development ..  > > The view that IGF is removed from World's reality and the criticisms > such as it is nothing more than a Talk shop --- all this comes from a > general difficulty in measuring the immeasurable. It appeared to be a > talk shop (Parminder is definitely among those who talked, wasn't > he?), no decisions were made, no recommendations were formally made, > but hasn't the IGF worked in ways we can't measure? How would anyone > measure IGF's influence on Internet Policy? Because the effect of the > IGF is not quantifiable, it is not quite unfair to comment in such > adverse terms. IGF is indeed on a path of evolution, it is spectacular > in its evolution because in such a short time as 15 years, the IGF has > seated stakeholders inside the room where Policy used to be framed > only on the basis of what Governments understood (or misunderstood). Very well, you have a right to these views. I may just only remind you that to Evan's email where he called the IGF as a bubble removed from the society, an elitist talk shop, and having only created entropy in these last 15 years (that was almost all he said in the email about the IGF) ... you responded yesterday on the At-Large elist in the following manner, and I quote > Dear all, > > I am by and large in agreement with Evan. ENDs In this part of the email, I was just asking you - and others like you who seemed to be agreeing to both sides --  to make up your mind one way or the other .. Please stop confusing people. That would really raise the quality of the debate.... parminder > If the past 15 years have given the IGF a frame, the leadership panel > will breathe life into the IGF. > > Not just the past, but the two also fundamentally disagree on > there future expectations from the LP... Evan thinks that the LP > will somehow magically address and solve pressing digital policy > issues, about solving which he (like me) is very eager. Wolfgang > is clear that the LP is "not the "new Internet policy makers", > they function like a "post office", bringing the messages from the > multistakeholder IGF to the intergovernmental negotiation table > and vice versa". > > Since whatever little support the LP has focuses on this > "messages" and "post office" and "bridge' function, and it is also > the crux of Wolfgang's argument, let me focus on it. > > It should be noted that UN SG wants a star cast for the LP, and > calls for only CEO and deputy CEO levels to apply...  > > These are big-ego people very fond of expressing and touting their > views... > >  How is this characterization made here?  > > These are just not the people who act as message carriers and post > office - an archetypical description of bureaucracy's function, > enough of which exists and links between the IGF and decision > making bodies. (If you want you can work on improving that part > which is what meets the role and objective description you provide > for the LP. Not a group of CEOs.). Therefore there is a > fundamental, and in my view, fatal, dis-junction between the HR > description and institutional objectives sought. May you please > explain this. > >  I would invite you to expound your views with clear practical > examples. To help that, lets take that a LP has been set up with > an hypothetical membership of the ministers of France and > Indonesia, a Senior VP of Microsoft and CEO of TCS (Indian > software major), and CEOs of ISOC and APNIC, and ok let me not > speculate on civil society leaders chosen (but believe me, their > egos can be bigger than those of industry CEOs). > > That is an over-simplified example.   > > Lets say one of these IGF Leaders is at an important global > meeting, and is introduced as such , as being a part of IGF's > Leadership Group/ Panel. Wolfgang, please try to give us some > concrete examples of what s/he might do, in nature of a "post > office" and carrier of messages from the IGF, and back... > > Would s/he hand over and describe, say the outcome document of an > IGF's Best Practices Forum... Lets take the example of the BPF on > data and new technologies ... I dont see a minister or an industry > CEO (or ISOC CEO) setting aside her/ his views on such a globally > hot topic like data, and share some lame as well as politically > controversial views from this BFP's outcome paper > . > But I am happy to hear from you your description of what would > likely happen in such a scenario, which is the embodiment of your > main argument in favour of LP. And if the LP person is just to > hand over the outcome paper to the meeting or read its summary > (which s/he cannot do other than in a selective manner, given her/ > his inevitable own strong views on data etc), why is this function > not much better done by the bureaucracy, which does it best (and > knows where to stop). So if you may, just add 2-3 more people to > the IGF sect or the UNDESA's IGF desk ... > > But sure, Wolfgang, pl you illuminate us how such a thing will > actually fold out -- using a hypothetical as above, or another of > your own ... Speaking in abstract in terms of messages and post > offices and bridges means nothing .. We are at a serious fork in > the evolution of institutions of digital governance. So, please > lets get real. > > Currently, the MAG Chair at a global meeting limits herself to > describing the process functions and the greatness of the IGF .. > Show us a picture of IGF leaders getting 'substantive' in their > outside communication, and I'd show what is fatally wrong with the > LP idea. > > Let us know how a groups of Leaders will actually perform the > function you lay out, and why that function is not better > performed by strengthening the bucreaucracy link between IGF and > others, it being to my mind an archetypical bureacracy function. > > It is just the opposite of a design of bureaucracy. > > > parminder > > > On 26/11/21 9:46 am, parminder wrote: > >> I have views on both Wolfgang's and Evan's responses to our >> letter, and their position vis a vis the new IGF Leadership Panel. >> >> What however completely passes me is how anyone can agree with >> both Evan's and Wolfgang's positions, as some have some... >> Unless, of offense, but one is just desperate to somehow agree >> with whatever is happening, and looks difficult to change. >> >> Evan's and Wolfgang's positions come from fundamentally opposed >> premises, and have fundamentally different expectations from the >> Leadership Panel. In fact there positions like in two opposite >> extremes from mine, or in other words mine is actually somewhere >> in the middle. I therefore find it difficult to in the same email >> argue against the two positions. >> >> Meanwhile, I'd request those supporting both positions to help me >> understand how both can be right. Thanks. >> >> Evan considers the IGF to a bubble removed from world's reality, >> something which has entirely failed. It is so dead or nearly so, >> that Even is happy if it can be given a last squeeze, everything >> being otherwise so dismal, that something good may come out.. He >> himself says he is not sure, and I am paraphrasing, if his >> medicine is worse than the cure. He just thinks that the IGF is >> all talk, ineffective, etc, and anything outcome- oriented is >> better than that. He seems to have applied no mind to what that >> outcome- oriented would be, how it would work, and what kind of >> outcomes can be expected (obviously, not all outcomes are >> describable.) I consider it kind of desperate kind of view, >> which, my apologies, but does not deserve any serious >> consideration among people who concern themselves with long term >> nature and implications of governance institutions. It is quite >> like, and as desperate as, crying out, all this bloody liberal >> democracy just doesn't work, bring in a good dictator inside, we >> would at least see some action! >> >> This is despite that I normally have quite respected Evan's >> views, agree with him that the IGF has become an insiders bubble, >> and had a disease needing cure, etc. He is completely wrong that >> in indicated that we as letter writers have any intention to >> perpetuate the status quo, live off it, etc, which I think he >> need to know more about how much we fight the status quo every >> day, including the IGFs. He is also wrong that no alternatives >> are offered; we so regularly offer them, and we were also one of >> the most active members of the CSTD WG on IGF improvements. >> >> To sum; I take Evan's critique to be of an outsider, who has >> rightly seem a lot of problems with the IGF, but not been >> invested enough, nor thought through the new Leadership Panel's >> nature and likely implications, whereby his statement of the >> problem is fine, but accepting the Leadership Panel as a solution >> to try out way off .. Since he himself says he isnt sure if the >> sure is better than the disease, I think he confirms my summing >> of his position. I read it as genuine expression of desperation >> with the current IGF, which I considerably share, and nothing >> more -- nothing that can really be taken serious about the actual >> discussion here, about the new Leadership Panel .. >> >> parminder >> >> On 25/11/21 5:37 pm, Winthrop Yu via InternetPolicy wrote: >>> >>> Not that i disagree with what Wolfgang is saying here, but i am >>> more fully in accord with the comments on this by Evan and >>> Roberto on the At-Large list. (We have a forked discussion.) >>> >>> WYn >>> >>> On 25 Nov 2021 7:18 pm, Carlos Afonso via InternetPolicy wrote: >>>> Careful and relevant considerations by Wolfgang. >>>> >>>> A lot is still on the discussion table regarding how this HL >>>> will work and relate to the overall IGF community. One option >>>> is to discard it, another is to keep it and make sure we >>>> participate in the process from the beginning. >>>> >>>> []s fraternos >>>> >>>> --c.a. >>>> >>>> On 24/11/2021 16:47, Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote: >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> I disagree with the letter, signed by Parminder and Milton. I >>>>> do not share their arguments. I believe, that Parminders and >>>>> Miltons proposal, to "urge civil society and technical >>>>> community, to refrain from sending any nominations for the IGF >>>>> Leadership Panel" is very counterproductive, undermines the >>>>> future role of the IGF and weakens civil society engagement in >>>>> Internet related public policy making at the global level. >>>>> >>>>> The IGF is indeed a unique experiment in the UN system. Its >>>>> key purpose is to broaden the participatory base of digital >>>>> policy making. Since 2006 it has enabled a broad variety of >>>>> voices to be heard, including those voices otherwise >>>>> marginalized.It was (and is) a kitchen to cook new ideas. >>>>> Discussion without barriers. Bottom Up. This was the >>>>> intention. It has worked, but it did have also its limits. >>>>> >>>>> As a member of the UN Working Group on Internet Governance >>>>> (WGIG), which proposed the establishment of the IGF in 2005, I >>>>> think we were very right to create the IGF as a "discussion >>>>> plattform" (forum function) without any decision making >>>>> capacity. The fear was, that if the IGF becomes a negotiation >>>>> body, this will kill free and frank discussions. And indeed, >>>>> the informal nature of the IGF did open "mouths and minds" of >>>>> all stakeholders. >>>>> >>>>> I was also a member of the UNCSTD IGF Improvement Working >>>>> Group (2012). In this group we agreed that the IGF should >>>>> continue as a discussion platform, but needs more tangible >>>>> outputs. >>>>> >>>>> The outcome of the IGF are its (sometimes controversial) >>>>> "messages". There are no "IGF positions": some stakeholders >>>>> say so, others say so. It is a bottom up process. And this is >>>>> good for a discussion platform., >>>>> >>>>> However, the digital world has moved forward in the last 17 >>>>> years. Internet Governance isn´t anymore a "technical issue >>>>> with political implications", it is a "political issue with a >>>>> technical component". For many Internet related public policy >>>>> issues new bodies have been created outside the WSIS process >>>>> and dislinked from the IGF. In the 2020s, there are more than >>>>> a dozen global negotiation bodies where issues like >>>>> cybersecurity, digital economy, sustainable development or >>>>> human rights in the digital age are disucssed. Those issues >>>>> are on the agenda of the IGF since its beginning. But the >>>>> reality is, that the policy makers in the new negotiation >>>>> bodies, which are primarily intergovernmental bodies, are in >>>>> many cases not informed about the IGF discussions. They even >>>>> have very often no clue what was discussed at the IGF. There >>>>> is neither a formal nor an informal linkage between the >>>>> "discussion layer" (the multistakeholder IGF) and the the >>>>> "decision making layer" (new intergovernmental negotiation >>>>> bodies). >>>>> >>>>> There is a need to bring the expertise, knowledge and ideas >>>>> from the multistakeholder IGF to the intergovernmental >>>>> negotiation table. And the IGF will benefit, if the diplomats >>>>> report back - formally or informally - to the IGF sessions. >>>>> The idea of the Multistakeholder Leadership Panel (MLP) is >>>>> driven by this idea to build bridges. >>>>> >>>>> The proposal for the Multistakeholder IGF Leadership Panel is >>>>> the result of a years long multistakeholder discussion >>>>> process, where all pros and cons of such a new unit were >>>>> critically evaluated and considered by many different groups, >>>>> including many civil society organisations. It was inspired by >>>>> the UNCSTD work. It started with the UNSG High Level Panel on >>>>> Digital Cooperation (2018). It was developed by the Option >>>>> Paper 5A&B (2019) and further specified in the UNSG Roadmap >>>>> (2020). >>>>> >>>>> Risks, which were articulated in various statements of civil >>>>> society organisations, that a new unit will emerge outside the >>>>> IGF and could lead to a competitive situation, duplication or >>>>> overlapping of functions, with the potential to weaken the >>>>> IGF, has been heard by the UNSG. My understanding of the >>>>> multistakeholder leadership panel - with its very limited >>>>> mandate - is, that it is part of the general IGF structure and >>>>> rooted in the (broader) MAG. It is like an executive committee >>>>> for the MAG and will make the work of the whole MAG more >>>>> efficent and effective.  It makes the IGF stronger, more >>>>> visible on the international scene and will open the door for >>>>> a more enhanced bottom up cooperation among all stakeholders >>>>> in global Internet policy making.  It is an IGF+. Members of >>>>> the new Panel will act as ambassadors between the discussion >>>>> and decision-making layers. They are not the "new Internet >>>>> policy makers", they function like a "post office", bringing >>>>> the messages from the multistakeholder IGF to the >>>>> intergovernmental negotiation table and vice versa. >>>>> >>>>> This is a unique opportunity for civil society. And civil >>>>> society organisations, in particular from the Global South, >>>>> should make use of it. Strong civil society representation in >>>>> the multistakeholder leadership panel will contribute to build >>>>> a human centric information society, based on the Civil >>>>> Society WSIS Declaration (2003), the Tunis Agenda (2005) and >>>>> the Multistakeholder NetMundial Statement (2014). And it will >>>>> pave the way for a strong civil society voice in the process >>>>> towards a "Global Digital Compact" (2023). >>>>> >>>>> Best wishes >>>>> >>>>> Wolfgang >>>>> >>>>> Below are links to our "multistakeholder statement" for the >>>>> Option Paper 5A&B (2020) and the outcome from a >>>>> multistakeholder expert seminar (2021) where a lot of civil >>>>> society organisations where represented. >>>>> >>>>> https://circleid.com/posts/20210304-framing-the-internet-governance-debate-long-road-to-wsis-2025 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> https://circleid.com/posts/20200426-cross-pollination-in-cyberspace-internet-governance-spaghetti-ball >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> parminder via At-Large >>>>>> hat am 24.11.2021 >>>>>> 16:12 geschrieben: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Dear All, >>>>>> >>>>>> Please find enclosed a letter addressed to the UN Secretary >>>>>> General appealing to him to roll back the decision for an IGF >>>>>> Leadership Panel. >>>>>> >>>>>> The letter is co-signed by Dr Milton Mueller, on behalf  of >>>>>> the Internet Governance Project, Georgia Institute of >>>>>> Technology School of Public Policy, and Parmider Jeet Singh, >>>>>> for IT for Change, and the Just Net Coalition. >>>>>> >>>>>> It is cc-ed to representatives of civil society and technical >>>>>> community groups requesting them to refrain from sending >>>>>> nominations for the IGF Leadership Panel, and thus >>>>>> legitimizing it. >>>>>> >>>>>> The letter argues how the IGF Leadership Panel militates >>>>>> against the basic idea, objectives and structure of the IGF, >>>>>> and will weaken it. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best, parminder >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ At-Large >>>>>> mailing list At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org >>>>>> >>>>>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large >>>>>> >>>>>> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ By submitting >>>>>> your personal data, you consent to the processing of your >>>>>> personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing >>>>>> list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy >>>>>> (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy >>>>>> ) and the website Terms >>>>>> of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos >>>>>> ). You can visit the >>>>>> Mailman link above to change your membership status or >>>>>> configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style >>>>>> delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a >>>>>> vacation), and so on. >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> WG-Strategy mailing list >>>>> WG-Strategy at intgovforum.org >>>>> To unsubscribe or manage your options please go to >>>>> http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-strategy_intgovforum.org >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> To manage your Internet Society subscriptions >>> or unsubscribe, log into the Member Portal at >>> https://admin.internetsociety.org/622619/User/Login >>> and go to the Preferences tab within your profile. >>> - >>> View the Internet Society Code of Conduct: https://www.internetsociety.org/become-a-member/code-of-conduct/ > _______________________________________________ > To manage your Internet Society subscriptions > or unsubscribe, log into the Member Portal at > https://admin.internetsociety.org/622619/User/Login > > and go to the Preferences tab within your profile. > - > View the Internet Society Code of Conduct: > https://www.internetsociety.org/become-a-member/code-of-conduct/ > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Nov 26 02:21:27 2021 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2021 12:51:27 +0530 Subject: [Governance] Fwd: [Internet Policy] Fwd: [WG-Strategy] [At-Large] Seeking roll back of the IGF Leadership Panel In-Reply-To: <1412e5a7-cd1d-c01b-3263-c9d22d0a119d@itforchange.net> References: <5816449e-4938-0fef-2c79-d54d8cdbda79@gmail.com> <1412e5a7-cd1d-c01b-3263-c9d22d0a119d@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Sorry, Siva, i confused your email with that from Suresh .. responding to too many emails on the subject :) .. But the views stand otherwise  -- also the poser to those who seem agreeing with both Evan's and Wolfgang's views on the subject.. parminder On 26/11/21 12:41 pm, parminder wrote: > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: Re: [Internet Policy] Fwd: [WG-Strategy] [At-Large] Seeking > roll back of the IGF Leadership Panel > Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2021 12:39:33 +0530 > From: parminder > To: sivasubramanian muthusamy <6.internet at gmail.com> > CC: internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org > > > > On 26/11/21 11:44 am, sivasubramanian muthusamy wrote: >> >> On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 10:57 AM parminder via InternetPolicy >> > > wrote: >> >> Contrary to Evan's view, Wolfgang considers the IGF to be >> extremely successful, and it is in this path of its spectacular >> evolutionary success that the Leadership Panel (LP) is placed as >> a kind of necessary and very useful development ..  >> >> The view that IGF is removed from World's reality and the criticisms >> such as it is nothing more than a Talk shop --- all this comes from a >> general difficulty in measuring the immeasurable. It appeared to be a >> talk shop (Parminder is definitely among those who talked, wasn't >> he?), no decisions were made, no recommendations were formally made, >> but hasn't the IGF worked in ways we can't measure? How would anyone >> measure IGF's influence on Internet Policy? Because the effect of the >> IGF is not quantifiable, it is not quite unfair to comment in such >> adverse terms. IGF is indeed on a path of evolution, it is >> spectacular in its evolution because in such a short time as 15 >> years, the IGF has seated stakeholders inside the room where Policy >> used to be framed only on the basis of what Governments understood >> (or misunderstood). > > Very well, you have a right to these views. > > I may just only remind you that to Evan's email where he called the > IGF as a bubble removed from the society, an elitist talk shop, and > having only created entropy in these last 15 years (that was almost > all he said in the email about the IGF) ... > > you responded yesterday on the At-Large elist in the following manner, > and I quote > > > Dear all, > > > > I am by and large in agreement with Evan. > > ENDs > > In this part of the email, I was just asking you - and others like you > who seemed to be agreeing to both sides --  to make up your mind one > way or the other .. Please stop confusing people. That would really > raise the quality of the debate.... parminder > > >> If the past 15 years have given the IGF a frame, the leadership panel >> will breathe life into the IGF. >> >> Not just the past, but the two also fundamentally disagree on >> there future expectations from the LP... Evan thinks that the LP >> will somehow magically address and solve pressing digital policy >> issues, about solving which he (like me) is very eager. Wolfgang >> is clear that the LP is "not the "new Internet policy makers", >> they function like a "post office", bringing the messages from >> the multistakeholder IGF to the intergovernmental negotiation >> table and vice versa". >> >> Since whatever little support the LP has focuses on this >> "messages" and "post office" and "bridge' function, and it is >> also the crux of Wolfgang's argument, let me focus on it. >> >> It should be noted that UN SG wants a star cast for the LP, and >> calls for only CEO and deputy CEO levels to apply...  >> >> These are big-ego people very fond of expressing and touting >> their views... >> >>  How is this characterization made here?  >> >> These are just not the people who act as message carriers and >> post office - an archetypical description of bureaucracy's >> function, enough of which exists and links between the IGF and >> decision making bodies. (If you want you can work on improving >> that part which is what meets the role and objective description >> you provide for the LP. Not a group of CEOs.). Therefore there is >> a fundamental, and in my view, fatal, dis-junction between the HR >> description and institutional objectives sought. May you please >> explain this. >> >>  I would invite you to expound your views with clear practical >> examples. To help that, lets take that a LP has been set up with >> an hypothetical membership of the ministers of France and >> Indonesia, a Senior VP of Microsoft and CEO of TCS (Indian >> software major), and CEOs of ISOC and APNIC, and ok let me not >> speculate on civil society leaders chosen (but believe me, their >> egos can be bigger than those of industry CEOs). >> >> That is an over-simplified example.   >> >> Lets say one of these IGF Leaders is at an important global >> meeting, and is introduced as such , as being a part of IGF's >> Leadership Group/ Panel. Wolfgang, please try to give us some >> concrete examples of what s/he might do, in nature of a "post >> office" and carrier of messages from the IGF, and back... >> >> Would s/he hand over and describe, say the outcome document of an >> IGF's Best Practices Forum... Lets take the example of the BPF on >> data and new technologies ... I dont see a minister or an >> industry CEO (or ISOC CEO) setting aside her/ his views on such a >> globally hot topic like data, and share some lame as well as >> politically controversial views from this BFP's outcome paper >> . >> But I am happy to hear from you your description of what would >> likely happen in such a scenario, which is the embodiment of your >> main argument in favour of LP. And if the LP person is just to >> hand over the outcome paper to the meeting or read its summary >> (which s/he cannot do other than in a selective manner, given >> her/ his inevitable own strong views on data etc), why is this >> function not much better done by the bureaucracy, which does it >> best (and knows where to stop). So if you may, just add 2-3 more >> people to the IGF sect or the UNDESA's IGF desk ... >> >> But sure, Wolfgang, pl you illuminate us how such a thing will >> actually fold out -- using a hypothetical as above, or another of >> your own ... Speaking in abstract in terms of messages and post >> offices and bridges means nothing .. We are at a serious fork in >> the evolution of institutions of digital governance. So, please >> lets get real. >> >> Currently, the MAG Chair at a global meeting limits herself to >> describing the process functions and the greatness of the IGF .. >> Show us a picture of IGF leaders getting 'substantive' in their >> outside communication, and I'd show what is fatally wrong with >> the LP idea. >> >> Let us know how a groups of Leaders will actually perform the >> function you lay out, and why that function is not better >> performed by strengthening the bucreaucracy link between IGF and >> others, it being to my mind an archetypical bureacracy function. >> >> It is just the opposite of a design of bureaucracy. >> >> >> parminder >> >> >> On 26/11/21 9:46 am, parminder wrote: >> >>> I have views on both Wolfgang's and Evan's responses to our >>> letter, and their position vis a vis the new IGF Leadership Panel. >>> >>> What however completely passes me is how anyone can agree with >>> both Evan's and Wolfgang's positions, as some have some... >>> Unless, of offense, but one is just desperate to somehow agree >>> with whatever is happening, and looks difficult to change. >>> >>> Evan's and Wolfgang's positions come from fundamentally opposed >>> premises, and have fundamentally different expectations from the >>> Leadership Panel. In fact there positions like in two opposite >>> extremes from mine, or in other words mine is actually somewhere >>> in the middle. I therefore find it difficult to in the same >>> email argue against the two positions. >>> >>> Meanwhile, I'd request those supporting both positions to help >>> me understand how both can be right. Thanks. >>> >>> Evan considers the IGF to a bubble removed from world's reality, >>> something which has entirely failed. It is so dead or nearly so, >>> that Even is happy if it can be given a last squeeze, everything >>> being otherwise so dismal, that something good may come out.. He >>> himself says he is not sure, and I am paraphrasing, if his >>> medicine is worse than the cure. He just thinks that the IGF is >>> all talk, ineffective, etc, and anything outcome- oriented is >>> better than that. He seems to have applied no mind to what that >>> outcome- oriented would be, how it would work, and what kind of >>> outcomes can be expected (obviously, not all outcomes are >>> describable.) I consider it kind of desperate kind of view, >>> which, my apologies, but does not deserve any serious >>> consideration among people who concern themselves with long term >>> nature and implications of governance institutions. It is quite >>> like, and as desperate as, crying out, all this bloody liberal >>> democracy just doesn't work, bring in a good dictator inside, we >>> would at least see some action! >>> >>> This is despite that I normally have quite respected Evan's >>> views, agree with him that the IGF has become an insiders >>> bubble, and had a disease needing cure, etc. He is completely >>> wrong that in indicated that we as letter writers have any >>> intention to perpetuate the status quo, live off it, etc, which >>> I think he need to know more about how much we fight the status >>> quo every day, including the IGFs. He is also wrong that no >>> alternatives are offered; we so regularly offer them, and we >>> were also one of the most active members of the CSTD WG on IGF >>> improvements. >>> >>> To sum; I take Evan's critique to be of an outsider, who has >>> rightly seem a lot of problems with the IGF, but not been >>> invested enough, nor thought through the new Leadership Panel's >>> nature and likely implications, whereby his statement of the >>> problem is fine, but accepting the Leadership Panel as a >>> solution to try out way off .. Since he himself says he isnt >>> sure if the sure is better than the disease, I think he confirms >>> my summing of his position. I read it as genuine expression of >>> desperation with the current IGF, which I considerably share, >>> and nothing more -- nothing that can really be taken serious >>> about the actual discussion here, about the new Leadership Panel .. >>> >>> parminder >>> >>> On 25/11/21 5:37 pm, Winthrop Yu via InternetPolicy wrote: >>>> >>>> Not that i disagree with what Wolfgang is saying here, but i am >>>> more fully in accord with the comments on this by Evan and >>>> Roberto on the At-Large list. (We have a forked discussion.) >>>> >>>> WYn >>>> >>>> On 25 Nov 2021 7:18 pm, Carlos Afonso via InternetPolicy wrote: >>>>> Careful and relevant considerations by Wolfgang. >>>>> >>>>> A lot is still on the discussion table regarding how this HL >>>>> will work and relate to the overall IGF community. One option >>>>> is to discard it, another is to keep it and make sure we >>>>> participate in the process from the beginning. >>>>> >>>>> []s fraternos >>>>> >>>>> --c.a. >>>>> >>>>> On 24/11/2021 16:47, Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote: >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> I disagree with the letter, signed by Parminder and Milton. I >>>>>> do not share their arguments. I believe, that Parminders and >>>>>> Miltons proposal, to "urge civil society and technical >>>>>> community, to refrain from sending any nominations for the >>>>>> IGF Leadership Panel" is very counterproductive, undermines >>>>>> the future role of the IGF and weakens civil society >>>>>> engagement in Internet related public policy making at the >>>>>> global level. >>>>>> >>>>>> The IGF is indeed a unique experiment in the UN system. Its >>>>>> key purpose is to broaden the participatory base of digital >>>>>> policy making. Since 2006 it has enabled a broad variety of >>>>>> voices to be heard, including those voices otherwise >>>>>> marginalized.It was (and is) a kitchen to cook new ideas. >>>>>> Discussion without barriers. Bottom Up. This was the >>>>>> intention. It has worked, but it did have also its limits. >>>>>> >>>>>> As a member of the UN Working Group on Internet Governance >>>>>> (WGIG), which proposed the establishment of the IGF in 2005, >>>>>> I think we were very right to create the IGF as a "discussion >>>>>> plattform" (forum function) without any decision making >>>>>> capacity. The fear was, that if the IGF becomes a negotiation >>>>>> body, this will kill free and frank discussions. And indeed, >>>>>> the informal nature of the IGF did open "mouths and minds" of >>>>>> all stakeholders. >>>>>> >>>>>> I was also a member of the UNCSTD IGF Improvement Working >>>>>> Group (2012). In this group we agreed that the IGF should >>>>>> continue as a discussion platform, but needs more tangible >>>>>> outputs. >>>>>> >>>>>> The outcome of the IGF are its (sometimes controversial) >>>>>> "messages". There are no "IGF positions": some stakeholders >>>>>> say so, others say so. It is a bottom up process. And this is >>>>>> good for a discussion platform., >>>>>> >>>>>> However, the digital world has moved forward in the last 17 >>>>>> years. Internet Governance isn´t anymore a "technical issue >>>>>> with political implications", it is a "political issue with a >>>>>> technical component". For many Internet related public policy >>>>>> issues new bodies have been created outside the WSIS process >>>>>> and dislinked from the IGF. In the 2020s, there are more than >>>>>> a dozen global negotiation bodies where issues like >>>>>> cybersecurity, digital economy, sustainable development or >>>>>> human rights in the digital age are disucssed. Those issues >>>>>> are on the agenda of the IGF since its beginning. But the >>>>>> reality is, that the policy makers in the new negotiation >>>>>> bodies, which are primarily intergovernmental bodies, are in >>>>>> many cases not informed about the IGF discussions. They even >>>>>> have very often no clue what was discussed at the IGF. There >>>>>> is neither a formal nor an informal linkage between the >>>>>> "discussion layer" (the multistakeholder IGF) and the the >>>>>> "decision making layer" (new intergovernmental negotiation >>>>>> bodies). >>>>>> >>>>>> There is a need to bring the expertise, knowledge and ideas >>>>>> from the multistakeholder IGF to the intergovernmental >>>>>> negotiation table. And the IGF will benefit, if the diplomats >>>>>> report back - formally or informally - to the IGF sessions. >>>>>> The idea of the Multistakeholder Leadership Panel (MLP) is >>>>>> driven by this idea to build bridges. >>>>>> >>>>>> The proposal for the Multistakeholder IGF Leadership Panel is >>>>>> the result of a years long multistakeholder discussion >>>>>> process, where all pros and cons of such a new unit were >>>>>> critically evaluated and considered by many different groups, >>>>>> including many civil society organisations. It was inspired >>>>>> by the UNCSTD work. It started with the UNSG High Level Panel >>>>>> on Digital Cooperation (2018). It was developed by the Option >>>>>> Paper 5A&B (2019) and further specified in the UNSG Roadmap >>>>>> (2020). >>>>>> >>>>>> Risks, which were articulated in various statements of civil >>>>>> society organisations, that a new unit will emerge outside >>>>>> the IGF and could lead to a competitive situation, >>>>>> duplication or overlapping of functions, with the potential >>>>>> to weaken the IGF, has been heard by the UNSG. My >>>>>> understanding of the multistakeholder leadership panel - with >>>>>> its very limited mandate - is, that it is part of the general >>>>>> IGF structure and rooted in the (broader) MAG. It is like an >>>>>> executive committee for the MAG and will make the work of the >>>>>> whole MAG more efficent and effective.  It makes the IGF >>>>>> stronger, more visible on the international scene and will >>>>>> open the door for a more enhanced bottom up cooperation among >>>>>> all stakeholders in global Internet policy making.  It is an >>>>>> IGF+. Members of the new Panel will act as ambassadors >>>>>> between the discussion and decision-making layers. They are >>>>>> not the "new Internet policy makers", they function like a >>>>>> "post office", bringing the messages from the >>>>>> multistakeholder IGF to the intergovernmental negotiation >>>>>> table and vice versa. >>>>>> >>>>>> This is a unique opportunity for civil society. And civil >>>>>> society organisations, in particular from the Global South, >>>>>> should make use of it. Strong civil society representation in >>>>>> the multistakeholder leadership panel will contribute to >>>>>> build a human centric information society, based on the Civil >>>>>> Society WSIS Declaration (2003), the Tunis Agenda (2005) and >>>>>> the Multistakeholder NetMundial Statement (2014). And it will >>>>>> pave the way for a strong civil society voice in the process >>>>>> towards a "Global Digital Compact" (2023). >>>>>> >>>>>> Best wishes >>>>>> >>>>>> Wolfgang >>>>>> >>>>>> Below are links to our "multistakeholder statement" for the >>>>>> Option Paper 5A&B (2020) and the outcome from a >>>>>> multistakeholder expert seminar (2021) where a lot of civil >>>>>> society organisations where represented. >>>>>> >>>>>> https://circleid.com/posts/20210304-framing-the-internet-governance-debate-long-road-to-wsis-2025 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> https://circleid.com/posts/20200426-cross-pollination-in-cyberspace-internet-governance-spaghetti-ball >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> parminder via At-Large >>>>>>> hat am 24.11.2021 >>>>>>> 16:12 geschrieben: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dear All, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Please find enclosed a letter addressed to the UN Secretary >>>>>>> General appealing to him to roll back the decision for an >>>>>>> IGF Leadership Panel. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The letter is co-signed by Dr Milton Mueller, on behalf  of >>>>>>> the Internet Governance Project, Georgia Institute of >>>>>>> Technology School of Public Policy, and Parmider Jeet Singh, >>>>>>> for IT for Change, and the Just Net Coalition. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It is cc-ed to representatives of civil society and >>>>>>> technical community groups requesting them to refrain from >>>>>>> sending nominations for the IGF Leadership Panel, and thus >>>>>>> legitimizing it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The letter argues how the IGF Leadership Panel militates >>>>>>> against the basic idea, objectives and structure of the IGF, >>>>>>> and will weaken it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best, parminder >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ At-Large >>>>>>> mailing list At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large >>>>>>> >>>>>>> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ By >>>>>>> submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing >>>>>>> of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this >>>>>>> mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy >>>>>>> (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy >>>>>>> ) and the website >>>>>>> Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos >>>>>>> ). You can visit the >>>>>>> Mailman link above to change your membership status or >>>>>>> configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style >>>>>>> delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a >>>>>>> vacation), and so on. >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> WG-Strategy mailing list >>>>>> WG-Strategy at intgovforum.org >>>>>> To unsubscribe or manage your options please go to >>>>>> http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-strategy_intgovforum.org >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> To manage your Internet Society subscriptions >>>> or unsubscribe, log into the Member Portal at >>>> https://admin.internetsociety.org/622619/User/Login >>>> and go to the Preferences tab within your profile. >>>> - >>>> View the Internet Society Code of Conduct: https://www.internetsociety.org/become-a-member/code-of-conduct/ >> _______________________________________________ >> To manage your Internet Society subscriptions >> or unsubscribe, log into the Member Portal at >> https://admin.internetsociety.org/622619/User/Login >> >> and go to the Preferences tab within your profile. >> - >> View the Internet Society Code of Conduct: >> https://www.internetsociety.org/become-a-member/code-of-conduct/ >> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From suresh at hserus.net Fri Nov 26 02:33:07 2021 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2021 07:33:07 +0000 Subject: [Governance] Fwd: [Internet Policy] Fwd: [WG-Strategy] [At-Large] Seeking roll back of the IGF Leadership Panel In-Reply-To: References: <5816449e-4938-0fef-2c79-d54d8cdbda79@gmail.com> <1412e5a7-cd1d-c01b-3263-c9d22d0a119d@itforchange.net> Message-ID: The one thing I am opposed to is setting some sort of qualification bar that is based on an individuals rank or status in an organisation rather than their knowledge, network of contacts across other policy and technical groups, and contributions. Beyond that I agree with Wolfgang. As for Evan's email I don't recall expressing an opinion on it and you've been going on and on about that. Yes the igf is a talk shop. Yes talk shops have a utility in bringing disparate groups together and encouraging communication (and I've said this since the first Athens meeting). The talk doesn't help as much if the same usual suspects attend IGF and relevant stakeholders from other groups disengage or do not attend at all. So the "building bridges" part certainly needs to be done at a strategic level rather than piecemeal. Forming such a committee is a good idea. Forming it with arbitrary criteria and with no consensus sought from existing stakeholders is not a good idea. And this is something MAG should have been working towards already, so spinning this sort of thing up as a sub committee of MAG rather than as a "leadership group" might make more sense. --srs ________________________________ From: Governance on behalf of parminder via Governance Sent: Friday, November 26, 2021 12:51:27 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [Governance] Fwd: [Internet Policy] Fwd: [WG-Strategy] [At-Large] Seeking roll back of the IGF Leadership Panel Sorry, Siva, i confused your email with that from Suresh .. responding to too many emails on the subject :) .. But the views stand otherwise -- also the poser to those who seem agreeing with both Evan's and Wolfgang's views on the subject.. parminder On 26/11/21 12:41 pm, parminder wrote: -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: [Internet Policy] Fwd: [WG-Strategy] [At-Large] Seeking roll back of the IGF Leadership Panel Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2021 12:39:33 +0530 From: parminder To: sivasubramanian muthusamy <6.internet at gmail.com> CC: internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org On 26/11/21 11:44 am, sivasubramanian muthusamy wrote: On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 10:57 AM parminder via InternetPolicy > wrote: Contrary to Evan's view, Wolfgang considers the IGF to be extremely successful, and it is in this path of its spectacular evolutionary success that the Leadership Panel (LP) is placed as a kind of necessary and very useful development .. The view that IGF is removed from World's reality and the criticisms such as it is nothing more than a Talk shop --- all this comes from a general difficulty in measuring the immeasurable. It appeared to be a talk shop (Parminder is definitely among those who talked, wasn't he?), no decisions were made, no recommendations were formally made, but hasn't the IGF worked in ways we can't measure? How would anyone measure IGF's influence on Internet Policy? Because the effect of the IGF is not quantifiable, it is not quite unfair to comment in such adverse terms. IGF is indeed on a path of evolution, it is spectacular in its evolution because in such a short time as 15 years, the IGF has seated stakeholders inside the room where Policy used to be framed only on the basis of what Governments understood (or misunderstood). Very well, you have a right to these views. I may just only remind you that to Evan's email where he called the IGF as a bubble removed from the society, an elitist talk shop, and having only created entropy in these last 15 years (that was almost all he said in the email about the IGF) ... you responded yesterday on the At-Large elist in the following manner, and I quote > Dear all, > > I am by and large in agreement with Evan. ENDs In this part of the email, I was just asking you - and others like you who seemed to be agreeing to both sides -- to make up your mind one way or the other .. Please stop confusing people. That would really raise the quality of the debate.... parminder If the past 15 years have given the IGF a frame, the leadership panel will breathe life into the IGF. Not just the past, but the two also fundamentally disagree on there future expectations from the LP... Evan thinks that the LP will somehow magically address and solve pressing digital policy issues, about solving which he (like me) is very eager. Wolfgang is clear that the LP is "not the "new Internet policy makers", they function like a "post office", bringing the messages from the multistakeholder IGF to the intergovernmental negotiation table and vice versa". Since whatever little support the LP has focuses on this "messages" and "post office" and "bridge' function, and it is also the crux of Wolfgang's argument, let me focus on it. It should be noted that UN SG wants a star cast for the LP, and calls for only CEO and deputy CEO levels to apply... These are big-ego people very fond of expressing and touting their views... How is this characterization made here? These are just not the people who act as message carriers and post office - an archetypical description of bureaucracy's function, enough of which exists and links between the IGF and decision making bodies. (If you want you can work on improving that part which is what meets the role and objective description you provide for the LP. Not a group of CEOs.). Therefore there is a fundamental, and in my view, fatal, dis-junction between the HR description and institutional objectives sought. May you please explain this. I would invite you to expound your views with clear practical examples. To help that, lets take that a LP has been set up with an hypothetical membership of the ministers of France and Indonesia, a Senior VP of Microsoft and CEO of TCS (Indian software major), and CEOs of ISOC and APNIC, and ok let me not speculate on civil society leaders chosen (but believe me, their egos can be bigger than those of industry CEOs). That is an over-simplified example. Lets say one of these IGF Leaders is at an important global meeting, and is introduced as such , as being a part of IGF's Leadership Group/ Panel. Wolfgang, please try to give us some concrete examples of what s/he might do, in nature of a "post office" and carrier of messages from the IGF, and back... Would s/he hand over and describe, say the outcome document of an IGF's Best Practices Forum... Lets take the example of the BPF on data and new technologies ... I dont see a minister or an industry CEO (or ISOC CEO) setting aside her/ his views on such a globally hot topic like data, and share some lame as well as politically controversial views from this BFP's outcome paper. But I am happy to hear from you your description of what would likely happen in such a scenario, which is the embodiment of your main argument in favour of LP. And if the LP person is just to hand over the outcome paper to the meeting or read its summary (which s/he cannot do other than in a selective manner, given her/ his inevitable own strong views on data etc), why is this function not much better done by the bureaucracy, which does it best (and knows where to stop). So if you may, just add 2-3 more people to the IGF sect or the UNDESA's IGF desk ... But sure, Wolfgang, pl you illuminate us how such a thing will actually fold out -- using a hypothetical as above, or another of your own ... Speaking in abstract in terms of messages and post offices and bridges means nothing .. We are at a serious fork in the evolution of institutions of digital governance. So, please lets get real. Currently, the MAG Chair at a global meeting limits herself to describing the process functions and the greatness of the IGF .. Show us a picture of IGF leaders getting 'substantive' in their outside communication, and I'd show what is fatally wrong with the LP idea. Let us know how a groups of Leaders will actually perform the function you lay out, and why that function is not better performed by strengthening the bucreaucracy link between IGF and others, it being to my mind an archetypical bureacracy function. It is just the opposite of a design of bureaucracy. parminder On 26/11/21 9:46 am, parminder wrote: I have views on both Wolfgang's and Evan's responses to our letter, and their position vis a vis the new IGF Leadership Panel. What however completely passes me is how anyone can agree with both Evan's and Wolfgang's positions, as some have some... Unless, of offense, but one is just desperate to somehow agree with whatever is happening, and looks difficult to change. Evan's and Wolfgang's positions come from fundamentally opposed premises, and have fundamentally different expectations from the Leadership Panel. In fact there positions like in two opposite extremes from mine, or in other words mine is actually somewhere in the middle. I therefore find it difficult to in the same email argue against the two positions. Meanwhile, I'd request those supporting both positions to help me understand how both can be right. Thanks. Evan considers the IGF to a bubble removed from world's reality, something which has entirely failed. It is so dead or nearly so, that Even is happy if it can be given a last squeeze, everything being otherwise so dismal, that something good may come out.. He himself says he is not sure, and I am paraphrasing, if his medicine is worse than the cure. He just thinks that the IGF is all talk, ineffective, etc, and anything outcome- oriented is better than that. He seems to have applied no mind to what that outcome- oriented would be, how it would work, and what kind of outcomes can be expected (obviously, not all outcomes are describable.) I consider it kind of desperate kind of view, which, my apologies, but does not deserve any serious consideration among people who concern themselves with long term nature and implications of governance institutions. It is quite like, and as desperate as, crying out, all this bloody liberal democracy just doesn't work, bring in a good dictator inside, we would at least see some action! This is despite that I normally have quite respected Evan's views, agree with him that the IGF has become an insiders bubble, and had a disease needing cure, etc. He is completely wrong that in indicated that we as letter writers have any intention to perpetuate the status quo, live off it, etc, which I think he need to know more about how much we fight the status quo every day, including the IGFs. He is also wrong that no alternatives are offered; we so regularly offer them, and we were also one of the most active members of the CSTD WG on IGF improvements. To sum; I take Evan's critique to be of an outsider, who has rightly seem a lot of problems with the IGF, but not been invested enough, nor thought through the new Leadership Panel's nature and likely implications, whereby his statement of the problem is fine, but accepting the Leadership Panel as a solution to try out way off .. Since he himself says he isnt sure if the sure is better than the disease, I think he confirms my summing of his position. I read it as genuine expression of desperation with the current IGF, which I considerably share, and nothing more -- nothing that can really be taken serious about the actual discussion here, about the new Leadership Panel .. parminder On 25/11/21 5:37 pm, Winthrop Yu via InternetPolicy wrote: Not that i disagree with what Wolfgang is saying here, but i am more fully in accord with the comments on this by Evan and Roberto on the At-Large list. (We have a forked discussion.) WYn On 25 Nov 2021 7:18 pm, Carlos Afonso via InternetPolicy wrote: Careful and relevant considerations by Wolfgang. A lot is still on the discussion table regarding how this HL will work and relate to the overall IGF community. One option is to discard it, another is to keep it and make sure we participate in the process from the beginning. []s fraternos --c.a. On 24/11/2021 16:47, Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote: Hi, I disagree with the letter, signed by Parminder and Milton. I do not share their arguments. I believe, that Parminders and Miltons proposal, to "urge civil society and technical community, to refrain from sending any nominations for the IGF Leadership Panel" is very counterproductive, undermines the future role of the IGF and weakens civil society engagement in Internet related public policy making at the global level. The IGF is indeed a unique experiment in the UN system. Its key purpose is to broaden the participatory base of digital policy making. Since 2006 it has enabled a broad variety of voices to be heard, including those voices otherwise marginalized.It was (and is) a kitchen to cook new ideas. Discussion without barriers. Bottom Up. This was the intention. It has worked, but it did have also its limits. As a member of the UN Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG), which proposed the establishment of the IGF in 2005, I think we were very right to create the IGF as a "discussion plattform" (forum function) without any decision making capacity. The fear was, that if the IGF becomes a negotiation body, this will kill free and frank discussions. And indeed, the informal nature of the IGF did open "mouths and minds" of all stakeholders. I was also a member of the UNCSTD IGF Improvement Working Group (2012). In this group we agreed that the IGF should continue as a discussion platform, but needs more tangible outputs. The outcome of the IGF are its (sometimes controversial) "messages". There are no "IGF positions": some stakeholders say so, others say so. It is a bottom up process. And this is good for a discussion platform., However, the digital world has moved forward in the last 17 years. Internet Governance isn´t anymore a "technical issue with political implications", it is a "political issue with a technical component". For many Internet related public policy issues new bodies have been created outside the WSIS process and dislinked from the IGF. In the 2020s, there are more than a dozen global negotiation bodies where issues like cybersecurity, digital economy, sustainable development or human rights in the digital age are disucssed. Those issues are on the agenda of the IGF since its beginning. But the reality is, that the policy makers in the new negotiation bodies, which are primarily intergovernmental bodies, are in many cases not informed about the IGF discussions. They even have very often no clue what was discussed at the IGF. There is neither a formal nor an informal linkage between the "discussion layer" (the multistakeholder IGF) and the the "decision making layer" (new intergovernmental negotiation bodies). There is a need to bring the expertise, knowledge and ideas from the multistakeholder IGF to the intergovernmental negotiation table. And the IGF will benefit, if the diplomats report back - formally or informally - to the IGF sessions. The idea of the Multistakeholder Leadership Panel (MLP) is driven by this idea to build bridges. The proposal for the Multistakeholder IGF Leadership Panel is the result of a years long multistakeholder discussion process, where all pros and cons of such a new unit were critically evaluated and considered by many different groups, including many civil society organisations. It was inspired by the UNCSTD work. It started with the UNSG High Level Panel on Digital Cooperation (2018). It was developed by the Option Paper 5A&B (2019) and further specified in the UNSG Roadmap (2020). Risks, which were articulated in various statements of civil society organisations, that a new unit will emerge outside the IGF and could lead to a competitive situation, duplication or overlapping of functions, with the potential to weaken the IGF, has been heard by the UNSG. My understanding of the multistakeholder leadership panel - with its very limited mandate - is, that it is part of the general IGF structure and rooted in the (broader) MAG. It is like an executive committee for the MAG and will make the work of the whole MAG more efficent and effective. It makes the IGF stronger, more visible on the international scene and will open the door for a more enhanced bottom up cooperation among all stakeholders in global Internet policy making. It is an IGF+. Members of the new Panel will act as ambassadors between the discussion and decision-making layers. They are not the "new Internet policy makers", they function like a "post office", bringing the messages from the multistakeholder IGF to the intergovernmental negotiation table and vice versa. This is a unique opportunity for civil society. And civil society organisations, in particular from the Global South, should make use of it. Strong civil society representation in the multistakeholder leadership panel will contribute to build a human centric information society, based on the Civil Society WSIS Declaration (2003), the Tunis Agenda (2005) and the Multistakeholder NetMundial Statement (2014). And it will pave the way for a strong civil society voice in the process towards a "Global Digital Compact" (2023). Best wishes Wolfgang Below are links to our "multistakeholder statement" for the Option Paper 5A&B (2020) and the outcome from a multistakeholder expert seminar (2021) where a lot of civil society organisations where represented. https://circleid.com/posts/20210304-framing-the-internet-governance-debate-long-road-to-wsis-2025 https://circleid.com/posts/20200426-cross-pollination-in-cyberspace-internet-governance-spaghetti-ball parminder via At-Large hat am 24.11.2021 16:12 geschrieben: Dear All, Please find enclosed a letter addressed to the UN Secretary General appealing to him to roll back the decision for an IGF Leadership Panel. The letter is co-signed by Dr Milton Mueller, on behalf of the Internet Governance Project, Georgia Institute of Technology School of Public Policy, and Parmider Jeet Singh, for IT for Change, and the Just Net Coalition. It is cc-ed to representatives of civil society and technical community groups requesting them to refrain from sending nominations for the IGF Leadership Panel, and thus legitimizing it. The letter argues how the IGF Leadership Panel militates against the basic idea, objectives and structure of the IGF, and will weaken it. Best, parminder _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ WG-Strategy mailing list WG-Strategy at intgovforum.org To unsubscribe or manage your options please go to http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-strategy_intgovforum.org _______________________________________________ To manage your Internet Society subscriptions or unsubscribe, log into the Member Portal at https://admin.internetsociety.org/622619/User/Login and go to the Preferences tab within your profile. - View the Internet Society Code of Conduct: https://www.internetsociety.org/become-a-member/code-of-conduct/ _______________________________________________ To manage your Internet Society subscriptions or unsubscribe, log into the Member Portal at https://admin.internetsociety.org/622619/User/Login and go to the Preferences tab within your profile. - View the Internet Society Code of Conduct: https://www.internetsociety.org/become-a-member/code-of-conduct/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Nov 26 02:59:12 2021 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2021 13:29:12 +0530 Subject: [Governance] Fwd: [Internet Policy] Fwd: [WG-Strategy] [At-Large] Seeking roll back of the IGF Leadership Panel In-Reply-To: References: <5816449e-4938-0fef-2c79-d54d8cdbda79@gmail.com> <1412e5a7-cd1d-c01b-3263-c9d22d0a119d@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On 26/11/21 1:03 pm, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > The one thing I am opposed to is setting some sort of qualification > bar that is based on an individuals rank or status in an organisation > rather than their knowledge, network of contacts across other policy > and technical groups, and contributions.  Beyond that I agree with > Wolfgang. UN SG who makes the selection is very clear, this is a CEOs level Panel .. it is part of the application criteria .. The Leadership Panel will consist of CEOs -- that makes it absolute inappropriate for a post office and messaging role.. *That fact alone counts for the present purpose of either agreeing with or criticizing and opposing the IGF Leadership Panel.* Other views, ideas, etc about the IGF, its success, failure, etc are largely irrelevant to the issue at hand -- and a pressing and very serious one. They serve to confuse the matter which actually needs discussion, and forming a collective view on. APC, ISOC, etc signed a letter earlier which makes clear that they would NOT want the kind of Panel that has now been set up. There is an email on the ISOC list that says UK ISOC was against any such panel. I have got numerous emails, from both top level people in the civil society and tech community, who are all dismayed at the new Leadership Panel. But why no one stands up and opposes it openly and clearly .. What is behind this collective failure? Bec we have ended up with an IG civil society, and tech community, which is wedded to protecting the status quo and not rocking the boat and standing up ... That is the exact opposite of what civil society is meant to do -- which is to 'speak to power'. Lets discuss what brought things to such a pass. And also perhaps what role MS ism and IGF has to play in fostering a civil society whose leaders are more interested in retaining favour of other powerful people in other sectors, than being responsible to their constituencies, and raising their issues, and bringing in their voices ... If they were still doing what they are needed to, the civil society members, leaders and groups would be discussing and writing letters opposing the Leadership Panel, In my estimate, 80-90 percent of civil society and also technical community actually oppose any CEO kind of IGF Leadership Panel foisted over the IGF. But why no one is discussing this and making their views and opposition open. Is it because they want to protect their own positions and embedding in the power structures? what else, one wonder? parminder > > As for Evan’s email I don’t recall expressing an opinion on it and > you’ve been going on and on about that.  Yes the igf is a talk shop. > Yes talk shops have a utility in bringing disparate groups together > and encouraging communication (and I’ve said this since the first > Athens meeting).   The talk doesn’t help as much if the same usual > suspects attend IGF and relevant stakeholders from other groups > disengage or do not attend at all. > > So the “building bridges” part certainly needs to be done at a > strategic level rather than piecemeal.  Forming such a committee is a > good idea. Forming it with arbitrary criteria and with no consensus > sought from  existing stakeholders is not a good idea.  And this is > something MAG should have been working towards already, so spinning > this sort of thing up as a sub committee of MAG rather than as a > “leadership group” might make more sense. > > > > --srs > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* Governance on behalf > of parminder via Governance > *Sent:* Friday, November 26, 2021 12:51:27 PM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; > At-Large Worldwide > *Subject:* Re: [Governance] Fwd: [Internet Policy] Fwd: [WG-Strategy] > [At-Large] Seeking roll back of the IGF Leadership Panel >   > > Sorry, Siva, i confused your email with that from Suresh .. responding > to too many emails on the subject :) .. But the views stand otherwise  > -- also the poser to those who seem agreeing with both Evan's and > Wolfgang's views on the subject.. parminder > > On 26/11/21 12:41 pm, parminder wrote: >> >> >> -------- Forwarded Message -------- >> Subject: Re: [Internet Policy] Fwd: [WG-Strategy] [At-Large] Seeking >> roll back of the IGF Leadership Panel >> Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2021 12:39:33 +0530 >> From: parminder >> >> To: sivasubramanian muthusamy <6.internet at gmail.com> >> >> CC: internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org >> >> >> >> >> >> On 26/11/21 11:44 am, sivasubramanian muthusamy wrote: >>> >>> On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 10:57 AM parminder via InternetPolicy >>> >> > wrote: >>> >>> Contrary to Evan's view, Wolfgang considers the IGF to be >>> extremely successful, and it is in this path of its spectacular >>> evolutionary success that the Leadership Panel (LP) is placed as >>> a kind of necessary and very useful development ..  >>> >>> The view that IGF is removed from World's reality and the criticisms >>> such as it is nothing more than a Talk shop --- all this comes from >>> a general difficulty in measuring the immeasurable. It appeared to >>> be a talk shop (Parminder is definitely among those who talked, >>> wasn't he?), no decisions were made, no recommendations were >>> formally made, but hasn't the IGF worked in ways we can't measure? >>> How would anyone measure IGF's influence on Internet Policy? Because >>> the effect of the IGF is not quantifiable, it is not quite unfair to >>> comment in such adverse terms. IGF is indeed on a path of evolution, >>> it is spectacular in its evolution because in such a short time as >>> 15 years, the IGF has seated stakeholders inside the room where >>> Policy used to be framed only on the basis of what Governments >>> understood (or misunderstood). >> >> Very well, you have a right to these views. >> >> I may just only remind you that to Evan's email where he called the >> IGF as a bubble removed from the society, an elitist talk shop, and >> having only created entropy in these last 15 years (that was almost >> all he said in the email about the IGF) ... >> >> you responded yesterday on the At-Large elist in the following >> manner, and I quote >> >> > Dear all, >> > >> > I am by and large in agreement with Evan. >> >> ENDs >> >> In this part of the email, I was just asking you - and others like >> you who seemed to be agreeing to both sides --  to make up your mind >> one way or the other .. Please stop confusing people. That would >> really raise the quality of the debate.... parminder >> >> >>> If the past 15 years have given the IGF a frame, the leadership >>> panel will breathe life into the IGF. >>> >>> Not just the past, but the two also fundamentally disagree on >>> there future expectations from the LP... Evan thinks that the LP >>> will somehow magically address and solve pressing digital policy >>> issues, about solving which he (like me) is very eager. Wolfgang >>> is clear that the LP is "not the "new Internet policy makers", >>> they function like a "post office", bringing the messages from >>> the multistakeholder IGF to the intergovernmental negotiation >>> table and vice versa". >>> >>> Since whatever little support the LP has focuses on this >>> "messages" and "post office" and "bridge' function, and it is >>> also the crux of Wolfgang's argument, let me focus on it. >>> >>> It should be noted that UN SG wants a star cast for the LP, and >>> calls for only CEO and deputy CEO levels to apply...  >>> >>> These are big-ego people very fond of expressing and touting >>> their views... >>> >>>  How is this characterization made here?  >>> >>> These are just not the people who act as message carriers and >>> post office - an archetypical description of bureaucracy's >>> function, enough of which exists and links between the IGF and >>> decision making bodies. (If you want you can work on improving >>> that part which is what meets the role and objective description >>> you provide for the LP. Not a group of CEOs.). Therefore there >>> is a fundamental, and in my view, fatal, dis-junction between >>> the HR description and institutional objectives sought. May you >>> please explain this. >>> >>>  I would invite you to expound your views with clear practical >>> examples. To help that, lets take that a LP has been set up with >>> an hypothetical membership of the ministers of France and >>> Indonesia, a Senior VP of Microsoft and CEO of TCS (Indian >>> software major), and CEOs of ISOC and APNIC, and ok let me not >>> speculate on civil society leaders chosen (but believe me, their >>> egos can be bigger than those of industry CEOs). >>> >>> That is an over-simplified example.   >>> >>> Lets say one of these IGF Leaders is at an important global >>> meeting, and is introduced as such , as being a part of IGF's >>> Leadership Group/ Panel. Wolfgang, please try to give us some >>> concrete examples of what s/he might do, in nature of a "post >>> office" and carrier of messages from the IGF, and back... >>> >>> Would s/he hand over and describe, say the outcome document of >>> an IGF's Best Practices Forum... Lets take the example of the >>> BPF on data and new technologies ... I dont see a minister or an >>> industry CEO (or ISOC CEO) setting aside her/ his views on such >>> a globally hot topic like data, and share some lame as well as >>> politically controversial views from this BFP's outcome paper >>> . >>> But I am happy to hear from you your description of what would >>> likely happen in such a scenario, which is the embodiment of >>> your main argument in favour of LP. And if the LP person is just >>> to hand over the outcome paper to the meeting or read its >>> summary (which s/he cannot do other than in a selective manner, >>> given her/ his inevitable own strong views on data etc), why is >>> this function not much better done by the bureaucracy, which >>> does it best (and knows where to stop). So if you may, just add >>> 2-3 more people to the IGF sect or the UNDESA's IGF desk ... >>> >>> But sure, Wolfgang, pl you illuminate us how such a thing will >>> actually fold out -- using a hypothetical as above, or another >>> of your own ... Speaking in abstract in terms of messages and >>> post offices and bridges means nothing .. We are at a serious >>> fork in the evolution of institutions of digital governance. So, >>> please lets get real. >>> >>> Currently, the MAG Chair at a global meeting limits herself to >>> describing the process functions and the greatness of the IGF .. >>> Show us a picture of IGF leaders getting 'substantive' in their >>> outside communication, and I'd show what is fatally wrong with >>> the LP idea. >>> >>> Let us know how a groups of Leaders will actually perform the >>> function you lay out, and why that function is not better >>> performed by strengthening the bucreaucracy link between IGF and >>> others, it being to my mind an archetypical bureacracy function. >>> >>> It is just the opposite of a design of bureaucracy. >>> >>> >>> parminder >>> >>> >>> On 26/11/21 9:46 am, parminder wrote: >>> >>>> I have views on both Wolfgang's and Evan's responses to our >>>> letter, and their position vis a vis the new IGF Leadership Panel. >>>> >>>> What however completely passes me is how anyone can agree with >>>> both Evan's and Wolfgang's positions, as some have some... >>>> Unless, of offense, but one is just desperate to somehow agree >>>> with whatever is happening, and looks difficult to change. >>>> >>>> Evan's and Wolfgang's positions come from fundamentally opposed >>>> premises, and have fundamentally different expectations from >>>> the Leadership Panel. In fact there positions like in two >>>> opposite extremes from mine, or in other words mine is actually >>>> somewhere in the middle. I therefore find it difficult to in >>>> the same email argue against the two positions. >>>> >>>> Meanwhile, I'd request those supporting both positions to help >>>> me understand how both can be right. Thanks. >>>> >>>> Evan considers the IGF to a bubble removed from world's >>>> reality, something which has entirely failed. It is so dead or >>>> nearly so, that Even is happy if it can be given a last >>>> squeeze, everything being otherwise so dismal, that something >>>> good may come out.. He himself says he is not sure, and I am >>>> paraphrasing, if his medicine is worse than the cure. He just >>>> thinks that the IGF is all talk, ineffective, etc, and anything >>>> outcome- oriented is better than that. He seems to have applied >>>> no mind to what that outcome- oriented would be, how it would >>>> work, and what kind of outcomes can be expected (obviously, not >>>> all outcomes are describable.) I consider it kind of desperate >>>> kind of view, which, my apologies, but does not deserve any >>>> serious consideration among people who concern themselves with >>>> long term nature and implications of governance institutions. >>>> It is quite like, and as desperate as, crying out, all this >>>> bloody liberal democracy just doesn't work, bring in a good >>>> dictator inside, we would at least see some action! >>>> >>>> This is despite that I normally have quite respected Evan's >>>> views, agree with him that the IGF has become an insiders >>>> bubble, and had a disease needing cure, etc. He is completely >>>> wrong that in indicated that we as letter writers have any >>>> intention to perpetuate the status quo, live off it, etc, which >>>> I think he need to know more about how much we fight the status >>>> quo every day, including the IGFs. He is also wrong that no >>>> alternatives are offered; we so regularly offer them, and we >>>> were also one of the most active members of the CSTD WG on IGF >>>> improvements. >>>> >>>> To sum; I take Evan's critique to be of an outsider, who has >>>> rightly seem a lot of problems with the IGF, but not been >>>> invested enough, nor thought through the new Leadership Panel's >>>> nature and likely implications, whereby his statement of the >>>> problem is fine, but accepting the Leadership Panel as a >>>> solution to try out way off .. Since he himself says he isnt >>>> sure if the sure is better than the disease, I think he >>>> confirms my summing of his position. I read it as genuine >>>> expression of desperation with the current IGF, which I >>>> considerably share, and nothing more -- nothing that can really >>>> be taken serious about the actual discussion here, about the >>>> new Leadership Panel .. >>>> >>>> parminder >>>> >>>> On 25/11/21 5:37 pm, Winthrop Yu via InternetPolicy wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Not that i disagree with what Wolfgang is saying here, but i >>>>> am more fully in accord with the comments on this by Evan and >>>>> Roberto on the At-Large list. (We have a forked discussion.) >>>>> >>>>> WYn >>>>> >>>>> On 25 Nov 2021 7:18 pm, Carlos Afonso via InternetPolicy wrote: >>>>>> Careful and relevant considerations by Wolfgang. >>>>>> >>>>>> A lot is still on the discussion table regarding how this HL >>>>>> will work and relate to the overall IGF community. One option >>>>>> is to discard it, another is to keep it and make sure we >>>>>> participate in the process from the beginning. >>>>>> >>>>>> []s fraternos >>>>>> >>>>>> --c.a. >>>>>> >>>>>> On 24/11/2021 16:47, Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote: >>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I disagree with the letter, signed by Parminder and Milton. >>>>>>> I do not share their arguments. I believe, that Parminders >>>>>>> and Miltons proposal, to "urge civil society and technical >>>>>>> community, to refrain from sending any nominations for the >>>>>>> IGF Leadership Panel" is very counterproductive, undermines >>>>>>> the future role of the IGF and weakens civil society >>>>>>> engagement in Internet related public policy making at the >>>>>>> global level. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The IGF is indeed a unique experiment in the UN system. Its >>>>>>> key purpose is to broaden the participatory base of digital >>>>>>> policy making. Since 2006 it has enabled a broad variety of >>>>>>> voices to be heard, including those voices otherwise >>>>>>> marginalized.It was (and is) a kitchen to cook new ideas. >>>>>>> Discussion without barriers. Bottom Up. This was the >>>>>>> intention. It has worked, but it did have also its limits. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As a member of the UN Working Group on Internet Governance >>>>>>> (WGIG), which proposed the establishment of the IGF in 2005, >>>>>>> I think we were very right to create the IGF as a >>>>>>> "discussion plattform" (forum function) without any decision >>>>>>> making capacity. The fear was, that if the IGF becomes a >>>>>>> negotiation body, this will kill free and frank discussions. >>>>>>> And indeed, the informal nature of the IGF did open "mouths >>>>>>> and minds" of all stakeholders. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I was also a member of the UNCSTD IGF Improvement Working >>>>>>> Group (2012). In this group we agreed that the IGF should >>>>>>> continue as a discussion platform, but needs more tangible >>>>>>> outputs. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The outcome of the IGF are its (sometimes controversial) >>>>>>> "messages". There are no "IGF positions": some stakeholders >>>>>>> say so, others say so. It is a bottom up process. And this >>>>>>> is good for a discussion platform., >>>>>>> >>>>>>> However, the digital world has moved forward in the last 17 >>>>>>> years. Internet Governance isn´t anymore a "technical issue >>>>>>> with political implications", it is a "political issue with >>>>>>> a technical component". For many Internet related public >>>>>>> policy issues new bodies have been created outside the WSIS >>>>>>> process and dislinked from the IGF. In the 2020s, there are >>>>>>> more than a dozen global negotiation bodies where issues >>>>>>> like cybersecurity, digital economy, sustainable development >>>>>>> or human rights in the digital age are disucssed. Those >>>>>>> issues are on the agenda of the IGF since its beginning. But >>>>>>> the reality is, that the policy makers in the new >>>>>>> negotiation bodies, which are primarily intergovernmental >>>>>>> bodies, are in many cases not informed about the IGF >>>>>>> discussions. They even have very often no clue what was >>>>>>> discussed at the IGF. There is neither a formal nor an >>>>>>> informal linkage between the "discussion layer" (the >>>>>>> multistakeholder IGF) and the the "decision making layer" >>>>>>> (new intergovernmental negotiation bodies). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There is a need to bring the expertise, knowledge and ideas >>>>>>> from the multistakeholder IGF to the intergovernmental >>>>>>> negotiation table. And the IGF will benefit, if the >>>>>>> diplomats report back - formally or informally - to the IGF >>>>>>> sessions. The idea of the Multistakeholder Leadership Panel >>>>>>> (MLP) is driven by this idea to build bridges. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The proposal for the Multistakeholder IGF Leadership Panel >>>>>>> is the result of a years long multistakeholder discussion >>>>>>> process, where all pros and cons of such a new unit were >>>>>>> critically evaluated and considered by many different >>>>>>> groups, including many civil society organisations. It was >>>>>>> inspired by the UNCSTD work. It started with the UNSG High >>>>>>> Level Panel on Digital Cooperation (2018). It was developed >>>>>>> by the Option Paper 5A&B (2019) and further specified in the >>>>>>> UNSG Roadmap (2020). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Risks, which were articulated in various statements of civil >>>>>>> society organisations, that a new unit will emerge outside >>>>>>> the IGF and could lead to a competitive situation, >>>>>>> duplication or overlapping of functions, with the potential >>>>>>> to weaken the IGF, has been heard by the UNSG. My >>>>>>> understanding of the multistakeholder leadership panel - >>>>>>> with its very limited mandate - is, that it is part of the >>>>>>> general IGF structure and rooted in the (broader) MAG. It is >>>>>>> like an executive committee for the MAG and will make the >>>>>>> work of the whole MAG more efficent and effective.  It makes >>>>>>> the IGF stronger, more visible on the international scene >>>>>>> and will open the door for a more enhanced bottom up >>>>>>> cooperation among all stakeholders in global Internet policy >>>>>>> making.  It is an IGF+. Members of the new Panel will act as >>>>>>> ambassadors between the discussion and decision-making >>>>>>> layers. They are not the "new Internet policy makers", they >>>>>>> function like a "post office", bringing the messages from >>>>>>> the multistakeholder IGF to the intergovernmental >>>>>>> negotiation table and vice versa. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This is a unique opportunity for civil society. And civil >>>>>>> society organisations, in particular from the Global South, >>>>>>> should make use of it. Strong civil society representation >>>>>>> in the multistakeholder leadership panel will contribute to >>>>>>> build a human centric information society, based on the >>>>>>> Civil Society WSIS Declaration (2003), the Tunis Agenda >>>>>>> (2005) and the Multistakeholder NetMundial Statement (2014). >>>>>>> And it will pave the way for a strong civil society voice in >>>>>>> the process towards a "Global Digital Compact" (2023). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best wishes >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Wolfgang >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Below are links to our "multistakeholder statement" for the >>>>>>> Option Paper 5A&B (2020) and the outcome from a >>>>>>> multistakeholder expert seminar (2021) where a lot of civil >>>>>>> society organisations where represented. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://circleid.com/posts/20210304-framing-the-internet-governance-debate-long-road-to-wsis-2025 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://circleid.com/posts/20200426-cross-pollination-in-cyberspace-internet-governance-spaghetti-ball >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> parminder via At-Large >>>>>>>> hat am 24.11.2021 >>>>>>>> 16:12 geschrieben: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Dear All, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Please find enclosed a letter addressed to the UN Secretary >>>>>>>> General appealing to him to roll back the decision for an >>>>>>>> IGF Leadership Panel. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The letter is co-signed by Dr Milton Mueller, on behalf  of >>>>>>>> the Internet Governance Project, Georgia Institute of >>>>>>>> Technology School of Public Policy, and Parmider Jeet >>>>>>>> Singh, for IT for Change, and the Just Net Coalition. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It is cc-ed to representatives of civil society and >>>>>>>> technical community groups requesting them to refrain from >>>>>>>> sending nominations for the IGF Leadership Panel, and thus >>>>>>>> legitimizing it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The letter argues how the IGF Leadership Panel militates >>>>>>>> against the basic idea, objectives and structure of the >>>>>>>> IGF, and will weaken it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Best, parminder >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ At-Large >>>>>>>> mailing list At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ By >>>>>>>> submitting your personal data, you consent to the >>>>>>>> processing of your personal data for purposes of >>>>>>>> subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN >>>>>>>> Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy >>>>>>>> ) and the website >>>>>>>> Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos >>>>>>>> ). You can visit the >>>>>>>> Mailman link above to change your membership status or >>>>>>>> configuration, including unsubscribing, setting >>>>>>>> digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether >>>>>>>> (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> WG-Strategy mailing list >>>>>>> WG-Strategy at intgovforum.org >>>>>>> >>>>>>> To unsubscribe or manage your options please go to >>>>>>> http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-strategy_intgovforum.org >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> To manage your Internet Society subscriptions >>>>> or unsubscribe, log into the Member Portal at >>>>> https://admin.internetsociety.org/622619/User/Login >>>>> and go to the Preferences tab within your profile. >>>>> - >>>>> View the Internet Society Code of Conduct: https://www.internetsociety.org/become-a-member/code-of-conduct/ >>> _______________________________________________ >>> To manage your Internet Society subscriptions >>> or unsubscribe, log into the Member Portal at >>> https://admin.internetsociety.org/622619/User/Login >>> >>> and go to the Preferences tab within your profile. >>> - >>> View the Internet Society Code of Conduct: >>> https://www.internetsociety.org/become-a-member/code-of-conduct/ >>> >>> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From suresh at hserus.net Fri Nov 26 04:22:03 2021 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2021 09:22:03 +0000 Subject: [Governance] Fwd: [Internet Policy] Fwd: [WG-Strategy] [At-Large] Seeking roll back of the IGF Leadership Panel In-Reply-To: References: <5816449e-4938-0fef-2c79-d54d8cdbda79@gmail.com> <1412e5a7-cd1d-c01b-3263-c9d22d0a119d@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Let us say that this is one of the rare instances where I agree to a large extent. But this sort of committee fills a long felt need and is a case where I wish the community had stepped up long before, rather than leaving a lacuna where the SG felt free to impose one from the top down. This gap should have been fixed ages back. The cure is civil society stepping up to do outreach from within the mag’s framework. --srs ________________________________ From: parminder Sent: Friday, November 26, 2021 1:29:12 PM To: Suresh Ramasubramanian ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [Governance] Fwd: [Internet Policy] Fwd: [WG-Strategy] [At-Large] Seeking roll back of the IGF Leadership Panel On 26/11/21 1:03 pm, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: The one thing I am opposed to is setting some sort of qualification bar that is based on an individuals rank or status in an organisation rather than their knowledge, network of contacts across other policy and technical groups, and contributions. Beyond that I agree with Wolfgang. UN SG who makes the selection is very clear, this is a CEOs level Panel .. it is part of the application criteria .. The Leadership Panel will consist of CEOs -- that makes it absolute inappropriate for a post office and messaging role.. That fact alone counts for the present purpose of either agreeing with or criticizing and opposing the IGF Leadership Panel. Other views, ideas, etc about the IGF, its success, failure, etc are largely irrelevant to the issue at hand -- and a pressing and very serious one. They serve to confuse the matter which actually needs discussion, and forming a collective view on. APC, ISOC, etc signed a letter earlier which makes clear that they would NOT want the kind of Panel that has now been set up. There is an email on the ISOC list that says UK ISOC was against any such panel. I have got numerous emails, from both top level people in the civil society and tech community, who are all dismayed at the new Leadership Panel. But why no one stands up and opposes it openly and clearly .. What is behind this collective failure? Bec we have ended up with an IG civil society, and tech community, which is wedded to protecting the status quo and not rocking the boat and standing up ... That is the exact opposite of what civil society is meant to do -- which is to 'speak to power'. Lets discuss what brought things to such a pass. And also perhaps what role MS ism and IGF has to play in fostering a civil society whose leaders are more interested in retaining favour of other powerful people in other sectors, than being responsible to their constituencies, and raising their issues, and bringing in their voices ... If they were still doing what they are needed to, the civil society members, leaders and groups would be discussing and writing letters opposing the Leadership Panel, In my estimate, 80-90 percent of civil society and also technical community actually oppose any CEO kind of IGF Leadership Panel foisted over the IGF. But why no one is discussing this and making their views and opposition open. Is it because they want to protect their own positions and embedding in the power structures? what else, one wonder? parminder As for Evan’s email I don’t recall expressing an opinion on it and you’ve been going on and on about that. Yes the igf is a talk shop. Yes talk shops have a utility in bringing disparate groups together and encouraging communication (and I’ve said this since the first Athens meeting). The talk doesn’t help as much if the same usual suspects attend IGF and relevant stakeholders from other groups disengage or do not attend at all. So the “building bridges” part certainly needs to be done at a strategic level rather than piecemeal. Forming such a committee is a good idea. Forming it with arbitrary criteria and with no consensus sought from existing stakeholders is not a good idea. And this is something MAG should have been working towards already, so spinning this sort of thing up as a sub committee of MAG rather than as a “leadership group” might make more sense. --srs ________________________________ From: Governance on behalf of parminder via Governance Sent: Friday, November 26, 2021 12:51:27 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [Governance] Fwd: [Internet Policy] Fwd: [WG-Strategy] [At-Large] Seeking roll back of the IGF Leadership Panel Sorry, Siva, i confused your email with that from Suresh .. responding to too many emails on the subject :) .. But the views stand otherwise -- also the poser to those who seem agreeing with both Evan's and Wolfgang's views on the subject.. parminder On 26/11/21 12:41 pm, parminder wrote: -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: [Internet Policy] Fwd: [WG-Strategy] [At-Large] Seeking roll back of the IGF Leadership Panel Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2021 12:39:33 +0530 From: parminder To: sivasubramanian muthusamy <6.internet at gmail.com> CC: internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org On 26/11/21 11:44 am, sivasubramanian muthusamy wrote: On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 10:57 AM parminder via InternetPolicy > wrote: Contrary to Evan's view, Wolfgang considers the IGF to be extremely successful, and it is in this path of its spectacular evolutionary success that the Leadership Panel (LP) is placed as a kind of necessary and very useful development .. The view that IGF is removed from World's reality and the criticisms such as it is nothing more than a Talk shop --- all this comes from a general difficulty in measuring the immeasurable. It appeared to be a talk shop (Parminder is definitely among those who talked, wasn't he?), no decisions were made, no recommendations were formally made, but hasn't the IGF worked in ways we can't measure? How would anyone measure IGF's influence on Internet Policy? Because the effect of the IGF is not quantifiable, it is not quite unfair to comment in such adverse terms. IGF is indeed on a path of evolution, it is spectacular in its evolution because in such a short time as 15 years, the IGF has seated stakeholders inside the room where Policy used to be framed only on the basis of what Governments understood (or misunderstood). Very well, you have a right to these views. I may just only remind you that to Evan's email where he called the IGF as a bubble removed from the society, an elitist talk shop, and having only created entropy in these last 15 years (that was almost all he said in the email about the IGF) ... you responded yesterday on the At-Large elist in the following manner, and I quote > Dear all, > > I am by and large in agreement with Evan. ENDs In this part of the email, I was just asking you - and others like you who seemed to be agreeing to both sides -- to make up your mind one way or the other .. Please stop confusing people. That would really raise the quality of the debate.... parminder If the past 15 years have given the IGF a frame, the leadership panel will breathe life into the IGF. Not just the past, but the two also fundamentally disagree on there future expectations from the LP... Evan thinks that the LP will somehow magically address and solve pressing digital policy issues, about solving which he (like me) is very eager. Wolfgang is clear that the LP is "not the "new Internet policy makers", they function like a "post office", bringing the messages from the multistakeholder IGF to the intergovernmental negotiation table and vice versa". Since whatever little support the LP has focuses on this "messages" and "post office" and "bridge' function, and it is also the crux of Wolfgang's argument, let me focus on it. It should be noted that UN SG wants a star cast for the LP, and calls for only CEO and deputy CEO levels to apply... These are big-ego people very fond of expressing and touting their views... How is this characterization made here? These are just not the people who act as message carriers and post office - an archetypical description of bureaucracy's function, enough of which exists and links between the IGF and decision making bodies. (If you want you can work on improving that part which is what meets the role and objective description you provide for the LP. Not a group of CEOs.). Therefore there is a fundamental, and in my view, fatal, dis-junction between the HR description and institutional objectives sought. May you please explain this. I would invite you to expound your views with clear practical examples. To help that, lets take that a LP has been set up with an hypothetical membership of the ministers of France and Indonesia, a Senior VP of Microsoft and CEO of TCS (Indian software major), and CEOs of ISOC and APNIC, and ok let me not speculate on civil society leaders chosen (but believe me, their egos can be bigger than those of industry CEOs). That is an over-simplified example. Lets say one of these IGF Leaders is at an important global meeting, and is introduced as such , as being a part of IGF's Leadership Group/ Panel. Wolfgang, please try to give us some concrete examples of what s/he might do, in nature of a "post office" and carrier of messages from the IGF, and back... Would s/he hand over and describe, say the outcome document of an IGF's Best Practices Forum... Lets take the example of the BPF on data and new technologies ... I dont see a minister or an industry CEO (or ISOC CEO) setting aside her/ his views on such a globally hot topic like data, and share some lame as well as politically controversial views from this BFP's outcome paper. But I am happy to hear from you your description of what would likely happen in such a scenario, which is the embodiment of your main argument in favour of LP. And if the LP person is just to hand over the outcome paper to the meeting or read its summary (which s/he cannot do other than in a selective manner, given her/ his inevitable own strong views on data etc), why is this function not much better done by the bureaucracy, which does it best (and knows where to stop). So if you may, just add 2-3 more people to the IGF sect or the UNDESA's IGF desk ... But sure, Wolfgang, pl you illuminate us how such a thing will actually fold out -- using a hypothetical as above, or another of your own ... Speaking in abstract in terms of messages and post offices and bridges means nothing .. We are at a serious fork in the evolution of institutions of digital governance. So, please lets get real. Currently, the MAG Chair at a global meeting limits herself to describing the process functions and the greatness of the IGF .. Show us a picture of IGF leaders getting 'substantive' in their outside communication, and I'd show what is fatally wrong with the LP idea. Let us know how a groups of Leaders will actually perform the function you lay out, and why that function is not better performed by strengthening the bucreaucracy link between IGF and others, it being to my mind an archetypical bureacracy function. It is just the opposite of a design of bureaucracy. parminder On 26/11/21 9:46 am, parminder wrote: I have views on both Wolfgang's and Evan's responses to our letter, and their position vis a vis the new IGF Leadership Panel. What however completely passes me is how anyone can agree with both Evan's and Wolfgang's positions, as some have some... Unless, of offense, but one is just desperate to somehow agree with whatever is happening, and looks difficult to change. Evan's and Wolfgang's positions come from fundamentally opposed premises, and have fundamentally different expectations from the Leadership Panel. In fact there positions like in two opposite extremes from mine, or in other words mine is actually somewhere in the middle. I therefore find it difficult to in the same email argue against the two positions. Meanwhile, I'd request those supporting both positions to help me understand how both can be right. Thanks. Evan considers the IGF to a bubble removed from world's reality, something which has entirely failed. It is so dead or nearly so, that Even is happy if it can be given a last squeeze, everything being otherwise so dismal, that something good may come out.. He himself says he is not sure, and I am paraphrasing, if his medicine is worse than the cure. He just thinks that the IGF is all talk, ineffective, etc, and anything outcome- oriented is better than that. He seems to have applied no mind to what that outcome- oriented would be, how it would work, and what kind of outcomes can be expected (obviously, not all outcomes are describable.) I consider it kind of desperate kind of view, which, my apologies, but does not deserve any serious consideration among people who concern themselves with long term nature and implications of governance institutions. It is quite like, and as desperate as, crying out, all this bloody liberal democracy just doesn't work, bring in a good dictator inside, we would at least see some action! This is despite that I normally have quite respected Evan's views, agree with him that the IGF has become an insiders bubble, and had a disease needing cure, etc. He is completely wrong that in indicated that we as letter writers have any intention to perpetuate the status quo, live off it, etc, which I think he need to know more about how much we fight the status quo every day, including the IGFs. He is also wrong that no alternatives are offered; we so regularly offer them, and we were also one of the most active members of the CSTD WG on IGF improvements. To sum; I take Evan's critique to be of an outsider, who has rightly seem a lot of problems with the IGF, but not been invested enough, nor thought through the new Leadership Panel's nature and likely implications, whereby his statement of the problem is fine, but accepting the Leadership Panel as a solution to try out way off .. Since he himself says he isnt sure if the sure is better than the disease, I think he confirms my summing of his position. I read it as genuine expression of desperation with the current IGF, which I considerably share, and nothing more -- nothing that can really be taken serious about the actual discussion here, about the new Leadership Panel .. parminder On 25/11/21 5:37 pm, Winthrop Yu via InternetPolicy wrote: Not that i disagree with what Wolfgang is saying here, but i am more fully in accord with the comments on this by Evan and Roberto on the At-Large list. (We have a forked discussion.) WYn On 25 Nov 2021 7:18 pm, Carlos Afonso via InternetPolicy wrote: Careful and relevant considerations by Wolfgang. A lot is still on the discussion table regarding how this HL will work and relate to the overall IGF community. One option is to discard it, another is to keep it and make sure we participate in the process from the beginning. []s fraternos --c.a. On 24/11/2021 16:47, Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote: Hi, I disagree with the letter, signed by Parminder and Milton. I do not share their arguments. I believe, that Parminders and Miltons proposal, to "urge civil society and technical community, to refrain from sending any nominations for the IGF Leadership Panel" is very counterproductive, undermines the future role of the IGF and weakens civil society engagement in Internet related public policy making at the global level. The IGF is indeed a unique experiment in the UN system. Its key purpose is to broaden the participatory base of digital policy making. Since 2006 it has enabled a broad variety of voices to be heard, including those voices otherwise marginalized.It was (and is) a kitchen to cook new ideas. Discussion without barriers. Bottom Up. This was the intention. It has worked, but it did have also its limits. As a member of the UN Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG), which proposed the establishment of the IGF in 2005, I think we were very right to create the IGF as a "discussion plattform" (forum function) without any decision making capacity. The fear was, that if the IGF becomes a negotiation body, this will kill free and frank discussions. And indeed, the informal nature of the IGF did open "mouths and minds" of all stakeholders. I was also a member of the UNCSTD IGF Improvement Working Group (2012). In this group we agreed that the IGF should continue as a discussion platform, but needs more tangible outputs. The outcome of the IGF are its (sometimes controversial) "messages". There are no "IGF positions": some stakeholders say so, others say so. It is a bottom up process. And this is good for a discussion platform., However, the digital world has moved forward in the last 17 years. Internet Governance isn´t anymore a "technical issue with political implications", it is a "political issue with a technical component". For many Internet related public policy issues new bodies have been created outside the WSIS process and dislinked from the IGF. In the 2020s, there are more than a dozen global negotiation bodies where issues like cybersecurity, digital economy, sustainable development or human rights in the digital age are disucssed. Those issues are on the agenda of the IGF since its beginning. But the reality is, that the policy makers in the new negotiation bodies, which are primarily intergovernmental bodies, are in many cases not informed about the IGF discussions. They even have very often no clue what was discussed at the IGF. There is neither a formal nor an informal linkage between the "discussion layer" (the multistakeholder IGF) and the the "decision making layer" (new intergovernmental negotiation bodies). There is a need to bring the expertise, knowledge and ideas from the multistakeholder IGF to the intergovernmental negotiation table. And the IGF will benefit, if the diplomats report back - formally or informally - to the IGF sessions. The idea of the Multistakeholder Leadership Panel (MLP) is driven by this idea to build bridges. The proposal for the Multistakeholder IGF Leadership Panel is the result of a years long multistakeholder discussion process, where all pros and cons of such a new unit were critically evaluated and considered by many different groups, including many civil society organisations. It was inspired by the UNCSTD work. It started with the UNSG High Level Panel on Digital Cooperation (2018). It was developed by the Option Paper 5A&B (2019) and further specified in the UNSG Roadmap (2020). Risks, which were articulated in various statements of civil society organisations, that a new unit will emerge outside the IGF and could lead to a competitive situation, duplication or overlapping of functions, with the potential to weaken the IGF, has been heard by the UNSG. My understanding of the multistakeholder leadership panel - with its very limited mandate - is, that it is part of the general IGF structure and rooted in the (broader) MAG. It is like an executive committee for the MAG and will make the work of the whole MAG more efficent and effective. It makes the IGF stronger, more visible on the international scene and will open the door for a more enhanced bottom up cooperation among all stakeholders in global Internet policy making. It is an IGF+. Members of the new Panel will act as ambassadors between the discussion and decision-making layers. They are not the "new Internet policy makers", they function like a "post office", bringing the messages from the multistakeholder IGF to the intergovernmental negotiation table and vice versa. This is a unique opportunity for civil society. And civil society organisations, in particular from the Global South, should make use of it. Strong civil society representation in the multistakeholder leadership panel will contribute to build a human centric information society, based on the Civil Society WSIS Declaration (2003), the Tunis Agenda (2005) and the Multistakeholder NetMundial Statement (2014). And it will pave the way for a strong civil society voice in the process towards a "Global Digital Compact" (2023). Best wishes Wolfgang Below are links to our "multistakeholder statement" for the Option Paper 5A&B (2020) and the outcome from a multistakeholder expert seminar (2021) where a lot of civil society organisations where represented. https://circleid.com/posts/20210304-framing-the-internet-governance-debate-long-road-to-wsis-2025 https://circleid.com/posts/20200426-cross-pollination-in-cyberspace-internet-governance-spaghetti-ball parminder via At-Large hat am 24.11.2021 16:12 geschrieben: Dear All, Please find enclosed a letter addressed to the UN Secretary General appealing to him to roll back the decision for an IGF Leadership Panel. The letter is co-signed by Dr Milton Mueller, on behalf of the Internet Governance Project, Georgia Institute of Technology School of Public Policy, and Parmider Jeet Singh, for IT for Change, and the Just Net Coalition. It is cc-ed to representatives of civil society and technical community groups requesting them to refrain from sending nominations for the IGF Leadership Panel, and thus legitimizing it. The letter argues how the IGF Leadership Panel militates against the basic idea, objectives and structure of the IGF, and will weaken it. Best, parminder _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ WG-Strategy mailing list WG-Strategy at intgovforum.org To unsubscribe or manage your options please go to http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-strategy_intgovforum.org _______________________________________________ To manage your Internet Society subscriptions or unsubscribe, log into the Member Portal at https://admin.internetsociety.org/622619/User/Login and go to the Preferences tab within your profile. - View the Internet Society Code of Conduct: https://www.internetsociety.org/become-a-member/code-of-conduct/ _______________________________________________ To manage your Internet Society subscriptions or unsubscribe, log into the Member Portal at https://admin.internetsociety.org/622619/User/Login and go to the Preferences tab within your profile. - View the Internet Society Code of Conduct: https://www.internetsociety.org/become-a-member/code-of-conduct/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sheetal at gp-digital.org Fri Nov 26 04:52:32 2021 From: sheetal at gp-digital.org (Sheetal Kumar) Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2021 13:52:32 +0400 Subject: [Governance] NOTICE: CSCG nomination process for IGF Leadership Panel In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear all, We did not receive a requisite number of eligible nominations for this process launched last week. We are therefore unable to proceed with the nomination process for the Leadership Panel as CSCG. While this does not constitute a boycott, we understand that the level of doubt and concerns around the Leadership Panel may indicate that there isn't the support required. We will continue to follow the process and to demand the transparency and diversity required in all areas of the IGF, and to work towards strengthening it in the coming years with the view to realising the true spirit of the IGF's multistakeholder mission. More on our previous/relevant position here: https://www.apc.org/en/pubs/open-letter-interpretation-paragraph-93a-un-secretary-generals-roadmap-digital-cooperation. There we say "Multistakeholderism, diversity and inclusion should guide any new structure, building on the IGF legacy thus far and be the basis for putting the structure in function of shaping the global internet governance agenda in a way that effectively addresses the persistent, exacerbated and new challenges derived from the pandemic situation, including the increasing power of some parts of the industry, in particular the large technology companies, and the lack of voices from more vulnerable and marginalised groups." We do not want this to be seen as discouragement to anyone planning to nominate themselves. However, as a network, it is clear that we don't have the support or interest to continue with this specific nomination process. Best Sheetal and Bruna On Fri, 19 Nov 2021 at 16:25, Sheetal Kumar wrote: > Dear all, > > This is a polite reminder to share your nominations to the CSCG for the > IGF's leadership panel, as per the process outlined below. We request this > is done by *COB November 22 *so that we are able to submit by the > deadline of > *November 29. * > > > We look forward to receiving your nomination/s. > Best > Sheetal > > > > > > On Mon, 15 Nov 2021 at 13:51, Sheetal Kumar > wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> As you may have seen, the IGF Secretariat has launched the nomination >> process at the request of the Executive Office of the United Nations >> Secretary-General for the *inaugural Leadership Panel of the 2022 and >> 2023 Internet Governance Forum (IGF) cycles* >> . >> >> >> >> >> Following several rounds of open consultations, the Leadership Panel is a >> response to the Secretary-General’s Roadmap for Digital Cooperation >> , which calls for strengthening of the IGF >> through, among other aspects, *’’creating a strategic and empowered >> multi-stakeholder high-level body, building on the experience of the >> existing multi-stakeholder advisory group, which would address urgent >> issues, coordinate follow-up action on Forum discussions and relay proposed >> policy approaches and recommendations from the Forum to the appropriate >> normative and decision-making forums*.’’ >> >> >> CSCG, and for this process, this includes APC and IGC, will run a >> nomination process to identify nominees for the two categories: >> >> - Two [2] at-large members (distinguished or prominent persons who do >> not fall under above stakeholder groups) and >> - Two [2] CEO-level (or deputy-level) representatives from each of >> the other three stakeholder groups (civil society) >> >> Please note, this does not mean we endorse the process or the mechanism >> itself. We will send a letter with the nominations that clearly reiterates >> our previous publicly stated positions (such as this Open letter on the >> interpretation of paragraph 93(a) of the UNSG's Roadmap on Digital >> Cooperation >> >> and this on the future of the IGF >> on >> the Leadership Panel/Higher-level MAG >> ), >> including the importance of maintaining the MAG's current role and not >> supplanting it, the importance of diversity and inclusion, transparency etc >> and make clear that our submission of nominees should not be read as >> endorsement. >> >> >> We intend that our nominations reflect the above criteria. Please note >> that to receive a CSCG nomination for the IGF leadership panel you'll need >> to send us (me and Valeria and Bruna cc'd) the information required on the online >> form >> . >> We request this is done by *COB November 22 *so that we are able to >> submit by the deadline of >> *November 29. * >> >> >> We look forward to receiving your nomination/s. >> Best >> Sheetal >> >> >> -- >> >> *Sheetal Kumar* >> Head of Global Engagement and Advocacy | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| Time zone: GMT | M: +44 (0)7739569514 | >> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 >> DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >> >> >> >> > > -- > > *Sheetal Kumar* > Head of Global Engagement and Advocacy | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| Time zone: GMT | M: +44 (0)7739569514 | > PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 > DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| > > > > -- *Sheetal Kumar* Head of Global Engagement and Advocacy | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| Time zone: GMT | M: +44 (0)7739569514 | PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Nov 26 05:09:20 2021 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2021 15:39:20 +0530 Subject: [Governance] NOTICE: CSCG nomination process for IGF Leadership Panel In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: This shows the complete absence of support and enthusiasm among civil society groups and persons for Leadership Panel . On the ISOC list, I saw this posting "does anyone have a handy link to the UN decision and process? If this is a "firm" decision it goes  against  advice from what seemed a strong consensus I noted at the UK IGF steering team and I expect other many other groups." ENDS As I mentioned I have got  offline messages from many showing dismay with the Leadership Panel ... *Now, the problem is, much less the LP process being stopped, or even being de-legitimized , I suspect the UN Secy General's office and that of the Tech Envoy wouldnt even hear of and know the fact that there is widespread, near total, non-acceptance of and dismay at the LP in civil society and technical community circles... * This doesn't speak about the UN SG or his LP initiative: it speaks about where the IG civil society is currently --  totally in the dumps. parminder On 26/11/21 3:22 pm, Sheetal Kumar via Governance wrote: > Dear all, > > We did not receive a requisite number of eligible nominations for this > process launched last week. We are therefore unable to proceed with > the nomination process for the Leadership Panel as CSCG. > > While this does not constitute a boycott, we understand that the level > of doubt and concerns around the Leadership Panel may indicate that > there isn't the support required. > > We will continue to follow the process and to demand the transparency > and diversity required in all areas of the IGF, and to work towards > strengthening it in the coming years with the view to realising the > true spirit of the IGF's multistakeholder mission. More on our > previous/relevant position here: > https://www.apc.org/en/pubs/open-letter-interpretation-paragraph-93a-un-secretary-generals-roadmap-digital-cooperation > . > There we say "Multistakeholderism, diversity and inclusion should > guide any new structure, building on the IGF legacy thus far and be > the basis for putting the structure in function of shaping the global > internet governance agenda in a way that effectively addresses the > persistent, exacerbated and new challenges derived from the pandemic > situation, including the increasing power of some parts of the > industry, in particular the large technology companies, and the lack > of voices from more vulnerable and marginalised groups." > > We do not want this to be seen as discouragement to anyone planning to > nominate themselves. However, as a network, it is clear that we don't > have the support or interest to continue with this specific nomination > process. > > Best > Sheetal and Bruna > > On Fri, 19 Nov 2021 at 16:25, Sheetal Kumar > wrote: > > Dear all, > > This is a polite reminder to share your nominations to the CSCG > for the IGF's leadership panel, as per the process outlined below. > We request this is done by _*COB November 22 *_so that we are able > to submit by the deadline of _*November 29. > *_ > > _* > *_ > > We look forward to receiving your nomination/s._* > *_ > > Best > Sheetal > > > > > > On Mon, 15 Nov 2021 at 13:51, Sheetal Kumar > > wrote: > > Dear all, > > As you may have seen, the IGF Secretariat has launched the > nomination process at the request of the Executive Office of > the United Nations Secretary-General for the *inaugural > Leadership Panel of the 2022 and 2023 Internet Governance > Forum (IGF) cycles* > . > > >   > > Following several rounds of open consultations, the Leadership > Panel is a response to the Secretary-General’s Roadmap for > Digital Cooperation , which calls > for strengthening of the IGF through, among other aspects, > /’’creating a strategic and empowered multi-stakeholder > high-level body, building on the experience of the existing > multi-stakeholder advisory group, which would address urgent > issues, coordinate follow-up action on Forum discussions and > relay proposed policy approaches and recommendations from the > Forum to the appropriate normative and decision-making forums/.’’ > > > CSCG, and for this process, this includes APC and IGC, will > run a nomination process to identify nominees for the two > categories: > > * Two [2] at-large members (distinguished or prominent > persons who do not fall under above stakeholder groups) and > * Two [2] CEO-level (or deputy-level) representatives from > each of the other three stakeholder groups (civil society) > > Please note, this does not mean we endorse the process or the > mechanism itself. We will send a letter with the nominations > that clearly reiterates our previous publicly stated positions > (such as this Open letter on the interpretation of paragraph > 93(a) of the UNSG's Roadmap on Digital Cooperation > > and this on the future of the IGF > on > the Leadership Panel/Higher-level MAG > ), > including the importance of maintaining the MAG's current role > and not supplanting it, the importance of diversity and > inclusion, transparency etc and make clear that our submission > of nominees should not be read as endorsement. > > > We intend that our nominations reflect the above criteria. > Please note that to receive a CSCG nomination for the IGF > leadership panel you'll need to send us (me and Valeria and > Bruna cc'd) the information required on the online form > . > We request this is done by _*COB November 22 *_so that we are > able to submit by the deadline of _*November 29. > *_ > > _* > *_ > > We look forward to receiving your nomination/s._* > *_ > > Best > Sheetal > > > -- > * > * > *Sheetal Kumar* > Head of Global Engagement and Advocacy | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| Time zone: GMT | M: +44 (0)7739569514  | > PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31  | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B > E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| > > > > > > -- > * > * > *Sheetal Kumar* > Head of Global Engagement and Advocacy | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| Time zone: GMT | M: +44 (0)7739569514  | > PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31  | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 > 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| > > > > > > -- > * > * > *Sheetal Kumar* > Head of Global Engagement and Advocacy | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| Time zone: GMT | M: +44 (0)7739569514  | > PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31  | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 > DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sheetal at gp-digital.org Fri Nov 26 05:13:00 2021 From: sheetal at gp-digital.org (Sheetal Kumar) Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2021 14:13:00 +0400 Subject: [Governance] NOTICE: CSCG nomination process for IGF Leadership Panel In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I'm not sure I quite understand what you mean Parminder. On Fri, 26 Nov 2021 at 14:09, parminder via Governance < governance at lists.igcaucus.org> wrote: > This shows the complete absence of support and enthusiasm among civil > society groups and persons for Leadership Panel . > > On the ISOC list, I saw this posting > > > "does anyone have a handy link to the UN decision and process? If this is > a "firm" decision it goes against advice from what seemed a strong > consensus I noted at the UK IGF steering team and I expect other many other > groups." > > ENDS > > As I mentioned I have got offline messages from many showing dismay with > the Leadership Panel ... > > *Now, the problem is, much less the LP process being stopped, or even > being de-legitimized , I suspect the UN Secy General's office and that of > the Tech Envoy wouldnt even hear of and know the fact that there is > widespread, near total, non-acceptance of and dismay at the LP in civil > society and technical community circles... * > > This doesn't speak about the UN SG or his LP initiative: it speaks about > where the IG civil society is currently -- totally in the dumps. > > parminder > > > On 26/11/21 3:22 pm, Sheetal Kumar via Governance wrote: > > Dear all, > > We did not receive a requisite number of eligible nominations for this > process launched last week. We are therefore unable to proceed with the > nomination process for the Leadership Panel as CSCG. > > While this does not constitute a boycott, we understand that the level of > doubt and concerns around the Leadership Panel may indicate that there > isn't the support required. > > We will continue to follow the process and to demand the transparency and > diversity required in all areas of the IGF, and to work towards > strengthening it in the coming years with the view to realising the true > spirit of the IGF's multistakeholder mission. More on our previous/relevant > position here: > https://www.apc.org/en/pubs/open-letter-interpretation-paragraph-93a-un-secretary-generals-roadmap-digital-cooperation. > There we say "Multistakeholderism, diversity and inclusion should guide any > new structure, building on the IGF legacy thus far and be the basis for > putting the structure in function of shaping the global internet governance > agenda in a way that effectively addresses the persistent, exacerbated and > new challenges derived from the pandemic situation, including the > increasing power of some parts of the industry, in particular the large > technology companies, and the lack of voices from more vulnerable and > marginalised groups." > > We do not want this to be seen as discouragement to anyone planning to > nominate themselves. However, as a network, it is clear that we don't have > the support or interest to continue with this specific nomination process. > > Best > Sheetal and Bruna > > On Fri, 19 Nov 2021 at 16:25, Sheetal Kumar > wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> This is a polite reminder to share your nominations to the CSCG for the >> IGF's leadership panel, as per the process outlined below. We request this >> is done by *COB November 22 *so that we are able to submit by the >> deadline of >> *November 29. * >> >> >> We look forward to receiving your nomination/s. >> Best >> Sheetal >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, 15 Nov 2021 at 13:51, Sheetal Kumar >> wrote: >> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> As you may have seen, the IGF Secretariat has launched the nomination >>> process at the request of the Executive Office of the United Nations >>> Secretary-General for the *inaugural Leadership Panel of the 2022 and >>> 2023 Internet Governance Forum (IGF) cycles* >>> . >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Following several rounds of open consultations, the Leadership Panel is >>> a response to the Secretary-General’s Roadmap for Digital Cooperation >>> , which calls for strengthening of the IGF >>> through, among other aspects, *’’creating a strategic and empowered >>> multi-stakeholder high-level body, building on the experience of the >>> existing multi-stakeholder advisory group, which would address urgent >>> issues, coordinate follow-up action on Forum discussions and relay proposed >>> policy approaches and recommendations from the Forum to the appropriate >>> normative and decision-making forums*.’’ >>> >>> >>> CSCG, and for this process, this includes APC and IGC, will run a >>> nomination process to identify nominees for the two categories: >>> >>> - Two [2] at-large members (distinguished or prominent persons who >>> do not fall under above stakeholder groups) and >>> - Two [2] CEO-level (or deputy-level) representatives from each of >>> the other three stakeholder groups (civil society) >>> >>> Please note, this does not mean we endorse the process or the mechanism >>> itself. We will send a letter with the nominations that clearly reiterates >>> our previous publicly stated positions (such as this Open letter on the >>> interpretation of paragraph 93(a) of the UNSG's Roadmap on Digital >>> Cooperation >>> >>> and this on the future of the IGF >>> on >>> the Leadership Panel/Higher-level MAG >>> ), >>> including the importance of maintaining the MAG's current role and not >>> supplanting it, the importance of diversity and inclusion, transparency etc >>> and make clear that our submission of nominees should not be read as >>> endorsement. >>> >>> >>> We intend that our nominations reflect the above criteria. Please note >>> that to receive a CSCG nomination for the IGF leadership panel you'll need >>> to send us (me and Valeria and Bruna cc'd) the information required on the online >>> form >>> . >>> We request this is done by *COB November 22 *so that we are able to >>> submit by the deadline of >>> *November 29. * >>> >>> >>> We look forward to receiving your nomination/s. >>> Best >>> Sheetal >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> *Sheetal Kumar* >>> Head of Global Engagement and Advocacy | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| Time zone: GMT | M: +44 (0)7739569514 | >>> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 >>> DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> -- >> >> *Sheetal Kumar* >> Head of Global Engagement and Advocacy | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| Time zone: GMT | M: +44 (0)7739569514 | >> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 >> DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >> >> >> >> > > -- > > *Sheetal Kumar* > Head of Global Engagement and Advocacy | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| Time zone: GMT | M: +44 (0)7739569514 | > PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 > DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| > > > > > -- > Governance mailing list > Governance at lists.igcaucus.org > https://lists.igcaucus.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > -- *Sheetal Kumar* Head of Global Engagement and Advocacy | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| Time zone: GMT | M: +44 (0)7739569514 | PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ocl at gih.com Fri Nov 26 07:01:12 2021 From: ocl at gih.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Olivier_MJ_Cr=c3=a9pin-Leblond?=) Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2021 13:01:12 +0100 Subject: [Governance] Seeking roll back of IGF Leadership Panel In-Reply-To: <01253f6f-a799-528b-b822-cac8389e7065@itforchange.net> References: <01253f6f-a799-528b-b822-cac8389e7065@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <5d730e14-f487-7a3e-940e-54bc5414ccc5@gih.com> Dear Parminder, I understand from your letter with Milton that you are *against* the creation of an IGF Leadership Panel. What I'd like to hear is what you and Milton propose instead. It is easy to be against all sorts of things, but the world isn't static and from the IGF conultations, it is clear that the current status quo is no longer fit for purpose. There needs to be evolution. So what next? Thanks, Olivier Crépin-Leblond (speaking on my own behalf) On 24/11/2021 15:32, parminder via Governance wrote: > > > Dear All, > > Please find enclosed a letter addressed to the UN Secretary General > appealing to him to roll back the decision for an IGF Leadership Panel. > > The letter is co-signed by Dr Milton Mueller, on behalf  of the > Internet Governance Project, Georgia Institute of Technology School of > Public Policy, and Parmider Jeet Singh, for IT for Change, and the > Just Net Coalition. > > The letter is cc-ed to representatives of civil society and technical > community groups requesting them to refrain from sending nominations > for the IGF Leadership Panel, and thus legitimizing it. > > The letter argues how the IGF Leadership Panel militates against the > basic idea, objectives and structure of the IGF, and will weaken it. > > Best, parminder > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jovank at diplomacy.edu Fri Nov 26 08:36:00 2021 From: jovank at diplomacy.edu (Jovan Kurbalija) Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2021 14:36:00 +0100 Subject: [Governance] NOTICE: CSCG nomination process for IGF Leadership Panel In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear colleagues, This discussion is important not only for IGF Leadership Panel, but for the future of the IGF as a whole. Civil society and other non-state actors should be particularly concerned about the future of IGF as it is a rare space in which we can all participate equally. For almost ten years, reform of the IGF has been in the works in various iterations. It is not new. The Leadership Panel should be seen as part of a broader attempts to reform IGF. I think that the Leadership Panel is a timely and relevant steps in the right direction of strengthening the IGF. However, these steps should be taken with necessary caution as outlined in the following text: https://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/5-reasons-and-5-concerns-for-the-igf-leadership-panel/ - 5 REASONS for the IGF Leadership Panel - 1. Policy footprint: increasing the relevance of IGF as a space to address digital policy - 2. Louder voices: amplify IGF messages and expertise - 3. Policy conveyor belt: linking the IGF to other policy spaces - 4. Genuine inclusion: from nominal to substantive participation - 5. Policy efficiency: reducing forum shopping - - 5 CONCERNS for the IGF Leadership Panel - 1. The Leadership Panel is only one aspect of IGF Plus - 2. IGF and Digital Compact - 3. Preserving IGF as a space for vibrant discussions - 4. Avoid capturing by vested interest - 5. Solve terminological confusion - - In sum…. Best regards, Jovan On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 10:52 AM Sheetal Kumar via Governance < governance at lists.igcaucus.org> wrote: > Dear all, > > We did not receive a requisite number of eligible nominations for this > process launched last week. We are therefore unable to proceed with the > nomination process for the Leadership Panel as CSCG. > > While this does not constitute a boycott, we understand that the level of > doubt and concerns around the Leadership Panel may indicate that there > isn't the support required. > > We will continue to follow the process and to demand the transparency and > diversity required in all areas of the IGF, and to work towards > strengthening it in the coming years with the view to realising the true > spirit of the IGF's multistakeholder mission. More on our previous/relevant > position here: > https://www.apc.org/en/pubs/open-letter-interpretation-paragraph-93a-un-secretary-generals-roadmap-digital-cooperation. > There we say "Multistakeholderism, diversity and inclusion should guide any > new structure, building on the IGF legacy thus far and be the basis for > putting the structure in function of shaping the global internet governance > agenda in a way that effectively addresses the persistent, exacerbated and > new challenges derived from the pandemic situation, including the > increasing power of some parts of the industry, in particular the large > technology companies, and the lack of voices from more vulnerable and > marginalised groups." > > We do not want this to be seen as discouragement to anyone planning to > nominate themselves. However, as a network, it is clear that we don't have > the support or interest to continue with this specific nomination process. > > Best > Sheetal and Bruna > > On Fri, 19 Nov 2021 at 16:25, Sheetal Kumar > wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> This is a polite reminder to share your nominations to the CSCG for the >> IGF's leadership panel, as per the process outlined below. We request this >> is done by *COB November 22 *so that we are able to submit by the >> deadline of >> *November 29. * >> >> >> We look forward to receiving your nomination/s. >> Best >> Sheetal >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, 15 Nov 2021 at 13:51, Sheetal Kumar >> wrote: >> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> As you may have seen, the IGF Secretariat has launched the nomination >>> process at the request of the Executive Office of the United Nations >>> Secretary-General for the *inaugural Leadership Panel of the 2022 and >>> 2023 Internet Governance Forum (IGF) cycles* >>> . >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Following several rounds of open consultations, the Leadership Panel is >>> a response to the Secretary-General’s Roadmap for Digital Cooperation >>> , which calls for strengthening of the IGF >>> through, among other aspects, *’’creating a strategic and empowered >>> multi-stakeholder high-level body, building on the experience of the >>> existing multi-stakeholder advisory group, which would address urgent >>> issues, coordinate follow-up action on Forum discussions and relay proposed >>> policy approaches and recommendations from the Forum to the appropriate >>> normative and decision-making forums*.’’ >>> >>> >>> CSCG, and for this process, this includes APC and IGC, will run a >>> nomination process to identify nominees for the two categories: >>> >>> - Two [2] at-large members (distinguished or prominent persons who >>> do not fall under above stakeholder groups) and >>> - Two [2] CEO-level (or deputy-level) representatives from each of >>> the other three stakeholder groups (civil society) >>> >>> Please note, this does not mean we endorse the process or the mechanism >>> itself. We will send a letter with the nominations that clearly reiterates >>> our previous publicly stated positions (such as this Open letter on the >>> interpretation of paragraph 93(a) of the UNSG's Roadmap on Digital >>> Cooperation >>> >>> and this on the future of the IGF >>> on >>> the Leadership Panel/Higher-level MAG >>> ), >>> including the importance of maintaining the MAG's current role and not >>> supplanting it, the importance of diversity and inclusion, transparency etc >>> and make clear that our submission of nominees should not be read as >>> endorsement. >>> >>> >>> We intend that our nominations reflect the above criteria. Please note >>> that to receive a CSCG nomination for the IGF leadership panel you'll need >>> to send us (me and Valeria and Bruna cc'd) the information required on the online >>> form >>> . >>> We request this is done by *COB November 22 *so that we are able to >>> submit by the deadline of >>> *November 29. * >>> >>> >>> We look forward to receiving your nomination/s. >>> Best >>> Sheetal >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> *Sheetal Kumar* >>> Head of Global Engagement and Advocacy | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| Time zone: GMT | M: +44 (0)7739569514 | >>> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 >>> DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> -- >> >> *Sheetal Kumar* >> Head of Global Engagement and Advocacy | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| Time zone: GMT | M: +44 (0)7739569514 | >> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 >> DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >> >> >> >> > > -- > > *Sheetal Kumar* > Head of Global Engagement and Advocacy | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| Time zone: GMT | M: +44 (0)7739569514 | > PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 > DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| > > > > -- > Governance mailing list > Governance at lists.igcaucus.org > https://lists.igcaucus.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch Fri Nov 26 08:40:06 2021 From: Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch (Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch) Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2021 13:40:06 +0000 Subject: [Governance] IGF 2021 Policy Network on Environment & Digitalisation - You're invited! Message-ID: <0be5d6082a534574b9acc85b38d441bc@bakom.admin.ch> Dear all >From Dec 6 to Dec 10, the annual Internet Governance Forum (IGF) takes place (in Katowice, Poland and online). As you know, the IGF is a global multistakeholder platform that facilitates the discussion of public policy issues pertaining to the Internet. This year, I will be especially attentive to the work of the Policy Network on Environment (PNE). The PNE has been focusing on the intersections between environment and digitalisation and the question how we can create a world in which digitalisation is used as a force for the common good. As a first output document, the PNE has been working hard on a draft report that addresses this question and suggests actionable policy recommendations. The dedicated PNE Session where the draft report will be discussed will take place: December 9, 2021 At 13:50 CET On site / online Agenda To participate in the session: 1. Sign up to the IGF (free) 2. Add the PNE Session to your schedule It would be really great to see you there & hear your thoughts on the recommendations we propose. If you're curious, please take a look at the preliminary results linked in this google slide deck. Feel free to share this invite with colleagues who might be interested in this too. Many thanks! Best regards, Jorge - IGF Conference Schedule - More about the PNE -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nnenna75 at gmail.com Fri Nov 26 08:52:17 2021 From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma) Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2021 13:52:17 +0000 Subject: [Governance] NOTICE: CSCG nomination process for IGF Leadership Panel In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks, Jovan, for this apt articulation. You represent my thoughts Best Nnenna On Fri, 26 Nov 2021, 13:36 Jovan Kurbalija via Governance, < governance at lists.igcaucus.org> wrote: > Dear colleagues, > > This discussion is important not only for IGF Leadership Panel, but for > the future of the IGF as a whole. Civil society and other non-state > actors should be particularly concerned about the future of IGF as it is a > rare space in which we can all participate equally. > For almost ten years, reform of the IGF has been in the works in various > iterations. It is not new. > > The Leadership Panel should be seen as part of a broader attempts to > reform IGF. > > > I think that the Leadership Panel is a timely and relevant steps in the > right direction of strengthening the IGF. > > However, these steps should be taken with necessary caution as outlined in > the following text: > https://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/5-reasons-and-5-concerns-for-the-igf-leadership-panel/ > > > > - 5 REASONS for the IGF Leadership Panel > > - 1. Policy footprint: increasing the relevance of IGF as a space > to address digital policy > > - 2. Louder voices: amplify IGF messages and expertise > > - 3. Policy conveyor belt: linking the IGF to other policy spaces > > - 4. Genuine inclusion: from nominal to substantive participation > > - 5. Policy efficiency: reducing forum shopping > > - > - 5 CONCERNS for the IGF Leadership Panel > > - 1. The Leadership Panel is only one aspect of IGF Plus > > - 2. IGF and Digital Compact > > - 3. Preserving IGF as a space for vibrant discussions > > - 4. Avoid capturing by vested interest > > - 5. Solve terminological confusion > > - > - In sum…. > > > > Best regards, > > Jovan > > > On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 10:52 AM Sheetal Kumar via Governance < > governance at lists.igcaucus.org> wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> We did not receive a requisite number of eligible nominations for this >> process launched last week. We are therefore unable to proceed with the >> nomination process for the Leadership Panel as CSCG. >> >> While this does not constitute a boycott, we understand that the level of >> doubt and concerns around the Leadership Panel may indicate that there >> isn't the support required. >> >> We will continue to follow the process and to demand the transparency and >> diversity required in all areas of the IGF, and to work towards >> strengthening it in the coming years with the view to realising the true >> spirit of the IGF's multistakeholder mission. More on our previous/relevant >> position here: >> https://www.apc.org/en/pubs/open-letter-interpretation-paragraph-93a-un-secretary-generals-roadmap-digital-cooperation. >> There we say "Multistakeholderism, diversity and inclusion should guide any >> new structure, building on the IGF legacy thus far and be the basis for >> putting the structure in function of shaping the global internet governance >> agenda in a way that effectively addresses the persistent, exacerbated and >> new challenges derived from the pandemic situation, including the >> increasing power of some parts of the industry, in particular the large >> technology companies, and the lack of voices from more vulnerable and >> marginalised groups." >> >> We do not want this to be seen as discouragement to anyone planning to >> nominate themselves. However, as a network, it is clear that we don't have >> the support or interest to continue with this specific nomination process. >> >> Best >> Sheetal and Bruna >> >> On Fri, 19 Nov 2021 at 16:25, Sheetal Kumar >> wrote: >> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> This is a polite reminder to share your nominations to the CSCG for the >>> IGF's leadership panel, as per the process outlined below. We request this >>> is done by *COB November 22 *so that we are able to submit by the >>> deadline of >>> *November 29. * >>> >>> >>> We look forward to receiving your nomination/s. >>> Best >>> Sheetal >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, 15 Nov 2021 at 13:51, Sheetal Kumar >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Dear all, >>>> >>>> As you may have seen, the IGF Secretariat has launched the nomination >>>> process at the request of the Executive Office of the United Nations >>>> Secretary-General for the *inaugural Leadership Panel of the 2022 and >>>> 2023 Internet Governance Forum (IGF) cycles* >>>> . >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Following several rounds of open consultations, the Leadership Panel is >>>> a response to the Secretary-General’s Roadmap for Digital Cooperation >>>> , which calls for strengthening of the >>>> IGF through, among other aspects, *’’creating a strategic and >>>> empowered multi-stakeholder high-level body, building on the experience of >>>> the existing multi-stakeholder advisory group, which would address urgent >>>> issues, coordinate follow-up action on Forum discussions and relay proposed >>>> policy approaches and recommendations from the Forum to the appropriate >>>> normative and decision-making forums*.’’ >>>> >>>> >>>> CSCG, and for this process, this includes APC and IGC, will run a >>>> nomination process to identify nominees for the two categories: >>>> >>>> - Two [2] at-large members (distinguished or prominent persons who >>>> do not fall under above stakeholder groups) and >>>> - Two [2] CEO-level (or deputy-level) representatives from each of >>>> the other three stakeholder groups (civil society) >>>> >>>> Please note, this does not mean we endorse the process or the mechanism >>>> itself. We will send a letter with the nominations that clearly reiterates >>>> our previous publicly stated positions (such as this Open letter on >>>> the interpretation of paragraph 93(a) of the UNSG's Roadmap on Digital >>>> Cooperation >>>> >>>> and this on the future of the IGF >>>> on >>>> the Leadership Panel/Higher-level MAG >>>> ), >>>> including the importance of maintaining the MAG's current role and not >>>> supplanting it, the importance of diversity and inclusion, transparency etc >>>> and make clear that our submission of nominees should not be read as >>>> endorsement. >>>> >>>> >>>> We intend that our nominations reflect the above criteria. Please note >>>> that to receive a CSCG nomination for the IGF leadership panel you'll need >>>> to send us (me and Valeria and Bruna cc'd) the information required on the online >>>> form >>>> . >>>> We request this is done by *COB November 22 *so that we are able to >>>> submit by the deadline of >>>> *November 29. * >>>> >>>> >>>> We look forward to receiving your nomination/s. >>>> Best >>>> Sheetal >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> *Sheetal Kumar* >>>> Head of Global Engagement and Advocacy | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>>> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| Time zone: GMT | M: +44 (0)7739569514 | >>>> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 >>>> DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> *Sheetal Kumar* >>> Head of Global Engagement and Advocacy | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| Time zone: GMT | M: +44 (0)7739569514 | >>> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 >>> DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> -- >> >> *Sheetal Kumar* >> Head of Global Engagement and Advocacy | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| Time zone: GMT | M: +44 (0)7739569514 | >> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 >> DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >> >> >> >> -- >> Governance mailing list >> Governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> https://lists.igcaucus.org/mailman/listinfo/governance >> > -- > Governance mailing list > Governance at lists.igcaucus.org > https://lists.igcaucus.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anupamagrawal.in at gmail.com Fri Nov 26 12:32:28 2021 From: anupamagrawal.in at gmail.com (Anupam Agrawal) Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2021 23:02:28 +0530 Subject: [Governance] Seeking roll back of IGF Leadership Panel In-Reply-To: <5d730e14-f487-7a3e-940e-54bc5414ccc5@gih.com> References: <01253f6f-a799-528b-b822-cac8389e7065@itforchange.net> <5d730e14-f487-7a3e-940e-54bc5414ccc5@gih.com> Message-ID: +1 Olivier, Not every time an objection will have an alternative but in the given context, it is important to have a rough idea of what it could be if not this. Regards Anupam Agrawal Chair India Internet Foundation *Improving Trust. Building Communities* On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 5:31 PM Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond via Governance < governance at lists.igcaucus.org> wrote: > Dear Parminder, > > I understand from your letter with Milton that you are *against* the > creation of an IGF Leadership Panel. What I'd like to hear is what you and > Milton propose instead. It is easy to be against all sorts of things, but > the world isn't static and from the IGF conultations, it is clear that the > current status quo is no longer fit for purpose. There needs to be > evolution. > So what next? > > Thanks, > > Olivier Crépin-Leblond > (speaking on my own behalf) > > On 24/11/2021 15:32, parminder via Governance wrote: > > > Dear All, > > Please find enclosed a letter addressed to the UN Secretary General > appealing to him to roll back the decision for an IGF Leadership Panel. > > The letter is co-signed by Dr Milton Mueller, on behalf of the Internet > Governance Project, Georgia Institute of Technology School of Public > Policy, and Parmider Jeet Singh, for IT for Change, and the Just Net > Coalition. > > The letter is cc-ed to representatives of civil society and technical > community groups requesting them to refrain from sending nominations for > the IGF Leadership Panel, and thus legitimizing it. > > The letter argues how the IGF Leadership Panel militates against the basic > idea, objectives and structure of the IGF, and will weaken it. > > 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 milton at gatech.edu Fri Nov 26 12:43:20 2021 From: milton at gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L) Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2021 17:43:20 +0000 Subject: [Governance] Fwd: [Internet Policy] Fwd: [WG-Strategy] [At-Large] Seeking roll back of the IGF Leadership Panel In-Reply-To: References: <4bb9c951-bebf-e51a-165c-c2d6f2db39e9@gmail.com> <26fb4b56-565d-15c3-f854-dbe4fea71b7f@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Oddly, I never saw Wolfgang's response on this list, only in the reply function of others. But I find his arguments unconvincing and stand by the letter. Here's why (and thanks to Suresh for summarizing the two key points): > 1. The decision and policy making has moved into several industry / > inter government / multi stakeholder groups, some formed for the purpose > while others predate IGF. Key stakeholders from various organisations go > there rather than come to the IGF. So a bridge between igf and these > organisations is needed. This comment shows a surprising lack of awareness of the total IG ecosystem. First, all decisions and policy making were ALWAYS in other organizations, they have not "moved" anywhere. ICANN does DNS governance, RIRs do IP address governance, CA/B does WebPKI, national governments do legislation and regulation, Intergovernmental orgs do formal treaties and/or norms, etc., etc. As for the "bridge" idea, arbitrarily designating a small group of "leaders" to be the official "bridge" between IGF and the rest of the IG institutions has it all backwards. It's the attitudes and operations of _external_ stakeholders that matter, not internal reorganizations of IGF. The externals are the ones who might bring ideas and proposals into it. And that also makes it clear that such an act constitutes a sharing of authority. Unless powerful external stakeholders are pressured by their own constituencies to do so, they won't bring their issues to IGF in a meaningful way. As an example, imagine the European Commission bringing their ideas for AI regulation to the IGF first, and getting widespread commentary and reaction from a global community before writing it. For that to happen, we don't need an elite group we need a commitment on the part of the EC to gain more global consensus and input. In making such a move, the EC would also be agreeing to limit its unilateral authority, its sovereignty if you will, by seeking consensus from outside its jurisdiction. No one but the EC is in a position to make that happen. No internal reorganization of the IGF is going to make that happen, certainly not the designation of a small, co-optable group of "leaders." > Recruiting senior and experienced people who have the contacts, > the background and the experience of communicating to government, > industry and civil society leaders is necessary. Again, if those people see no gain or benefit or legitimacy to be gained by participating in IGF, no Leadership Panel is going to fix that. All this boils down to the same problem: which people, and which stakeholder groups, see in the IGF an opportunity to further their interests via open, non-binding discussion? If, currently, "senior and experience people with contacts," etc don't participate in IGF, then it is because they do not see it as critical to furthering their interests. Designating a special group constitutes a bridge to nowhere if that remains the case. The impetus for broader and more serious participation in IGF needs to come from stakeholders outside the IGF, not from hierarchical reorganizations within IGF. > The ability to do this is > however not automatically conferred by rank alone so the insistence on > appointing only C suite officers or their equivalents is puzzling. Smart observation. However, ask yourself why they did insist on that. It's a status-based stratification process that undermines the nature of IGF as an open, multistakeholder discussion forum. I reiterate my appeal to not participate in the nomination process so as to not confer a false legitimacy on an ill-conceived idea. I know it's tempting for people seeking status and titles, but think of the broader public interest. MM ________________________________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From milton at gatech.edu Fri Nov 26 13:28:47 2021 From: milton at gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L) Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2021 18:28:47 +0000 Subject: [Governance] Seeking roll back of IGF Leadership Panel In-Reply-To: <5d730e14-f487-7a3e-940e-54bc5414ccc5@gih.com> References: <01253f6f-a799-528b-b822-cac8389e7065@itforchange.net> <5d730e14-f487-7a3e-940e-54bc5414ccc5@gih.com> Message-ID: Olivier: I don't agree with the premise that because the UN SG's office proposed something that I need to have an alternative proposal. I think the more fundamental issue we are debating is whether the IGF serves a useful function, under its current parameters (nonbinding, open, ms discussion forum). My answer is yes, and my most basic alternative is to stop trying to turn it into something else, via "high-levelism." The next question is what can be done to strengthen it? Here is a simple program 1. Confine discussions to actual global internet governance issues. Sorry, folks, climate change is important but it's not IG 2. Start doing something meaningful with IGF main sessions. Instead of gigantic panels full of anodyne, inoffensive statements, have focused debates in which real policy alternatives are debated by people who have real standing, and make them interact meaningfully with the broader set of participants 3. Don't shy away from geopolitical debates involving state actors. That would be a good start. Now when you say, "the current status quo is not fit for purpose" please tell me what purpose you have in mind. --MM ________________________________ From: Governance on behalf of Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond via Governance Sent: Friday, November 26, 2021 7:01 AM To: parminder ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [Governance] Seeking roll back of IGF Leadership Panel Dear Parminder, I understand from your letter with Milton that you are *against* the creation of an IGF Leadership Panel. What I'd like to hear is what you and Milton propose instead. It is easy to be against all sorts of things, but the world isn't static and from the IGF conultations, it is clear that the current status quo is no longer fit for purpose. There needs to be evolution. So what next? Thanks, Olivier Crépin-Leblond (speaking on my own behalf) On 24/11/2021 15:32, parminder via Governance wrote: Dear All, Please find enclosed a letter addressed to the UN Secretary General appealing to him to roll back the decision for an IGF Leadership Panel. The letter is co-signed by Dr Milton Mueller, on behalf of the Internet Governance Project, Georgia Institute of Technology School of Public Policy, and Parmider Jeet Singh, for IT for Change, and the Just Net Coalition. The letter is cc-ed to representatives of civil society and technical community groups requesting them to refrain from sending nominations for the IGF Leadership Panel, and thus legitimizing it. The letter argues how the IGF Leadership Panel militates against the basic idea, objectives and structure of the IGF, and will weaken it. Best, parminder -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From suresh at hserus.net Fri Nov 26 17:19:21 2021 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2021 22:19:21 +0000 Subject: [Governance] Fwd: [Internet Policy] Fwd: [WG-Strategy] [At-Large] Seeking roll back of the IGF Leadership Panel In-Reply-To: References: <4bb9c951-bebf-e51a-165c-c2d6f2db39e9@gmail.com> <26fb4b56-565d-15c3-f854-dbe4fea71b7f@itforchange.net> Message-ID: When I said moved there I was thinking more of new policy or operational groups that continue to be spun off from existing ones. None of this has moved from the igf obviously. All I’m saying is that there is a need for active outreach from the igf as none of the relevant stakeholders from these groups are coming over. This outreach need not necessarily be made only by a committee arbitrarily created by the SG. But outreach needs to be done. --srs ________________________________ From: Mueller, Milton L Sent: Friday, November 26, 2021 11:13:20 PM To: parminder ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; At-Large Worldwide ; Suresh Ramasubramanian Subject: Re: [Governance] Fwd: [Internet Policy] Fwd: [WG-Strategy] [At-Large] Seeking roll back of the IGF Leadership Panel Oddly, I never saw Wolfgang's response on this list, only in the reply function of others. But I find his arguments unconvincing and stand by the letter. Here's why (and thanks to Suresh for summarizing the two key points): > 1. The decision and policy making has moved into several industry / > inter government / multi stakeholder groups, some formed for the purpose > while others predate IGF. Key stakeholders from various organisations go > there rather than come to the IGF. So a bridge between igf and these > organisations is needed. This comment shows a surprising lack of awareness of the total IG ecosystem. First, all decisions and policy making were ALWAYS in other organizations, they have not "moved" anywhere. ICANN does DNS governance, RIRs do IP address governance, CA/B does WebPKI, national governments do legislation and regulation, Intergovernmental orgs do formal treaties and/or norms, etc., etc. As for the "bridge" idea, arbitrarily designating a small group of "leaders" to be the official "bridge" between IGF and the rest of the IG institutions has it all backwards. It's the attitudes and operations of _external_ stakeholders that matter, not internal reorganizations of IGF. The externals are the ones who might bring ideas and proposals into it. And that also makes it clear that such an act constitutes a sharing of authority. Unless powerful external stakeholders are pressured by their own constituencies to do so, they won't bring their issues to IGF in a meaningful way. As an example, imagine the European Commission bringing their ideas for AI regulation to the IGF first, and getting widespread commentary and reaction from a global community before writing it. For that to happen, we don't need an elite group we need a commitment on the part of the EC to gain more global consensus and input. In making such a move, the EC would also be agreeing to limit its unilateral authority, its sovereignty if you will, by seeking consensus from outside its jurisdiction. No one but the EC is in a position to make that happen. No internal reorganization of the IGF is going to make that happen, certainly not the designation of a small, co-optable group of "leaders." > Recruiting senior and experienced people who have the contacts, > the background and the experience of communicating to government, > industry and civil society leaders is necessary. Again, if those people see no gain or benefit or legitimacy to be gained by participating in IGF, no Leadership Panel is going to fix that. All this boils down to the same problem: which people, and which stakeholder groups, see in the IGF an opportunity to further their interests via open, non-binding discussion? If, currently, "senior and experience people with contacts," etc don't participate in IGF, then it is because they do not see it as critical to furthering their interests. Designating a special group constitutes a bridge to nowhere if that remains the case. The impetus for broader and more serious participation in IGF needs to come from stakeholders outside the IGF, not from hierarchical reorganizations within IGF. > The ability to do this is > however not automatically conferred by rank alone so the insistence on > appointing only C suite officers or their equivalents is puzzling. Smart observation. However, ask yourself why they did insist on that. It's a status-based stratification process that undermines the nature of IGF as an open, multistakeholder discussion forum. I reiterate my appeal to not participate in the nomination process so as to not confer a false legitimacy on an ill-conceived idea. I know it's tempting for people seeking status and titles, but think of the broader public interest. MM ________________________________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Nov 26 23:35:18 2021 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2021 10:05:18 +0530 Subject: [Governance] Fwd: [Internet Policy] Seeking roll back of the IGF Leadership Panel In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <75fb60fc-b3fd-6720-533e-2551a47bf47f@itforchange.net> -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: [Internet Policy] Seeking roll back of the IGF Leadership Panel Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2021 10:02:55 +0530 From: parminder To: cdel at firsthand.net CC: internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org On 25/11/21 7:56 pm, Christian de Larrinaga wrote: > does anyone have a handy link to the UN decision and process? The UN decision is described here , but the process is not provided. The IGF MAG/ sect was asked to do a public consultation on what should be done. An overwhelming number of responses did not want the kind of structure that has now been set up, the IGF Leadership Panel (LP(, .. See here the responses to the consultation . And here a summary . And here is the ISOC's response which is especially clear it does not want any such structure. To quote it: "However, as we have indicated in previous contributions to the UN HLPDC process, ISOC is not convinced that a new higher-level body of representatives needs to be established." > If this is a "firm" decision it goes  against  advice from what seemed > a strong consensus I noted at the UK IGF steering team and I expect > other many other groups. Indeed, just yesterday a nomination process for the proposed LP set up by some civil society groups (my group boycotted it) collapsed due to lack of interest from civil society people and groups. What does all this say... I*t is clear that the LP decision is NOT supported by an overwhelming majority of civil society and technical community groups and people.* The question then is, for a decision that will be so important to the future of the (much loved) IGF, and global digital governance, *why cant civil society and technical community and ISOC just write to the UN SG that they are dismayed about the LP decision, and that it goes against what came out of the 'public consultations'* , and that the decision be rolled back. *The least they can do is to not participate in the nomination process - -thus denying the LP any legitimacy ... This is how stakeholder and people's democratic power is exercised from below.* This is simply and exactly what Milton's and my letter does, which has been put to such intense criticism and questioning here... I do not understand; are we to just accept and go along with every decision of the UN SG about the IGF and global digital gov architecture, without even protesting and questioning it. *What is the point of doing a public consultation when the powers-that-be were to then go against the outcomes of the consultation*, and do as they wish. This is what I mean when I say that the civil society and technical community, which, in their democratic and policy influencing role, are tasked to 'speak to power' have unfortunately become status quo ist, and meek. People seem more worried about their own location within 'the system', and their prospects in it, rather looking out for the interests of the public, and their constituencies, and representing and voicing them. We appeal to civil society people/ groups, tech community people/ groups including the ISOC to not associate with the nomination process, which gives legitimacy to the UN SG's decision to make a LP, which is inappropriate both in substance and process. If YOU remain silent and say nothing now, and just go along, you lose your stakeholder/ representative power, and will be handed down more such decisions. Your constituents and the public, as well as history, will judge you very poorly for it. In this manner, it is YOU who *weakens multistakeholder participation and power by being cowed down*. parminder PS: All this talk of 'what is the alternative' is very distractive... We have a clear problem here, and our discussions are around that clear problem. An invitation to open up all the deep contestations on how global digital governance should actually be going forward would achieve just one purpose here --  cloud and bury this specific issue that we face right now. Having said that, I have never been amiss on giving alternatives.. I give full bodied ones almost every six months on these elists, and have been doing it for years.. Sure, I'd do it again. But cant allow that (legitimately) expansive, complicated and often divisive discussion to bury this important specific thing we face now. So pl give your views on this thing, rather than raise all kinds of distractions. > > > On Wed 24 Nov 2021 at 14:34, parminder via InternetPolicy > wrote: > > >> Dear All, >> >> Please find enclosed a letter addressed to the UN Secretary General >> appealing to him to roll back the decision for an IGF Leadership Panel. >> >> The letter is co-signed by Dr Milton Mueller, on behalf  of the Internet >> Governance Project, Georgia Institute of Technology School of Public >> Policy, and Parmider Jeet Singh, for IT for Change, and the Just Net >> Coalition. >> >> It is cc-ed to representatives of civil society and technical community >> groups requesting them to refrain from sending nominations for the IGF >> Leadership Panel, and thus legitimizing it. >> >> The letter argues how the IGF Leadership Panel militates against the >> basic idea, objectives and structure of the IGF, and will weaken it. >> >> Best, parminder > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joly at punkcast.com Sat Nov 27 00:06:13 2021 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2021 00:06:13 -0500 Subject: [Governance] WEBCAST TODAY: ISOC Hyderabad Webinar on Community Networks In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Finally! The rescheduled version of this event is about to start. real time text https://bit.ly/3xsVVtA ISOC Live posted: "On Sunday 10th October 2021 at 10:00-10:45 IST (00:30-01:15 UTC) the Internet Society India Hyderabad Chapter will host a webinar on Community Networks. Presenter Naveed Haq will explain how people come together to build and maintain the necessary infrast" [image: livestream] On *Sunday 10th October 2021* at *10:00-10:45 IST* (00:30-01:15 UTC) the *Internet Society India Hyderabad Chapter * will host a webinar on *Community Networks *. Presenter *Naveed Haq * will explain how people come together to build and maintain the necessary infrastructure for Internet connection. *Internet by the people, for the people*. *SPEAKER* *Naveed Ul Haq*, Asia-Pacific Regional Director for Infrastructure and Connectivity, *HOST* *K Mohan Raidu*, President, ISOC Hyderabad *LIVESTREAM http://livestream.com/internetsociety/isoc-hyd-cn * *PARTICIPATE VIA MEET https://meet.google.com/gnb-ghki-ipk * *REAL TIME TEXT (*see *ISOC.LIVE )* *TWITTER #CommunityNetworks #isochyderabad @NaveedHaq @ISOC_Community @isocapac #GrowInternet #SwitchItOn* *SIMULCASTS* *https://www.pscp.tv/ISOC_Live/ * *https://www.twitch.tv/isoclive * *https://www.facebook.com/InternetSociety/live * *https://www.facebook.com/isocasiapacific/live * *ARCHIVE* *https://archive.org/details/isoc-hyd-cn * *IMAGE* Suusamyr Net, Kyrgyzstan, 2018 by Internet Society / Nyani Quarmyne / Panos Pictures *Permalink* https://isoc.live/14629/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ocl at gih.com Sat Nov 27 05:36:04 2021 From: ocl at gih.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Olivier_MJ_Cr=c3=a9pin-Leblond?=) Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2021 11:36:04 +0100 Subject: [Governance] Seeking roll back of IGF Leadership Panel In-Reply-To: References: <01253f6f-a799-528b-b822-cac8389e7065@itforchange.net> <5d730e14-f487-7a3e-940e-54bc5414ccc5@gih.com> Message-ID: Dear Milton, thank you for your kind response and thanks for the suggestions you make in improving the IGF, which I'll let others comment on, if need be. To the question "the current status quo is no fit for purpose", the current IGF mandate was pretty much a result of policies stemming from a state of the Internet in 2005. We are in 2021, 16 years later. The world is a different place and the Internet is a very different animal than what it was back in 2005. Let's stop kidding ourselves that we live in 2005 and open our eyes to 2021 and its geopolitical, societal and technical challenges. We still live in a world where there is a huge gap between the Internet haves and the have nots, and that gap is widening, and might be set to widen further as new technologies like 5G and the ubiquitous IoT get rolled out in richer parts of the world. We have a climate emergency on our hands and a significant part of it is caused by the very network that we love and use daily. We have a handful of companies with a budget larger than a small country that have no checks and balances in place regarding the privacy of data and whose business model is based on tracking you and me and everyone else. We have a world where if you are not online, you are nothing, which means that some complete cultures are bound to disappear altogether if they do not have an online presence. I know it's a mixed bag of slushy stuff that strictly speaking you could say has nothing to do with the Internet, but these issues are real and the Internet's impact is core to many of these issues. In my opinion, the current status quo of having a discussion forum and nothing else around it to action the discussions is no longer fit for purpose - it's a lot of money spent to write more books and papers, but if there is no clear path on how to action the discussions, it is money wasted for the happy few that benefit from publishing these papers, at the expense of the wider world. I am not saying whether an IGF Leadership Panel is a good or a bad thing, but if you don't like the proposal, then propose something else because one thing is sure: if the IGF continues being a talk shop with no actual results or even suggestions coming out of it that can be picked up using a well thought out process, in a multistakeholder manner, for further study or action, some major players in the multistakeholder model will walk away and turn to other fora, perhaps multilateral fora, letting the multistakeholder model of governance be a pipe dream of civil society that will remain by itself in the IGF. As for the "purpose", I interpret it as the "Internet Governance Forum", where civil society, governments, the private sector, the technical community and any other actors come together to discuss Internet Governance issues, leading to a well thought out future of the Internet that includes input from all players and not only a single actor. If you want the Internet of the future to reflect consensus between all parties, that is the way to do it. If you'd rather engage in poltical wars and arguments between stakeholder groups, then let the talking continue and leave the development to government and the private sector: together I am sure they have a great plan for all of us. Kindest regards, Olivier On 26/11/2021 19:28, Mueller, Milton L wrote: > Olivier: > I don't agree with the premise that because the UN SG's office > proposed something that I need to have an alternative proposal. I > think the more fundamental issue we are debating is whether the IGF > serves a useful function, under its current parameters (nonbinding, > open, ms discussion forum). My answer is yes, and my most basic > alternative is to stop trying to turn it into something else, via > "high-levelism." > > The next question is what can be done to strengthen it? Here is a > simple program > > 1. Confine discussions to actual global internet governance issues. > Sorry, folks, climate change is important but it's not IG > 2. Start doing something meaningful with IGF main sessions. Instead > of gigantic panels full of anodyne, inoffensive statements, have > focused debates in which real policy alternatives are debated by > people who have real standing, and make them interact meaningfully > with the broader set of participants > 3. Don't shy away from geopolitical debates involving state actors. > > That would be a good start. > Now when you say, "the current status quo is not fit for purpose" > please tell me what purpose you have in mind. > > --MM > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* Governance on behalf > of Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond via Governance > > *Sent:* Friday, November 26, 2021 7:01 AM > *To:* parminder ; > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > *Subject:* Re: [Governance] Seeking roll back of IGF Leadership Panel > Dear Parminder, > > I understand from your letter with Milton that you are *against* the > creation of an IGF Leadership Panel. What I'd like to hear is what you > and Milton propose instead. It is easy to be against all sorts of > things, but the world isn't static and from the IGF conultations, it > is clear that the current status quo is no longer fit for purpose. > There needs to be evolution. > So what next? > > Thanks, > > Olivier Crépin-Leblond > (speaking on my own behalf) > > On 24/11/2021 15:32, parminder via Governance wrote: >> >> >> Dear All, >> >> Please find enclosed a letter addressed to the UN Secretary General >> appealing to him to roll back the decision for an IGF Leadership Panel. >> >> The letter is co-signed by Dr Milton Mueller, on behalf  of the >> Internet Governance Project, Georgia Institute of Technology School >> of Public Policy, and Parmider Jeet Singh, for IT for Change, and the >> Just Net Coalition. >> >> The letter is cc-ed to representatives of civil society and technical >> community groups requesting them to refrain from sending nominations >> for the IGF Leadership Panel, and thus legitimizing it. >> >> The letter argues how the IGF Leadership Panel militates against the >> basic idea, objectives and structure of the IGF, and will weaken it. >> >> Best, parminder >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Nov 27 08:22:17 2021 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2021 18:52:17 +0530 Subject: [Governance] Seeking roll back of IGF Leadership Panel In-Reply-To: References: <01253f6f-a799-528b-b822-cac8389e7065@itforchange.net> <5d730e14-f487-7a3e-940e-54bc5414ccc5@gih.com> Message-ID: <3fe75e8c-9a1c-429f-5552-84bb5fc7b34f@itforchange.net> Olivier, >From the below I understand that you are greatly bothered about the huge number of global digital policy issues that need urgent policy action. I fully agree with you. But you dont tell us how, as per your thinking, policy action will take place on them. This is especially ironical for someone who asks others to provide their precise alternative/ model.  I understand that your email is basically in support of the IGF Leadership Panel. But your 3 para email nowhere tells us what you think the LP should and would do, and how that solves the the key policy challenges you describe... Isnt that important to tell,  if you support the LP. The language that comes the nearest in your email is.... "if the IGF continues being a talk shop with no actual results or even suggestions coming out of it that can be picked up using a well thought out process, in a multistakeholder manner..." So, you think the LP will pick up actual results or suggestions coming out the IGF? Very fine... I had asked Wolfgang on the ISOC list to illustrate this with an example or two, how the process actually works. He did not do it, would you please .. Moment you begin to actually fill in detail into this good-sounding message-conveying thing, youd realise the immense problems with it and/ or non plausibility of it .. This being a serious discussions on the future of IG ecosystem, lets get done to its real processes and implications ... Sentences like "I am not saying whether an IGF Leadership Panel is a good or a bad thing" -- are completely unhelpful..... That is what we are facing right now, and we need to decide if it is a good idea or a bad one. Funny, that hardly anyone is ready to say outright that LP is a good idea.... I mean, it must be a really really bad idea, whereby even those criticizing the criticism of LP are not ready to vouchsafe for it. Later you say, ". If you want the Internet of the future to reflect consensus between all parties, that is the way to do it." What is the way? Setting up an LP ? Interesting, Can you help us understand how the LP will create / help consensus between all parties. This seem to be different from relaying messages ... I did not read it as a function of LP to create/ help consensus, but you seem to think it would. Thanks parminder On 27/11/21 4:06 pm, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond wrote: > Dear Milton, > > thank you for your kind response and thanks for the suggestions you > make in improving the IGF, which I'll let others comment on, if need be. > To the question "the current status quo is no fit for purpose", the > current IGF mandate was pretty much a result of policies stemming from > a state of the Internet in 2005. We are in 2021, 16 years later. The > world is a different place and the Internet is a very different animal > than what it was back in 2005. Let's stop kidding ourselves that we > live in 2005 and open our eyes to 2021 and its geopolitical, societal > and technical challenges. We still live in a world where there is a > huge gap between the Internet haves and the have nots, and that gap is > widening, and might be set to widen further as new technologies like > 5G and the ubiquitous IoT get rolled out in richer parts of the world. > We have a climate emergency on our hands and a significant part of it > is caused by the very network that we love and use daily. We have a > handful of companies with a budget larger than a small country that > have no checks and balances in place regarding the privacy of data and > whose business model is based on tracking you and me and everyone > else. We have a world where if you are not online, you are nothing, > which means that some complete cultures are bound to disappear > altogether if they do not have an online presence. I know it's a mixed > bag of slushy stuff that strictly speaking you could say has nothing > to do with the Internet, but these issues are real and the Internet's > impact is core to many of these issues. > > In my opinion, the current status quo of having a discussion forum and > nothing else around it to action the discussions is no longer fit for > purpose - it's a lot of money spent to write more books and papers, > but if there is no clear path on how to action the discussions, it is > money wasted for the happy few that benefit from publishing these > papers, at the expense of the wider world. I am not saying whether an > IGF Leadership Panel is a good or a bad thing, but if you don't like > the proposal, then propose something else because one thing is sure: > if the IGF continues being a talk shop with no actual results or even > suggestions coming out of it that can be picked up using a well > thought out process, in a multistakeholder manner, for further study > or action, some major players in the multistakeholder model will walk > away and turn to other fora, perhaps multilateral fora, letting the > multistakeholder model of governance be a pipe dream of civil society > that will remain by itself in the IGF. > > As for the "purpose", I interpret it as the "Internet Governance > Forum", where civil society, governments, the private sector, the > technical community and any other actors come together to discuss > Internet Governance issues, leading to a well thought out future of > the Internet that includes input from all players and not only a > single actor. If you want the Internet of the future to reflect > consensus between all parties, that is the way to do it. If you'd > rather engage in poltical wars and arguments between stakeholder > groups, then let the talking continue and leave the development to > government and the private sector: together I am sure they have a > great plan for all of us. > > Kindest regards, > > Olivier > > On 26/11/2021 19:28, Mueller, Milton L wrote: >> Olivier: >> I don't agree with the premise that because the UN SG's office >> proposed something that I need to have an alternative proposal. I >> think the more fundamental issue we are debating is whether the IGF >> serves a useful function, under its current parameters (nonbinding, >> open, ms discussion forum). My answer is yes, and my most basic >> alternative is to stop trying to turn it into something else, via >> "high-levelism." >> >> The next question is what can be done to strengthen it? Here is a >> simple program >> >> 1. Confine discussions to actual global internet governance issues. >> Sorry, folks, climate change is important but it's not IG >> 2. Start doing something meaningful with IGF main sessions. Instead >> of gigantic panels full of anodyne, inoffensive statements, have >> focused debates in which real policy alternatives are debated by >> people who have real standing, and make them interact >> meaningfully with the broader set of participants >> 3. Don't shy away from geopolitical debates involving state actors. >> >> That would be a good start. >> Now when you say, "the current status quo is not fit for purpose" >> please tell me what purpose you have in mind. >> >> --MM >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> *From:* Governance on behalf >> of Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond via Governance >> >> *Sent:* Friday, November 26, 2021 7:01 AM >> *To:* parminder ; >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> *Subject:* Re: [Governance] Seeking roll back of IGF Leadership Panel >>   >> Dear Parminder, >> >> I understand from your letter with Milton that you are *against* the >> creation of an IGF Leadership Panel. What I'd like to hear is what >> you and Milton propose instead. It is easy to be against all sorts of >> things, but the world isn't static and from the IGF conultations, it >> is clear that the current status quo is no longer fit for purpose. >> There needs to be evolution. >> So what next? >> >> Thanks, >> >> Olivier Crépin-Leblond >> (speaking on my own behalf) >> >> On 24/11/2021 15:32, parminder via Governance wrote: >>> >>> >>> Dear All, >>> >>> Please find enclosed a letter addressed to the UN Secretary General >>> appealing to him to roll back the decision for an IGF Leadership Panel. >>> >>> The letter is co-signed by Dr Milton Mueller, on behalf  of the >>> Internet Governance Project, Georgia Institute of Technology School >>> of Public Policy, and Parmider Jeet Singh, for IT for Change, and >>> the Just Net Coalition. >>> >>> The letter is cc-ed to representatives of civil society and >>> technical community groups requesting them to refrain from sending >>> nominations for the IGF Leadership Panel, and thus legitimizing it. >>> >>> The letter argues how the IGF Leadership Panel militates against the >>> basic idea, objectives and structure of the IGF, and will weaken it. >>> >>> Best, parminder >>> >>> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ocl at gih.com Sat Nov 27 08:44:22 2021 From: ocl at gih.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Olivier_MJ_Cr=c3=a9pin-Leblond?=) Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2021 14:44:22 +0100 Subject: [Governance] Seeking roll back of IGF Leadership Panel In-Reply-To: <3fe75e8c-9a1c-429f-5552-84bb5fc7b34f@itforchange.net> References: <01253f6f-a799-528b-b822-cac8389e7065@itforchange.net> <5d730e14-f487-7a3e-940e-54bc5414ccc5@gih.com> <3fe75e8c-9a1c-429f-5552-84bb5fc7b34f@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <547de800-448b-694e-cc74-3003da652191@gih.com> Dear Parminder, thanks for your email. I have reservations about the LP, particularly the extent to which stakeholders participating in the LP will be equal... or not. At the moment, I have doubts that they will be. But I admit I have not spent the time it takes to be an expert in exactly how it will work and perhaps there will be room to make stakeholders equal? I have found reservations coming from other people too, including the most vehement ones coming from Milton and you who absolutely reject it. Fine - so perhaps the LP is *not* the answer to building the Internet of the future in a multistakeholder manner. So what do you propose instead? The gist of my comment is that if you are bold enough to launch a campaign against the LP then surely you must have a constructive counter-proposal to make. That's all I am saying. Kindest regards, Olivier On 27/11/2021 14:22, parminder wrote: > > Olivier, > > From the below I understand that you are greatly bothered about the > huge number of global digital policy issues that need urgent policy > action. I fully agree with you. But you dont tell us how, as per your > thinking, policy action will take place on them. This is especially > ironical for someone who asks others to provide their precise > alternative/ model. > > >  I understand that your email is basically in support of the IGF > Leadership Panel. But your 3 para email nowhere tells us what you > think the LP should and would do, and how that solves the the key > policy challenges you describe... Isnt that important to tell,  if you > support the LP. > > > The language that comes the nearest in your email is.... "if the IGF > continues being a talk shop with no actual results or even suggestions > coming out of it that can be picked up using a well thought out > process, in a multistakeholder manner..." > > > So, you think the LP will pick up actual results or suggestions coming > out the IGF? > > > Very fine... I had asked Wolfgang on the ISOC list to illustrate this > with an example or two, how the process actually works. He did not do > it, would you please .. Moment you begin to actually fill in detail > into this good-sounding message-conveying thing, youd realise the > immense problems with it and/ or non plausibility of it .. This being > a serious discussions on the future of IG ecosystem, lets get done to > its real processes and implications ... > > > Sentences like "I am not saying whether an IGF Leadership Panel is a > good or a bad thing" -- are completely unhelpful..... That is what we > are facing right now, and we need to decide if it is a good idea or a > bad one. Funny, that hardly anyone is ready to say outright that LP is > a good idea.... I mean, it must be a really really bad idea, whereby > even those criticizing the criticism of LP are not ready to vouchsafe > for it. > > > Later you say, ". If you want the Internet of the future to reflect > consensus between all parties, that is the way to do it." > > > What is the way? Setting up an LP ? Interesting, Can you help us > understand how the LP will create / help consensus between all parties. > > > This seem to be different from relaying messages ... I did not read it > as a function of LP to create/ help consensus, but you seem to think > it would. > > > Thanks > > parminder > > > On 27/11/21 4:06 pm, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond wrote: >> Dear Milton, >> >> thank you for your kind response and thanks for the suggestions you >> make in improving the IGF, which I'll let others comment on, if need be. >> To the question "the current status quo is no fit for purpose", the >> current IGF mandate was pretty much a result of policies stemming >> from a state of the Internet in 2005. We are in 2021, 16 years later. >> The world is a different place and the Internet is a very different >> animal than what it was back in 2005. Let's stop kidding ourselves >> that we live in 2005 and open our eyes to 2021 and its geopolitical, >> societal and technical challenges. We still live in a world where >> there is a huge gap between the Internet haves and the have nots, and >> that gap is widening, and might be set to widen further as new >> technologies like 5G and the ubiquitous IoT get rolled out in richer >> parts of the world. We have a climate emergency on our hands and a >> significant part of it is caused by the very network that we love and >> use daily. We have a handful of companies with a budget larger than a >> small country that have no checks and balances in place regarding the >> privacy of data and whose business model is based on tracking you and >> me and everyone else. We have a world where if you are not online, >> you are nothing, which means that some complete cultures are bound to >> disappear altogether if they do not have an online presence. I know >> it's a mixed bag of slushy stuff that strictly speaking you could say >> has nothing to do with the Internet, but these issues are real and >> the Internet's impact is core to many of these issues. >> >> In my opinion, the current status quo of having a discussion forum >> and nothing else around it to action the discussions is no longer fit >> for purpose - it's a lot of money spent to write more books and >> papers, but if there is no clear path on how to action the >> discussions, it is money wasted for the happy few that benefit from >> publishing these papers, at the expense of the wider world. I am not >> saying whether an IGF Leadership Panel is a good or a bad thing, but >> if you don't like the proposal, then propose something else because >> one thing is sure: if the IGF continues being a talk shop with no >> actual results or even suggestions coming out of it that can be >> picked up using a well thought out process, in a multistakeholder >> manner, for further study or action, some major players in the >> multistakeholder model will walk away and turn to other fora, perhaps >> multilateral fora, letting the multistakeholder model of governance >> be a pipe dream of civil society that will remain by itself in the IGF. >> >> As for the "purpose", I interpret it as the "Internet Governance >> Forum", where civil society, governments, the private sector, the >> technical community and any other actors come together to discuss >> Internet Governance issues, leading to a well thought out future of >> the Internet that includes input from all players and not only a >> single actor. If you want the Internet of the future to reflect >> consensus between all parties, that is the way to do it. If you'd >> rather engage in poltical wars and arguments between stakeholder >> groups, then let the talking continue and leave the development to >> government and the private sector: together I am sure they have a >> great plan for all of us. >> >> Kindest regards, >> >> Olivier >> >> On 26/11/2021 19:28, Mueller, Milton L wrote: >>> Olivier: >>> I don't agree with the premise that because the UN SG's office >>> proposed something that I need to have an alternative proposal. I >>> think the more fundamental issue we are debating is whether the IGF >>> serves a useful function, under its current parameters (nonbinding, >>> open, ms discussion forum). My answer is yes, and my most basic >>> alternative is to stop trying to turn it into something else, via >>> "high-levelism." >>> >>> The next question is what can be done to strengthen it? Here is a >>> simple program >>> >>> 1. Confine discussions to actual global internet governance issues. >>> Sorry, folks, climate change is important but it's not IG >>> 2. Start doing something meaningful with IGF main sessions. Instead >>> of gigantic panels full of anodyne, inoffensive statements, have >>> focused debates in which real policy alternatives are debated by >>> people who have real standing, and make them interact >>> meaningfully with the broader set of participants >>> 3. Don't shy away from geopolitical debates involving state actors. >>> >>> That would be a good start. >>> Now when you say, "the current status quo is not fit for purpose" >>> please tell me what purpose you have in mind. >>> >>> --MM >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> *From:* Governance on behalf >>> of Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond via Governance >>> >>> *Sent:* Friday, November 26, 2021 7:01 AM >>> *To:* parminder ; >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> *Subject:* Re: [Governance] Seeking roll back of IGF Leadership Panel >>> Dear Parminder, >>> >>> I understand from your letter with Milton that you are *against* the >>> creation of an IGF Leadership Panel. What I'd like to hear is what >>> you and Milton propose instead. It is easy to be against all sorts >>> of things, but the world isn't static and from the IGF conultations, >>> it is clear that the current status quo is no longer fit for >>> purpose. There needs to be evolution. >>> So what next? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Olivier Crépin-Leblond >>> (speaking on my own behalf) >>> >>> On 24/11/2021 15:32, parminder via Governance wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Dear All, >>>> >>>> Please find enclosed a letter addressed to the UN Secretary General >>>> appealing to him to roll back the decision for an IGF Leadership >>>> Panel. >>>> >>>> The letter is co-signed by Dr Milton Mueller, on behalf  of the >>>> Internet Governance Project, Georgia Institute of Technology School >>>> of Public Policy, and Parmider Jeet Singh, for IT for Change, and >>>> the Just Net Coalition. >>>> >>>> The letter is cc-ed to representatives of civil society and >>>> technical community groups requesting them to refrain from sending >>>> nominations for the IGF Leadership Panel, and thus legitimizing it. >>>> >>>> The letter argues how the IGF Leadership Panel militates against >>>> the basic idea, objectives and structure of the IGF, and will >>>> weaken it. >>>> >>>> Best, parminder >>>> >>>> >>> >> -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ocl at gih.com Sat Nov 27 08:54:57 2021 From: ocl at gih.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Olivier_MJ_Cr=c3=a9pin-Leblond?=) Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2021 14:54:57 +0100 Subject: [Governance] Seeking roll back of IGF Leadership Panel In-Reply-To: <547de800-448b-694e-cc74-3003da652191@gih.com> References: <01253f6f-a799-528b-b822-cac8389e7065@itforchange.net> <5d730e14-f487-7a3e-940e-54bc5414ccc5@gih.com> <3fe75e8c-9a1c-429f-5552-84bb5fc7b34f@itforchange.net> <547de800-448b-694e-cc74-3003da652191@gih.com> Message-ID: ...and I'll add another thing which just came to mind: a few years ago a follow-up committee to Netmundial, the Netmundial Initiative, was started to, amongst a number of things, become a clearinghouse for funding of projects that involved Internet Governance. A number of excellent projects were initiated thanks to the money collected through this initiative, but this community was so unanimous in rejecting and outright badmouthing the initiative (there is no other word than that), that the whole thing failed to get community buy-in and the financing dried up. As a result, today what do we have out of this? Absolutely nothing - and I am so, so disappointed to hear about the number of people that have not been able to find any funding to come to the IGF (before the pandemic issues). By saying no to everything, boycotting processes and thus *refusing* dialogue, you end up doing exactly the opposite of what multistakeholder dialogue is all about. Ironic, isn't it? Kindest regards, Olivier On 27/11/2021 14:44, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond via Governance wrote: > Dear Parminder, > > thanks for your email. I have reservations about the LP, particularly > the extent to which stakeholders participating in the LP will be > equal... or not. At the moment, I have doubts that they will be. > But I admit I have not spent the time it takes to be an expert in > exactly how it will work and perhaps there will be room to make > stakeholders equal? > I have found reservations coming from other people too, including the > most vehement ones coming from Milton and you who absolutely reject > it. Fine - so perhaps the LP is *not* the answer to building the > Internet of the future in a multistakeholder manner. So what do you > propose instead? > > The gist of my comment is that if you are bold enough to launch a > campaign against the LP then surely you must have a constructive > counter-proposal to make. That's all I am saying. > > Kindest regards, > > Olivier > > On 27/11/2021 14:22, parminder wrote: >> >> Olivier, >> >> From the below I understand that you are greatly bothered about the >> huge number of global digital policy issues that need urgent policy >> action. I fully agree with you. But you dont tell us how, as per your >> thinking, policy action will take place on them. This is especially >> ironical for someone who asks others to provide their precise >> alternative/ model. >> >> >>  I understand that your email is basically in support of the IGF >> Leadership Panel. But your 3 para email nowhere tells us what you >> think the LP should and would do, and how that solves the the key >> policy challenges you describe... Isnt that important to tell,  if >> you support the LP. >> >> >> The language that comes the nearest in your email is.... "if the IGF >> continues being a talk shop with no actual results or even >> suggestions coming out of it that can be picked up using a well >> thought out process, in a multistakeholder manner..." >> >> >> So, you think the LP will pick up actual results or suggestions >> coming out the IGF? >> >> >> Very fine... I had asked Wolfgang on the ISOC list to illustrate this >> with an example or two, how the process actually works. He did not do >> it, would you please .. Moment you begin to actually fill in detail >> into this good-sounding message-conveying thing, youd realise the >> immense problems with it and/ or non plausibility of it .. This being >> a serious discussions on the future of IG ecosystem, lets get done to >> its real processes and implications ... >> >> >> Sentences like "I am not saying whether an IGF Leadership Panel is a >> good or a bad thing" -- are completely unhelpful..... That is what we >> are facing right now, and we need to decide if it is a good idea or a >> bad one. Funny, that hardly anyone is ready to say outright that LP >> is a good idea.... I mean, it must be a really really bad idea, >> whereby even those criticizing the criticism of LP are not ready to >> vouchsafe for it. >> >> >> Later you say, ". If you want the Internet of the future to reflect >> consensus between all parties, that is the way to do it." >> >> >> What is the way? Setting up an LP ? Interesting, Can you help us >> understand how the LP will create / help consensus between all parties. >> >> >> This seem to be different from relaying messages ... I did not read >> it as a function of LP to create/ help consensus, but you seem to >> think it would. >> >> >> Thanks >> >> parminder >> >> >> On 27/11/21 4:06 pm, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond wrote: >>> Dear Milton, >>> >>> thank you for your kind response and thanks for the suggestions you >>> make in improving the IGF, which I'll let others comment on, if need be. >>> To the question "the current status quo is no fit for purpose", the >>> current IGF mandate was pretty much a result of policies stemming >>> from a state of the Internet in 2005. We are in 2021, 16 years >>> later. The world is a different place and the Internet is a very >>> different animal than what it was back in 2005. Let's stop kidding >>> ourselves that we live in 2005 and open our eyes to 2021 and its >>> geopolitical, societal and technical challenges. We still live in a >>> world where there is a huge gap between the Internet haves and the >>> have nots, and that gap is widening, and might be set to widen >>> further as new technologies like 5G and the ubiquitous IoT get >>> rolled out in richer parts of the world. We have a climate emergency >>> on our hands and a significant part of it is caused by the very >>> network that we love and use daily. We have a handful of companies >>> with a budget larger than a small country that have no checks and >>> balances in place regarding the privacy of data and whose business >>> model is based on tracking you and me and everyone else. We have a >>> world where if you are not online, you are nothing, which means that >>> some complete cultures are bound to disappear altogether if they do >>> not have an online presence. I know it's a mixed bag of slushy stuff >>> that strictly speaking you could say has nothing to do with the >>> Internet, but these issues are real and the Internet's impact is >>> core to many of these issues. >>> >>> In my opinion, the current status quo of having a discussion forum >>> and nothing else around it to action the discussions is no longer >>> fit for purpose - it's a lot of money spent to write more books and >>> papers, but if there is no clear path on how to action the >>> discussions, it is money wasted for the happy few that benefit from >>> publishing these papers, at the expense of the wider world. I am not >>> saying whether an IGF Leadership Panel is a good or a bad thing, but >>> if you don't like the proposal, then propose something else because >>> one thing is sure: if the IGF continues being a talk shop with no >>> actual results or even suggestions coming out of it that can be >>> picked up using a well thought out process, in a multistakeholder >>> manner, for further study or action, some major players in the >>> multistakeholder model will walk away and turn to other fora, >>> perhaps multilateral fora, letting the multistakeholder model of >>> governance be a pipe dream of civil society that will remain by >>> itself in the IGF. >>> >>> As for the "purpose", I interpret it as the "Internet Governance >>> Forum", where civil society, governments, the private sector, the >>> technical community and any other actors come together to discuss >>> Internet Governance issues, leading to a well thought out future of >>> the Internet that includes input from all players and not only a >>> single actor. If you want the Internet of the future to reflect >>> consensus between all parties, that is the way to do it. If you'd >>> rather engage in poltical wars and arguments between stakeholder >>> groups, then let the talking continue and leave the development to >>> government and the private sector: together I am sure they have a >>> great plan for all of us. >>> >>> Kindest regards, >>> >>> Olivier >>> >>> On 26/11/2021 19:28, Mueller, Milton L wrote: >>>> Olivier: >>>> I don't agree with the premise that because the UN SG's office >>>> proposed something that I need to have an alternative proposal. I >>>> think the more fundamental issue we are debating is whether the IGF >>>> serves a useful function, under its current parameters (nonbinding, >>>> open, ms discussion forum). My answer is yes, and my most basic >>>> alternative is to stop trying to turn it into something else, via >>>> "high-levelism." >>>> >>>> The next question is what can be done to strengthen it? Here is a >>>> simple program >>>> >>>> 1. Confine discussions to actual global internet governance >>>> issues. Sorry, folks, climate change is important but it's not IG >>>> 2. Start doing something meaningful with IGF main sessions. >>>> Instead of gigantic panels full of anodyne, inoffensive >>>> statements, have focused debates in which real policy >>>> alternatives are debated by people who have real standing, and >>>> make them interact meaningfully with the broader set of >>>> participants >>>> 3. Don't shy away from geopolitical debates involving state actors. >>>> >>>> That would be a good start. >>>> Now when you say, "the current status quo is not fit for purpose" >>>> please tell me what purpose you have in mind. >>>> >>>> --MM >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> *From:* Governance on >>>> behalf of Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond via Governance >>>> >>>> *Sent:* Friday, November 26, 2021 7:01 AM >>>> *To:* parminder ; >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> *Subject:* Re: [Governance] Seeking roll back of IGF Leadership Panel >>>> Dear Parminder, >>>> >>>> I understand from your letter with Milton that you are *against* >>>> the creation of an IGF Leadership Panel. What I'd like to hear is >>>> what you and Milton propose instead. It is easy to be against all >>>> sorts of things, but the world isn't static and from the IGF >>>> conultations, it is clear that the current status quo is no longer >>>> fit for purpose. There needs to be evolution. >>>> So what next? >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> Olivier Crépin-Leblond >>>> (speaking on my own behalf) >>>> >>>> On 24/11/2021 15:32, parminder via Governance wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Dear All, >>>>> >>>>> Please find enclosed a letter addressed to the UN Secretary >>>>> General appealing to him to roll back the decision for an IGF >>>>> Leadership Panel. >>>>> >>>>> The letter is co-signed by Dr Milton Mueller, on behalf  of the >>>>> Internet Governance Project, Georgia Institute of Technology >>>>> School of Public Policy, and Parmider Jeet Singh, for IT for >>>>> Change, and the Just Net Coalition. >>>>> >>>>> The letter is cc-ed to representatives of civil society and >>>>> technical community groups requesting them to refrain from sending >>>>> nominations for the IGF Leadership Panel, and thus legitimizing it. >>>>> >>>>> The letter argues how the IGF Leadership Panel militates against >>>>> the basic idea, objectives and structure of the IGF, and will >>>>> weaken it. >>>>> >>>>> Best, parminder >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From 6.internet at gmail.com Sat Nov 27 10:20:28 2021 From: 6.internet at gmail.com (sivasubramanian muthusamy) Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2021 20:50:28 +0530 Subject: [Governance] Seeking roll back of IGF Leadership Panel In-Reply-To: <3fe75e8c-9a1c-429f-5552-84bb5fc7b34f@itforchange.net> References: <01253f6f-a799-528b-b822-cac8389e7065@itforchange.net> <5d730e14-f487-7a3e-940e-54bc5414ccc5@gih.com> <3fe75e8c-9a1c-429f-5552-84bb5fc7b34f@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Sat, Nov 27, 2021, 18:52 parminder via Governance < governance at lists.igcaucus.org> wrote: > Olivier, > > From the below I understand that you are greatly bothered about the huge > number of global digital policy issues that need urgent policy action. I > fully agree with you. But you dont tell us how, as per your thinking, > policy action will take place on them. This is especially ironical for > someone who asks others to provide their precise alternative/ model. > > > I understand that your email is basically in support of the IGF > Leadership Panel. But your 3 para email nowhere tells us what you think the > LP should and would do, and how that solves the the key policy challenges > you describe... Isnt that important to tell, if you support the LP. > > > The language that comes the nearest in your email is.... "if the IGF > continues being a talk shop with no actual results or even suggestions > coming out of it that can be picked up using a well thought out process, in > a multistakeholder manner..." > > > So, you think the LP will pick up actual results or suggestions coming out > the IGF? > > > Very fine... I had asked Wolfgang on the ISOC list to illustrate this with > an example or two, how the process actually works. He did not do it, would > you please .. Moment you begin to actually fill in detail into this > good-sounding message-conveying thing, youd realise the immense problems > with it and/ or non plausibility of it .. This being a serious discussions > on the future of IG ecosystem, lets get done to its real processes and > implications ... > > > Sentences like "I am not saying whether an IGF Leadership Panel is a good > or a bad thing" -- are completely unhelpful..... That is what we are facing > right now, and we need to decide if it is a good idea or a bad one. > Funny, that hardly anyone is ready to say outright that LP is a good > idea.... > The leadership panel would do a lot of good if constituted of leaders who are at the risk of being dissuaded by what they might perceive to be controversial based on perceptions of endless arguments as happening now. I say outright that the LP is a good idea and it would be highly purposeful to constitute the panel. > I mean, it must be a really really bad idea, whereby even those > criticizing the criticism of LP are not ready to vouchsafe for it. > > > Later you say, ". If you want the Internet of the future to reflect > consensus between all parties, that is the way to do it." > > > What is the way? Setting up an LP ? Interesting, Can you help us > understand how the LP will create / help consensus between all parties. > > > This seem to be different from relaying messages ... I did not read it as > a function of LP to create/ help consensus, but you seem to think it would. > > > Thanks > > parminder > > > On 27/11/21 4:06 pm, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond wrote: > > Dear Milton, > > thank you for your kind response and thanks for the suggestions you make > in improving the IGF, which I'll let others comment on, if need be. > To the question "the current status quo is no fit for purpose", the > current IGF mandate was pretty much a result of policies stemming from a > state of the Internet in 2005. We are in 2021, 16 years later. The world is > a different place and the Internet is a very different animal than what it > was back in 2005. Let's stop kidding ourselves that we live in 2005 and > open our eyes to 2021 and its geopolitical, societal and technical > challenges. We still live in a world where there is a huge gap between the > Internet haves and the have nots, and that gap is widening, and might be > set to widen further as new technologies like 5G and the ubiquitous IoT get > rolled out in richer parts of the world. We have a climate emergency on our > hands and a significant part of it is caused by the very network that we > love and use daily. We have a handful of companies with a budget larger > than a small country that have no checks and balances in place regarding > the privacy of data and whose business model is based on tracking you and > me and everyone else. We have a world where if you are not online, you are > nothing, which means that some complete cultures are bound to disappear > altogether if they do not have an online presence. I know it's a mixed bag > of slushy stuff that strictly speaking you could say has nothing to do with > the Internet, but these issues are real and the Internet's impact is core > to many of these issues. > > In my opinion, the current status quo of having a discussion forum and > nothing else around it to action the discussions is no longer fit for > purpose - it's a lot of money spent to write more books and papers, but if > there is no clear path on how to action the discussions, it is money wasted > for the happy few that benefit from publishing these papers, at the expense > of the wider world. I am not saying whether an IGF Leadership Panel is a > good or a bad thing, but if you don't like the proposal, then propose > something else because one thing is sure: if the IGF continues being a talk > shop with no actual results or even suggestions coming out of it that can > be picked up using a well thought out process, in a multistakeholder > manner, for further study or action, some major players in the > multistakeholder model will walk away and turn to other fora, perhaps > multilateral fora, letting the multistakeholder model of governance be a > pipe dream of civil society that will remain by itself in the IGF. > > As for the "purpose", I interpret it as the "Internet Governance Forum", > where civil society, governments, the private sector, the technical > community and any other actors come together to discuss Internet Governance > issues, leading to a well thought out future of the Internet that includes > input from all players and not only a single actor. If you want the > Internet of the future to reflect consensus between all parties, that is > the way to do it. If you'd rather engage in poltical wars and arguments > between stakeholder groups, then let the talking continue and leave the > development to government and the private sector: together I am sure they > have a great plan for all of us. > > Kindest regards, > > Olivier > > On 26/11/2021 19:28, Mueller, Milton L wrote: > > Olivier: > I don't agree with the premise that because the UN SG's office proposed > something that I need to have an alternative proposal. I think the more > fundamental issue we are debating is whether the IGF serves a useful > function, under its current parameters (nonbinding, open, ms discussion > forum). My answer is yes, and my most basic alternative is to stop trying > to turn it into something else, via "high-levelism." > > The next question is what can be done to strengthen it? Here is a simple > program > > 1. Confine discussions to actual global internet governance issues. > Sorry, folks, climate change is important but it's not IG > 2. Start doing something meaningful with IGF main sessions. Instead of > gigantic panels full of anodyne, inoffensive statements, have focused > debates in which real policy alternatives are debated by people who have > real standing, and make them interact meaningfully with the broader set of > participants > 3. Don't shy away from geopolitical debates involving state actors. > > That would be a good start. > Now when you say, "the current status quo is not fit for purpose" please > tell me what purpose you have in mind. > > --MM > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Governance > on behalf of Olivier MJ > Crépin-Leblond via Governance > > *Sent:* Friday, November 26, 2021 7:01 AM > *To:* parminder ; > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > *Subject:* Re: [Governance] Seeking roll back of IGF Leadership Panel > > Dear Parminder, > > I understand from your letter with Milton that you are *against* the > creation of an IGF Leadership Panel. What I'd like to hear is what you and > Milton propose instead. It is easy to be against all sorts of things, but > the world isn't static and from the IGF conultations, it is clear that the > current status quo is no longer fit for purpose. There needs to be > evolution. > So what next? > > Thanks, > > Olivier Crépin-Leblond > (speaking on my own behalf) > > On 24/11/2021 15:32, parminder via Governance wrote: > > > Dear All, > > Please find enclosed a letter addressed to the UN Secretary General > appealing to him to roll back the decision for an IGF Leadership Panel. > > The letter is co-signed by Dr Milton Mueller, on behalf of the Internet > Governance Project, Georgia Institute of Technology School of Public > Policy, and Parmider Jeet Singh, for IT for Change, and the Just Net > Coalition. > > The letter is cc-ed to representatives of civil society and technical > community groups requesting them to refrain from sending nominations for > the IGF Leadership Panel, and thus legitimizing it. > > The letter argues how the IGF Leadership Panel militates against the basic > idea, objectives and structure of the IGF, and will weaken it. > > 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 Sun Nov 28 04:54:40 2021 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2021 15:24:40 +0530 Subject: [Governance] Seeking roll back of IGF Leadership Panel In-Reply-To: <5d730e14-f487-7a3e-940e-54bc5414ccc5@gih.com> References: <01253f6f-a799-528b-b822-cac8389e7065@itforchange.net> <5d730e14-f487-7a3e-940e-54bc5414ccc5@gih.com> Message-ID: <7858bb5f-7e26-9314-de6a-e044ca081614@itforchange.net> Dear Olivier, Thanks for your response, which I take as a constructive engagement. First of all, it is simply NOT PRACTICAL that in a communication to the UN SG where we reject the specific idea of IGF Leadership Panel as a bad idea, and describe why so in a few paras, we then use a few more pages to put out our entire alternative vision of global digital governance. These things do not work like that. Please do not put impossible expectations on us, and then be disappointed that these are not met. Apart from the practical need to be short, succinct and to the point when addressing a letter to high authorities regarding a specific new institutional proposal, there was also this other equally important consideration. While an overwhelming number of civil society and tech community people actually hate this new LP proposal, one cannot expect them all to agree on a design for a future global digital governance architecture. Any letter putting a detailed alternative proposal would have diverted all attention towards various alternative views about such a future architecture --  bringing up intense contentions and arguments and counter-arguments -- distracting from the part people agree on; which is that, whatever be the other differences,  the LP is certainly a very bad idea and should not exist. We wished and still wish to create and use such an agreement within civil society and technical community groups 'on this one point' towards the objective of resisting the formation of the LP. That is simply how advocacy works. (Evan, you called me non-strategic.. But that is how one actually is strategic .. Not by saying in the same email that LP may be a cure worse than the disease, and that at a cursory reading it looks like taking us to ICANN style corporate capture of governance  but what the heck, lets still support that LP idea. That is NOT strategic.) For instance Milton and I would not agree on our visions and proposals for the future of global digital governance. But just because there still exist a few alternative ideas around for this future (perhaps all better than the LP proposal), you cannot use that diversity and lack of consensus to say, ok, the next bad idea given by UN SG is therefore accepted .. Any such logic sounds absolutely strange is to me, and that is the crux of most people's responses here to our joint letter. parminder ps: Dont worry, I will indeed still address in full detail your issue about "the status quo is no longer fit for purpose", and "what next", in two subsequent emails. Although I do find it strange that so many have said that I do not present alternatives, which I have done almost every 6 months for the last almost 15 years on these elists, as well in form of institutional submissions to NetMundial, various CSTd WGs, WSIS plus 10, the IGF, you name it , .. All of them public .. You are therefore just dead wrong to say I dont present alternatives (and thus have no right to criticize the LP). I'd provide the proof to rejig your conveniently sieve like memory for my concrete proposals. I started at the very first IGF in 2006 with a proposal for a Framework Law on IG, right at the very first IGF, at a workshop cosponsored by Internet Governance Project, and have not stopped since.... . That proposal had the support of a colleague of Milton's at the IGP, and the government of Brazil, .... I can write a few pages about the proposals I/ we have made since then ... You dont have to agree those proposals to accept that we have regularly made concrete proposals, which is something you seem to deny or forget, which does disappoint me :) On 26/11/21 5:31 pm, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond wrote: > Dear Parminder, > > I understand from your letter with Milton that you are *against* the > creation of an IGF Leadership Panel. What I'd like to hear is what you > and Milton propose instead. It is easy to be against all sorts of > things, but the world isn't static and from the IGF conultations, it > is clear that the current status quo is no longer fit for purpose. > There needs to be evolution. > So what next? > > Thanks, > > Olivier Crépin-Leblond > (speaking on my own behalf) > > On 24/11/2021 15:32, parminder via Governance wrote: >> >> >> Dear All, >> >> Please find enclosed a letter addressed to the UN Secretary General >> appealing to him to roll back the decision for an IGF Leadership Panel. >> >> The letter is co-signed by Dr Milton Mueller, on behalf  of the >> Internet Governance Project, Georgia Institute of Technology School >> of Public Policy, and Parmider Jeet Singh, for IT for Change, and the >> Just Net Coalition. >> >> The letter is cc-ed to representatives of civil society and technical >> community groups requesting them to refrain from sending nominations >> for the IGF Leadership Panel, and thus legitimizing it. >> >> The letter argues how the IGF Leadership Panel militates against the >> basic idea, objectives and structure of the IGF, and will weaken it. >> >> Best, parminder >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Nov 28 04:56:40 2021 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2021 15:26:40 +0530 Subject: [Governance] NOTICE: CSCG nomination process for IGF Leadership Panel In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Nnenna and Jovan, and indeed, Wolfgang, I know things may look different to leadership class people like you :) But the view from the streets is quite a bit different. My best wishes in any case, parmidner On 26/11/21 7:22 pm, Nnenna Nwakanma via Governance wrote: > Thanks, Jovan, for this apt articulation.  > > You represent my thoughts  > > Best  > > Nnenna > > On Fri, 26 Nov 2021, 13:36 Jovan Kurbalija via Governance, > > > wrote: > > Dear colleagues, > > This discussion is important not only for IGF Leadership Panel, > but for the future of the IGF as a whole. Civil society and other > non-state actors should be particularly concerned about the future > of IGF as it is a rare space in which we can all participate equally. > > For almost ten years, reform of the IGF has been in the works in > various iterations. It is not new. > > The Leadership Panel should be seen as part of a broader > attemptsto reform IGF.  > > > I think that the Leadership Panel is a timely and relevant steps > in the right direction of strengthening the IGF. > > However, these steps should be taken with necessary caution as > outlined in the following text: > https://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/5-reasons-and-5-concerns-for-the-igf-leadership-panel/ > > > > * 5 REASONS for the IGF Leadership Panel > > > o 1. Policy footprint: increasing the relevance of IGF as a > space to address digital policy > > o 2. Louder voices: amplify IGF messages and expertise > > o 3. Policy conveyor belt: linking the IGF to other policy > spaces  > > o 4. Genuine inclusion: from nominal to substantive > participation  > > o 5. Policy efficiency: reducing forum shopping  > > o > > * 5 CONCERNS for the IGF Leadership Panel > > > o 1. The Leadership Panel is only one aspect of IGF Plus  > > o 2. IGF and Digital Compact > > o 3. Preserving IGF as a space for vibrant discussions > > o 4. Avoid capturing by vested interest > > o 5. Solve terminological confusion > > o > > * In sum…. > > > > Best regards, > > Jovan > > > On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 10:52 AM Sheetal Kumar via Governance > > wrote: > > Dear all, > > We did not receive a requisite number of eligible nominations > for this process launched last week. We are therefore unable > to proceed with the nomination process for the Leadership > Panel as CSCG. > > While this does not constitute a boycott, we understand that > the level of doubt and concerns around the Leadership Panel > may indicate that there isn't the support required. > > We will continue to follow the process and to demand the > transparency and diversity required in all areas of the IGF, > and to work towards strengthening it in the coming years with > the view to realising the true spirit of the IGF's > multistakeholder mission. More on our previous/relevant > position here: > https://www.apc.org/en/pubs/open-letter-interpretation-paragraph-93a-un-secretary-generals-roadmap-digital-cooperation > . > There we say "Multistakeholderism, diversity and inclusion > should guide any new structure, building on the IGF legacy > thus far and be the basis for putting the structure in > function of shaping the global internet governance agenda in a > way that effectively addresses the persistent, exacerbated and > new challenges derived from the pandemic situation, including > the increasing power of some parts of the industry, in > particular the large technology companies, and the lack of > voices from more vulnerable and marginalised groups." > > We do not want this to be seen as discouragement to anyone > planning to nominate themselves. However, as a network, it is > clear that we don't have the support or interest to continue > with this specific nomination process. > > Best > Sheetal and Bruna > > On Fri, 19 Nov 2021 at 16:25, Sheetal Kumar > > wrote: > > Dear all, > > This is a polite reminder to share your nominations to the > CSCG for the IGF's leadership panel, as per the process > outlined below. We request this is done by _*COB November > 22 *_so that we are able to submit by the deadline of > _*November 29. > *_ > > _* > *_ > > We look forward to receiving your nomination/s._* > *_ > > Best > Sheetal > > > > > > On Mon, 15 Nov 2021 at 13:51, Sheetal Kumar > > > wrote: > > Dear all, > > As you may have seen, the IGF Secretariat has launched > the nomination process at the request of the Executive > Office of the United Nations Secretary-General for the > *inaugural Leadership Panel of the 2022 and 2023 > Internet Governance Forum (IGF) cycles* > . > > >   > > Following several rounds of open consultations, the > Leadership Panel is a response to the > Secretary-General’s Roadmap for Digital Cooperation > , which calls for > strengthening of the IGF through, among other aspects, > /’’creating a strategic and empowered > multi-stakeholder high-level body, building on the > experience of the existing multi-stakeholder advisory > group, which would address urgent issues, coordinate > follow-up action on Forum discussions and relay > proposed policy approaches and recommendations from > the Forum to the appropriate normative and > decision-making forums/.’’ > > > CSCG, and for this process, this includes APC and IGC, > will run a nomination process to identify nominees for > the two categories: > > * Two [2] at-large members (distinguished or > prominent persons who do not fall under above > stakeholder groups) and > * Two [2] CEO-level (or deputy-level) > representatives from each of the other three > stakeholder groups (civil society) > > Please note, this does not mean we endorse the process > or the mechanism itself. We will send a letter with > the nominations that clearly reiterates our previous > publicly stated positions (such as this Open letter on > the interpretation of paragraph 93(a) of the UNSG's > Roadmap on Digital Cooperation > > and this on the future of the IGF > on > the Leadership Panel/Higher-level MAG > ), > including the importance of maintaining the MAG's > current role and not supplanting it, the importance of > diversity and inclusion, transparency etc and make > clear that our submission of nominees should not be > read as endorsement. > > > We intend that our nominations reflect the above > criteria. Please note that to receive a CSCG > nomination for the IGF leadership panel you'll need to > send us (me and Valeria and Bruna cc'd) the > information required on the online form > . > We request this is done by _*COB November 22 *_so that > we are able to submit by the deadline of _*November 29. > *_ > > _* > *_ > > We look forward to receiving your nomination/s._* > *_ > > Best > Sheetal > > > -- > * > * > *Sheetal Kumar* > Head of Global Engagement and Advocacy | GLOBAL > PARTNERS DIGITAL > T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| Time zone: GMT | M: +44 > (0)7739569514  | > PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31  | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D > 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| > > > > > > -- > * > * > *Sheetal Kumar* > Head of Global Engagement and Advocacy | GLOBAL PARTNERS > DIGITAL > T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| Time zone: GMT | M: +44 > (0)7739569514  | > PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31  | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D > 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| > > > > > > -- > * > * > *Sheetal Kumar* > Head of Global Engagement and Advocacy | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| Time zone: GMT | M: +44 (0)7739569514  | > PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31  | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B > E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| > > > > -- > Governance mailing list > Governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > https://lists.igcaucus.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > > > -- > Governance mailing list > Governance at lists.igcaucus.org > https://lists.igcaucus.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From suresh at hserus.net Sun Nov 28 06:30:40 2021 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2021 11:30:40 +0000 Subject: [Governance] NOTICE: CSCG nomination process for IGF Leadership Panel In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: People who sit on committees appointed by the Indian government calling others “leadership class”? Global south buzzwords fit some people Parminder but you least of all --srs ________________________________ From: Governance on behalf of parminder via Governance Sent: Sunday, November 28, 2021 3:26:40 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [Governance] NOTICE: CSCG nomination process for IGF Leadership Panel Dear Nnenna and Jovan, and indeed, Wolfgang, I know things may look different to leadership class people like you :) But the view from the streets is quite a bit different. My best wishes in any case, parmidner On 26/11/21 7:22 pm, Nnenna Nwakanma via Governance wrote: Thanks, Jovan, for this apt articulation. You represent my thoughts Best Nnenna On Fri, 26 Nov 2021, 13:36 Jovan Kurbalija via Governance, > wrote: Dear colleagues, This discussion is important not only for IGF Leadership Panel, but for the future of the IGF as a whole. Civil society and other non-state actors should be particularly concerned about the future of IGF as it is a rare space in which we can all participate equally. For almost ten years, reform of the IGF has been in the works in various iterations. It is not new. The Leadership Panel should be seen as part of a broader attempts to reform IGF. I think that the Leadership Panel is a timely and relevant steps in the right direction of strengthening the IGF. However, these steps should be taken with necessary caution as outlined in the following text: https://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/5-reasons-and-5-concerns-for-the-igf-leadership-panel/ * 5 REASONS for the IGF Leadership Panel * 1. Policy footprint: increasing the relevance of IGF as a space to address digital policy * 2. Louder voices: amplify IGF messages and expertise * 3. Policy conveyor belt: linking the IGF to other policy spaces * 4. Genuine inclusion: from nominal to substantive participation * 5. Policy efficiency: reducing forum shopping * * 5 CONCERNS for the IGF Leadership Panel * 1. The Leadership Panel is only one aspect of IGF Plus * 2. IGF and Digital Compact * 3. Preserving IGF as a space for vibrant discussions * 4. Avoid capturing by vested interest * 5. Solve terminological confusion * * In sum…. Best regards, Jovan On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 10:52 AM Sheetal Kumar via Governance > wrote: Dear all, We did not receive a requisite number of eligible nominations for this process launched last week. We are therefore unable to proceed with the nomination process for the Leadership Panel as CSCG. While this does not constitute a boycott, we understand that the level of doubt and concerns around the Leadership Panel may indicate that there isn't the support required. We will continue to follow the process and to demand the transparency and diversity required in all areas of the IGF, and to work towards strengthening it in the coming years with the view to realising the true spirit of the IGF's multistakeholder mission. More on our previous/relevant position here: https://www.apc.org/en/pubs/open-letter-interpretation-paragraph-93a-un-secretary-generals-roadmap-digital-cooperation. There we say "Multistakeholderism, diversity and inclusion should guide any new structure, building on the IGF legacy thus far and be the basis for putting the structure in function of shaping the global internet governance agenda in a way that effectively addresses the persistent, exacerbated and new challenges derived from the pandemic situation, including the increasing power of some parts of the industry, in particular the large technology companies, and the lack of voices from more vulnerable and marginalised groups." We do not want this to be seen as discouragement to anyone planning to nominate themselves. However, as a network, it is clear that we don't have the support or interest to continue with this specific nomination process. Best Sheetal and Bruna [https://ssl.gstatic.com/ui/v1/icons/mail/images/cleardot.gif] On Fri, 19 Nov 2021 at 16:25, Sheetal Kumar > wrote: Dear all, This is a polite reminder to share your nominations to the CSCG for the IGF's leadership panel, as per the process outlined below. We request this is done by COB November 22 so that we are able to submit by the deadline of November 29. We look forward to receiving your nomination/s. [https://ssl.gstatic.com/ui/v1/icons/mail/images/cleardot.gif] Best Sheetal On Mon, 15 Nov 2021 at 13:51, Sheetal Kumar > wrote: Dear all, As you may have seen, the IGF Secretariat has launched the nomination process at the request of the Executive Office of the United Nations Secretary-General for the inaugural Leadership Panel of the 2022 and 2023 Internet Governance Forum (IGF) cycles. Following several rounds of open consultations, the Leadership Panel is a response to the Secretary-General’s Roadmap for Digital Cooperation, which calls for strengthening of the IGF through, among other aspects, ’’creating a strategic and empowered multi-stakeholder high-level body, building on the experience of the existing multi-stakeholder advisory group, which would address urgent issues, coordinate follow-up action on Forum discussions and relay proposed policy approaches and recommendations from the Forum to the appropriate normative and decision-making forums.’’ CSCG, and for this process, this includes APC and IGC, will run a nomination process to identify nominees for the two categories: * Two [2] at-large members (distinguished or prominent persons who do not fall under above stakeholder groups) and * Two [2] CEO-level (or deputy-level) representatives from each of the other three stakeholder groups (civil society) Please note, this does not mean we endorse the process or the mechanism itself. We will send a letter with the nominations that clearly reiterates our previous publicly stated positions (such as this Open letter on the interpretation of paragraph 93(a) of the UNSG's Roadmap on Digital Cooperation and this on the future of the IGF on the Leadership Panel/Higher-level MAG), including the importance of maintaining the MAG's current role and not supplanting it, the importance of diversity and inclusion, transparency etc and make clear that our submission of nominees should not be read as endorsement. We intend that our nominations reflect the above criteria. Please note that to receive a CSCG nomination for the IGF leadership panel you'll need to send us (me and Valeria and Bruna cc'd) the information required on the online form. We request this is done by COB November 22 so that we are able to submit by the deadline of November 29. We look forward to receiving your nomination/s. [https://ssl.gstatic.com/ui/v1/icons/mail/images/cleardot.gif] Best Sheetal -- Sheetal Kumar Head of Global Engagement and Advocacy | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| Time zone: GMT | M: +44 (0)7739569514 | PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| -- Sheetal Kumar Head of Global Engagement and Advocacy | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| Time zone: GMT | M: +44 (0)7739569514 | PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| -- Sheetal Kumar Head of Global Engagement and Advocacy | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| Time zone: GMT | M: +44 (0)7739569514 | PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| -- Governance mailing list Governance at lists.igcaucus.org https://lists.igcaucus.org/mailman/listinfo/governance -- Governance mailing list Governance at lists.igcaucus.org https://lists.igcaucus.org/mailman/listinfo/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nnenna75 at gmail.com Sun Nov 28 08:05:57 2021 From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma) Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2021 13:05:57 +0000 Subject: [Governance] IGF Leadership panel: My personal stance Message-ID: Dear all I do not have energy for drawn-out debates. However, let me state my personal perspective of the IGF Leadership panel - After 15 years of IGF, I, personally would like to see it take on more policy engagement, beyond the "talk, conversation, sharing experience" status in which it is at the moment. Wolfgang and Jovan's points provide enough background - I also do not think that the IGF Leadership panel will prove to be a silver bullet, but it is worth a try. - The process that led to the Digital Cooperation Roadmap, which gave birth to the IGF suggestion was fully mutlistakeholder. I have participated, in my personal capacity and via the Web Foundation for the past 3 years, right from BEFORE Paris IGF till today. - There is a Civil Society group (let me know if you or your organisation wishes to engage) that has kept in collaboration with the Office of the UN Tech Envoy since its inception. Many orgs in this list are also there. - Some of us plan to engage in Our Common Agenda , and most importantly, the Global Digital Compact, that we believe will be in the works mainly in 2022 and 2023. This is the "Rebuilding after COVID Pandemic Report" launched by the UNSG at the UNGA76 as requested by the UNGA75 - Personally, I have been asked by many if it is okay to nominate me to the IGF Leadership panel and my response has been "Yes, if you consider it right and think I can bring value". - Again, as a personal principle, I do not self nominate for anything, anywhere. All for now Nnenna -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Sun Nov 28 08:12:56 2021 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2021 09:12:56 -0400 Subject: [Governance] NOTICE: CSCG nomination process for IGF Leadership Panel In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: It seems to me that Suresh and Parminder have hit the nail on the head together. The semantics and semiotics of the English language (and I expect of others as well) have been rudely interfered with in this new digital world. Computer programs reject shades of meaning. But those shades still exist inside people's understanding. To call something a "Leadership" panel in a world where hierarchies are supposed to have been broken down, where the process purports to be flat and inclusive, is surely a mistake? Stay safe Deirdre On Sun, 28 Nov 2021 at 07:31, Suresh Ramasubramanian via Governance < governance at lists.igcaucus.org> wrote: > People who sit on committees appointed by the Indian government calling > others “leadership class”? > > Global south buzzwords fit some people Parminder but you least of all > > > --srs > ------------------------------ > *From:* Governance on behalf of > parminder via Governance > *Sent:* Sunday, November 28, 2021 3:26:40 PM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org > *Subject:* Re: [Governance] NOTICE: CSCG nomination process for IGF > Leadership Panel > > > Dear Nnenna and Jovan, and indeed, Wolfgang, > > I know things may look different to leadership class people like you :) > > But the view from the streets is quite a bit different. > > My best wishes in any case, parmidner > > > On 26/11/21 7:22 pm, Nnenna Nwakanma via Governance wrote: > > Thanks, Jovan, for this apt articulation. > > You represent my thoughts > > Best > > Nnenna > > On Fri, 26 Nov 2021, 13:36 Jovan Kurbalija via Governance, < > governance at lists.igcaucus.org> wrote: > > Dear colleagues, > > This discussion is important not only for IGF Leadership Panel, but for > the future of the IGF as a whole. Civil society and other non-state > actors should be particularly concerned about the future of IGF as it is a > rare space in which we can all participate equally. > For almost ten years, reform of the IGF has been in the works in various > iterations. It is not new. > > The Leadership Panel should be seen as part of a broader attempts to > reform IGF. > > > I think that the Leadership Panel is a timely and relevant steps in the > right direction of strengthening the IGF. > > However, these steps should be taken with necessary caution as outlined in > the following text: > https://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/5-reasons-and-5-concerns-for-the-igf-leadership-panel/ > > > > - 5 REASONS for the IGF Leadership Panel > > - 1. Policy footprint: increasing the relevance of IGF as a space > to address digital policy > > - 2. Louder voices: amplify IGF messages and expertise > > - 3. Policy conveyor belt: linking the IGF to other policy spaces > > - 4. Genuine inclusion: from nominal to substantive participation > > - 5. Policy efficiency: reducing forum shopping > > - > - 5 CONCERNS for the IGF Leadership Panel > > - 1. The Leadership Panel is only one aspect of IGF Plus > > - 2. IGF and Digital Compact > > - 3. Preserving IGF as a space for vibrant discussions > > - 4. Avoid capturing by vested interest > > - 5. Solve terminological confusion > > - > - In sum…. > > > > Best regards, > > Jovan > > > On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 10:52 AM Sheetal Kumar via Governance < > governance at lists.igcaucus.org> wrote: > > Dear all, > > We did not receive a requisite number of eligible nominations for this > process launched last week. We are therefore unable to proceed with the > nomination process for the Leadership Panel as CSCG. > > While this does not constitute a boycott, we understand that the level of > doubt and concerns around the Leadership Panel may indicate that there > isn't the support required. > > We will continue to follow the process and to demand the transparency and > diversity required in all areas of the IGF, and to work towards > strengthening it in the coming years with the view to realising the true > spirit of the IGF's multistakeholder mission. More on our previous/relevant > position here: > https://www.apc.org/en/pubs/open-letter-interpretation-paragraph-93a-un-secretary-generals-roadmap-digital-cooperation. > There we say "Multistakeholderism, diversity and inclusion should guide any > new structure, building on the IGF legacy thus far and be the basis for > putting the structure in function of shaping the global internet governance > agenda in a way that effectively addresses the persistent, exacerbated and > new challenges derived from the pandemic situation, including the > increasing power of some parts of the industry, in particular the large > technology companies, and the lack of voices from more vulnerable and > marginalised groups." > > We do not want this to be seen as discouragement to anyone planning to > nominate themselves. However, as a network, it is clear that we don't have > the support or interest to continue with this specific nomination process. > > Best > Sheetal and Bruna > > On Fri, 19 Nov 2021 at 16:25, Sheetal Kumar > wrote: > > Dear all, > > This is a polite reminder to share your nominations to the CSCG for the > IGF's leadership panel, as per the process outlined below. We request this > is done by *COB November 22 *so that we are able to submit by the > deadline of > *November 29. * > > > We look forward to receiving your nomination/s. > Best > Sheetal > > > > > > On Mon, 15 Nov 2021 at 13:51, Sheetal Kumar > wrote: > > Dear all, > > As you may have seen, the IGF Secretariat has launched the nomination > process at the request of the Executive Office of the United Nations > Secretary-General for the *inaugural Leadership Panel of the 2022 and > 2023 Internet Governance Forum (IGF) cycles* > . > > > > > Following several rounds of open consultations, the Leadership Panel is a > response to the Secretary-General’s Roadmap for Digital Cooperation > , which calls for strengthening of the IGF > through, among other aspects, *’’creating a strategic and empowered > multi-stakeholder high-level body, building on the experience of the > existing multi-stakeholder advisory group, which would address urgent > issues, coordinate follow-up action on Forum discussions and relay proposed > policy approaches and recommendations from the Forum to the appropriate > normative and decision-making forums*.’’ > > > CSCG, and for this process, this includes APC and IGC, will run a > nomination process to identify nominees for the two categories: > > - Two [2] at-large members (distinguished or prominent persons who do > not fall under above stakeholder groups) and > - Two [2] CEO-level (or deputy-level) representatives from each of the > other three stakeholder groups (civil society) > > Please note, this does not mean we endorse the process or the mechanism > itself. We will send a letter with the nominations that clearly reiterates > our previous publicly stated positions (such as this Open letter on the > interpretation of paragraph 93(a) of the UNSG's Roadmap on Digital > Cooperation > > and this on the future of the IGF > on > the Leadership Panel/Higher-level MAG > ), > including the importance of maintaining the MAG's current role and not > supplanting it, the importance of diversity and inclusion, transparency etc > and make clear that our submission of nominees should not be read as > endorsement. > > > We intend that our nominations reflect the above criteria. Please note > that to receive a CSCG nomination for the IGF leadership panel you'll need > to send us (me and Valeria and Bruna cc'd) the information required on the online > form > . > We request this is done by *COB November 22 *so that we are able to > submit by the deadline of > *November 29. * > > > We look forward to receiving your nomination/s. > Best > Sheetal > > > -- > > *Sheetal Kumar* > Head of Global Engagement and Advocacy | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| Time zone: GMT | M: +44 (0)7739569514 | > PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 > DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| > > > > > > -- > > *Sheetal Kumar* > Head of Global Engagement and Advocacy | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| Time zone: GMT | M: +44 (0)7739569514 | > PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 > DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| > > > > > > -- > > *Sheetal Kumar* > Head of Global Engagement and Advocacy | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| Time zone: GMT | M: +44 (0)7739569514 | > PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 > DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| > > > > -- > Governance mailing list > Governance at lists.igcaucus.org > https://lists.igcaucus.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > > -- > Governance mailing list > Governance at lists.igcaucus.org > https://lists.igcaucus.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > > > -- > Governance mailing list > Governance at lists.igcaucus.org > https://lists.igcaucus.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From suresh at hserus.net Sun Nov 28 08:29:52 2021 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2021 13:29:52 +0000 Subject: [Governance] NOTICE: CSCG nomination process for IGF Leadership Panel In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I find myself wondering whether it actually is a mistake rather than a particular choice of wording. What motivated that choice of words is an interesting question. --srs ________________________________ From: Deirdre Williams Sent: Sunday, November 28, 2021 6:42:56 PM To: Suresh Ramasubramanian Cc: parminder ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [Governance] NOTICE: CSCG nomination process for IGF Leadership Panel It seems to me that Suresh and Parminder have hit the nail on the head together. The semantics and semiotics of the English language (and I expect of others as well) have been rudely interfered with in this new digital world. Computer programs reject shades of meaning. But those shades still exist inside people's understanding. To call something a "Leadership" panel in a world where hierarchies are supposed to have been broken down, where the process purports to be flat and inclusive, is surely a mistake? Stay safe Deirdre On Sun, 28 Nov 2021 at 07:31, Suresh Ramasubramanian via Governance > wrote: People who sit on committees appointed by the Indian government calling others “leadership class”? Global south buzzwords fit some people Parminder but you least of all --srs ________________________________ From: Governance > on behalf of parminder via Governance > Sent: Sunday, November 28, 2021 3:26:40 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [Governance] NOTICE: CSCG nomination process for IGF Leadership Panel Dear Nnenna and Jovan, and indeed, Wolfgang, I know things may look different to leadership class people like you :) But the view from the streets is quite a bit different. My best wishes in any case, parmidner On 26/11/21 7:22 pm, Nnenna Nwakanma via Governance wrote: Thanks, Jovan, for this apt articulation. You represent my thoughts Best Nnenna On Fri, 26 Nov 2021, 13:36 Jovan Kurbalija via Governance, > wrote: Dear colleagues, This discussion is important not only for IGF Leadership Panel, but for the future of the IGF as a whole. Civil society and other non-state actors should be particularly concerned about the future of IGF as it is a rare space in which we can all participate equally. For almost ten years, reform of the IGF has been in the works in various iterations. It is not new. The Leadership Panel should be seen as part of a broader attempts to reform IGF. I think that the Leadership Panel is a timely and relevant steps in the right direction of strengthening the IGF. However, these steps should be taken with necessary caution as outlined in the following text: https://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/5-reasons-and-5-concerns-for-the-igf-leadership-panel/ * 5 REASONS for the IGF Leadership Panel * 1. Policy footprint: increasing the relevance of IGF as a space to address digital policy * 2. Louder voices: amplify IGF messages and expertise * 3. Policy conveyor belt: linking the IGF to other policy spaces * 4. Genuine inclusion: from nominal to substantive participation * 5. Policy efficiency: reducing forum shopping * * 5 CONCERNS for the IGF Leadership Panel * 1. The Leadership Panel is only one aspect of IGF Plus * 2. IGF and Digital Compact * 3. Preserving IGF as a space for vibrant discussions * 4. Avoid capturing by vested interest * 5. Solve terminological confusion * * In sum…. Best regards, Jovan On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 10:52 AM Sheetal Kumar via Governance > wrote: Dear all, We did not receive a requisite number of eligible nominations for this process launched last week. We are therefore unable to proceed with the nomination process for the Leadership Panel as CSCG. While this does not constitute a boycott, we understand that the level of doubt and concerns around the Leadership Panel may indicate that there isn't the support required. We will continue to follow the process and to demand the transparency and diversity required in all areas of the IGF, and to work towards strengthening it in the coming years with the view to realising the true spirit of the IGF's multistakeholder mission. More on our previous/relevant position here: https://www.apc.org/en/pubs/open-letter-interpretation-paragraph-93a-un-secretary-generals-roadmap-digital-cooperation. There we say "Multistakeholderism, diversity and inclusion should guide any new structure, building on the IGF legacy thus far and be the basis for putting the structure in function of shaping the global internet governance agenda in a way that effectively addresses the persistent, exacerbated and new challenges derived from the pandemic situation, including the increasing power of some parts of the industry, in particular the large technology companies, and the lack of voices from more vulnerable and marginalised groups." We do not want this to be seen as discouragement to anyone planning to nominate themselves. However, as a network, it is clear that we don't have the support or interest to continue with this specific nomination process. Best Sheetal and Bruna [X] On Fri, 19 Nov 2021 at 16:25, Sheetal Kumar > wrote: Dear all, This is a polite reminder to share your nominations to the CSCG for the IGF's leadership panel, as per the process outlined below. We request this is done by COB November 22 so that we are able to submit by the deadline of November 29. We look forward to receiving your nomination/s. [X] Best Sheetal On Mon, 15 Nov 2021 at 13:51, Sheetal Kumar > wrote: Dear all, As you may have seen, the IGF Secretariat has launched the nomination process at the request of the Executive Office of the United Nations Secretary-General for the inaugural Leadership Panel of the 2022 and 2023 Internet Governance Forum (IGF) cycles. Following several rounds of open consultations, the Leadership Panel is a response to the Secretary-General’s Roadmap for Digital Cooperation, which calls for strengthening of the IGF through, among other aspects, ’’creating a strategic and empowered multi-stakeholder high-level body, building on the experience of the existing multi-stakeholder advisory group, which would address urgent issues, coordinate follow-up action on Forum discussions and relay proposed policy approaches and recommendations from the Forum to the appropriate normative and decision-making forums.’’ CSCG, and for this process, this includes APC and IGC, will run a nomination process to identify nominees for the two categories: * Two [2] at-large members (distinguished or prominent persons who do not fall under above stakeholder groups) and * Two [2] CEO-level (or deputy-level) representatives from each of the other three stakeholder groups (civil society) Please note, this does not mean we endorse the process or the mechanism itself. We will send a letter with the nominations that clearly reiterates our previous publicly stated positions (such as this Open letter on the interpretation of paragraph 93(a) of the UNSG's Roadmap on Digital Cooperation and this on the future of the IGF on the Leadership Panel/Higher-level MAG), including the importance of maintaining the MAG's current role and not supplanting it, the importance of diversity and inclusion, transparency etc and make clear that our submission of nominees should not be read as endorsement. We intend that our nominations reflect the above criteria. Please note that to receive a CSCG nomination for the IGF leadership panel you'll need to send us (me and Valeria and Bruna cc'd) the information required on the online form. We request this is done by COB November 22 so that we are able to submit by the deadline of November 29. We look forward to receiving your nomination/s. [X] Best Sheetal -- Sheetal Kumar Head of Global Engagement and Advocacy | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| Time zone: GMT | M: +44 (0)7739569514 | PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| -- Sheetal Kumar Head of Global Engagement and Advocacy | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| Time zone: GMT | M: +44 (0)7739569514 | PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| -- Sheetal Kumar Head of Global Engagement and Advocacy | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| Time zone: GMT | M: +44 (0)7739569514 | PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| -- Governance mailing list Governance at lists.igcaucus.org https://lists.igcaucus.org/mailman/listinfo/governance -- Governance mailing list Governance at lists.igcaucus.org https://lists.igcaucus.org/mailman/listinfo/governance -- Governance mailing list Governance at lists.igcaucus.org https://lists.igcaucus.org/mailman/listinfo/governance -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From milton at gatech.edu Sun Nov 28 14:54:29 2021 From: milton at gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L) Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2021 19:54:29 +0000 Subject: [Governance] IGF Leadership panel: My personal stance Message-ID: Dear Nnenna: Thanks for making your views clear. I haven’t seen you in a long time, so I had no idea you were so involved in the UN’s Digital Cooperation initiative. I understand and appreciate your perspective. Let me try to explain why I do not support the Leadership Panel, using your bullets as a starting point: * After 15 years of IGF, I, personally would like to see it take on more policy engagement, beyond the "talk, conversation, sharing experience" status in which it is at the moment. Wolfgang and Jovan's points provide enough background I think everyone wants this. But policy engagement will not be enhanced by plucking 10 “important” people out of the thousands who attend and contribute to IGF and telling them to do policy engagement. Policy engagement at IGF will happen when the stakeholders who have policy problems bring them to the IGF for help with their resolution and harmonization. That’s the problem we need to fix. If the policy making world does not engage with the IGF, if they do not see it as a vehicle for making things better, no small, artificially designated group of “leaders” is going to bring them in. * I also do not think that the IGF Leadership panel will prove to be a silver bullet, but it is worth a try. It’s good you have realistic expectations. I would not seek to prevent you from giving it a try, but I do think it diverts attention from the real problem, which I explained above. And it does pose risks of undermining the whole premise of equal-status participation. * The process that led to the Digital Cooperation Roadmap, which gave birth to the IGF suggestion was fully mutlistakeholder. The problem with the Digital Cooperation Group is exactly the same as the problem with the Leadership Panel. A bunch of “high-level” leaders were assembled by the UN on the premise that they would do our thinking for us and show us the way. Most of us ignored it. Whatever its pretenses, this group has no real authority over any part of the internet, nor do they bring to the table the capital investment or labor or coding power that builds and sustains the internet. The Group articulated some nice, very broad norms, but a UN group of that sort simply writes reports, it has no authority to require anyone to follow its suggestions. There is a bigger problem here, which I would like to put in front of you. It is that the UN system is largely impotent with respect to Internet Governance. Artificially designating some “high level” people as leaders will not change that, and cannot change that. The UN is itself nothing but a “talk shop.” But I support talk shops, and as a really good talker, you should too. To denigrate IGF by calling it a talk shop is to denigrate the entire UN. The world needs places for focused dialogue. Being a talk shop is not at all a bad thing. Dr. Milton L Mueller Georgia Institute of Technology School of Public Policy Internet Governance Project -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lmcknigh at syr.edu Sun Nov 28 15:47:21 2021 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2021 20:47:21 +0000 Subject: [Governance] IGF Leadership panel: My personal stance In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Following on Nnenna’s excellent points, and example: * The 15 years ‘do nothing but talk’ history of IGF is an accident – a bug not a feature - because it was intentionally stifled at birth. And not permitted in the final WSIS negotiations, to do more. * I engaged in global civil disobedience at the 3rd IGF to register my objection to that stifling; by asking for a show of hands (gasp! The horror!) in a Hyderabad panel discussion I was moderating on the JPA that Milton among others may recall. * I wished to make the point that such stifling was foolish, and not in anyone’s long-term interest. * My breach of IGF etiquette did not pass unnoticed at the time, but that’s also not the point. * Some of the orgs most upset with me at the time -now – would also like the IGF to get out of the box it was put in at birth. So we all move on. * Many, dare I say most, recognize for the IGF to gain/have relevance going forward, more is needed than talk. * Whether the leadership panel is the ideal, or only way to make that happen is not the point. * Only issue now is whether IGC can get out of its own way to engage – with the Secretary General -and other multi-stakeholders. * To help us move ahead, I nominate, or second, and endorse 1000% Nnenna for the Leadership panel on behalf of IGC. From: Governance On Behalf Of Nnenna Nwakanma via Governance Sent: Sunday, November 28, 2021 8:06 AM To: Governance Subject: [Governance] IGF Leadership panel: My personal stance Dear all I do not have energy for drawn-out debates. However, let me state my personal perspective of the IGF Leadership panel * After 15 years of IGF, I, personally would like to see it take on more policy engagement, beyond the "talk, conversation, sharing experience" status in which it is at the moment. Wolfgang and Jovan's points provide enough background * I also do not think that the IGF Leadership panel will prove to be a silver bullet, but it is worth a try. * The process that led to the Digital Cooperation Roadmap, which gave birth to the IGF suggestion was fully mutlistakeholder. I have participated, in my personal capacity and via the Web Foundation for the past 3 years, right from BEFORE Paris IGF till today. * There is a Civil Society group (let me know if you or your organisation wishes to engage) that has kept in collaboration with the Office of the UN Tech Envoy since its inception. Many orgs in this list are also there. * Some of us plan to engage in Our Common Agenda, and most importantly, the Global Digital Compact, that we believe will be in the works mainly in 2022 and 2023. This is the "Rebuilding after COVID Pandemic Report" launched by the UNSG at the UNGA76 as requested by the UNGA75 * Personally, I have been asked by many if it is okay to nominate me to the IGF Leadership panel and my response has been "Yes, if you consider it right and think I can bring value". * Again, as a personal principle, I do not self nominate for anything, anywhere. All for now Nnenna -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From suresh at hserus.net Sun Nov 28 15:58:56 2021 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2021 20:58:56 +0000 Subject: [Governance] IGF Leadership panel: My personal stance In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The UN is more than a talk shop but has more than enough mandate to convert discussion to action. That the discussion is generally multilateral and inter governmental rather than Multistakeholder is .. The igf has no such mandate or powers. And nor is it likely to acquire them. Keeping with the big tent approach but making it more focused, attracting more and relevant stakeholders and less ridden with the same politics that have plagued sections of civil society engagement for decades would undoubtedly be useful. Whether a brand new “leadership group” would accomplish this is rather doubtful, but whether or not it’d be as good or as bad as the current situation is an open question to me. --srs ________________________________ From: Governance on behalf of Mueller, Milton L via Governance Sent: Monday, November 29, 2021 1:24:29 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [Governance] IGF Leadership panel: My personal stance Dear Nnenna: Thanks for making your views clear. I haven’t seen you in a long time, so I had no idea you were so involved in the UN’s Digital Cooperation initiative. I understand and appreciate your perspective. Let me try to explain why I do not support the Leadership Panel, using your bullets as a starting point: * After 15 years of IGF, I, personally would like to see it take on more policy engagement, beyond the "talk, conversation, sharing experience" status in which it is at the moment. Wolfgang and Jovan's points provide enough background I think everyone wants this. But policy engagement will not be enhanced by plucking 10 “important” people out of the thousands who attend and contribute to IGF and telling them to do policy engagement. Policy engagement at IGF will happen when the stakeholders who have policy problems bring them to the IGF for help with their resolution and harmonization. That’s the problem we need to fix. If the policy making world does not engage with the IGF, if they do not see it as a vehicle for making things better, no small, artificially designated group of “leaders” is going to bring them in. * I also do not think that the IGF Leadership panel will prove to be a silver bullet, but it is worth a try. It’s good you have realistic expectations. I would not seek to prevent you from giving it a try, but I do think it diverts attention from the real problem, which I explained above. And it does pose risks of undermining the whole premise of equal-status participation. * The process that led to the Digital Cooperation Roadmap, which gave birth to the IGF suggestion was fully mutlistakeholder. The problem with the Digital Cooperation Group is exactly the same as the problem with the Leadership Panel. A bunch of “high-level” leaders were assembled by the UN on the premise that they would do our thinking for us and show us the way. Most of us ignored it. Whatever its pretenses, this group has no real authority over any part of the internet, nor do they bring to the table the capital investment or labor or coding power that builds and sustains the internet. The Group articulated some nice, very broad norms, but a UN group of that sort simply writes reports, it has no authority to require anyone to follow its suggestions. There is a bigger problem here, which I would like to put in front of you. It is that the UN system is largely impotent with respect to Internet Governance. Artificially designating some “high level” people as leaders will not change that, and cannot change that. The UN is itself nothing but a “talk shop.” But I support talk shops, and as a really good talker, you should too. To denigrate IGF by calling it a talk shop is to denigrate the entire UN. The world needs places for focused dialogue. Being a talk shop is not at all a bad thing. Dr. Milton L Mueller Georgia Institute of Technology School of Public Policy Internet Governance Project -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From remmyn at gmail.com Sun Nov 28 15:59:39 2021 From: remmyn at gmail.com (Remmy Nweke) Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2021 21:59:39 +0100 Subject: [Governance] IGF Leadership panel: My personal stance In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Nnenna nominated and seconded as well by us. On Sun, 28 Nov 2021, 21:47 Lee W McKnight via Governance, < governance at lists.igcaucus.org> wrote: > Following on Nnenna’s excellent points, and example: > > - The 15 years ‘do nothing but talk’ history of IGF is an accident – a > bug not a feature - because it was intentionally stifled at birth. And not > permitted in the final WSIS negotiations, to do more. > - I engaged in global civil disobedience at the 3rd IGF to register my > objection to that stifling; by asking for a show of hands (gasp! The > horror!) in a Hyderabad panel discussion I was moderating on the JPA that > Milton among others may recall. > - I wished to make the point that such stifling was foolish, and > not in anyone’s long-term interest. > - My breach of IGF etiquette did not pass unnoticed at the time, > but that’s also not the point. > - Some of the orgs most upset with me at the time -now – would also > like the IGF to get out of the box it was put in at birth. So we all move > on. > - Many, dare I say most, recognize for the IGF to gain/have > relevance going forward, more is needed than talk. > - Whether the leadership panel is the ideal, or only way to make that > happen is not the point. > - Only issue now is whether IGC can get out of its own way to engage – > with the Secretary General -and other multi-stakeholders. > - To help us move ahead, I nominate, or second, and endorse 1000% > Nnenna for the Leadership panel on behalf of IGC. > > > > *From:* Governance *On Behalf Of *Nnenna > Nwakanma via Governance > *Sent:* Sunday, November 28, 2021 8:06 AM > *To:* Governance > *Subject:* [Governance] IGF Leadership panel: My personal stance > > > > Dear all > > > > I do not have energy for drawn-out debates. However, let me state my > personal perspective of the IGF Leadership panel > > > > - After 15 years of IGF, I, personally would like to see it take on > more policy engagement, beyond the "talk, conversation, sharing experience" > status in which it is at the moment. Wolfgang and Jovan's points provide > enough background > - I also do not think that the IGF Leadership panel will prove to be > a silver bullet, but it is worth a try. > - The process that led to the Digital Cooperation Roadmap, which gave > birth to the IGF suggestion was fully mutlistakeholder. I have > participated, in my personal capacity and via the Web Foundation for the > past 3 years, right from BEFORE Paris IGF till today. > - There is a Civil Society group (let me know if you or your > organisation wishes to engage) that has kept in collaboration with the > Office of the UN Tech Envoy since its inception. Many orgs in this list are > also there. > - Some of us plan to engage in Our Common Agenda > , and most > importantly, the Global Digital Compact, that we believe will be in the > works mainly in 2022 and 2023. This is the "Rebuilding after COVID Pandemic > Report" launched by the UNSG at the UNGA76 as requested by the UNGA75 > - Personally, I have been asked by many if it is okay to nominate me > to the IGF Leadership panel and my response has been "Yes, if you consider > it right and think I can bring value". > - Again, as a personal principle, I do not self nominate for anything, > anywhere. > > All for now > > > > Nnenna > -- > Governance mailing list > Governance at lists.igcaucus.org > https://lists.igcaucus.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amalidesilva at yahoo.com Sun Nov 28 17:09:55 2021 From: amalidesilva at yahoo.com (Amali De Silva) Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2021 22:09:55 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Governance] 20 plus years of UN WSIS & IGF - our future References: <2011437378.4167848.1638137395256.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <2011437378.4167848.1638137395256@mail.yahoo.com>  Dear UN ITU WSIS / UN IGF Cross Cutting Community  We are at a watershed and at a beginning vis-a-vis what the new structures for IGF will hold for our diverse multi-stakeholder community . We are global citizen centric and that means we approach policy matters in a humanitarian manner.  I started in the community in 2000 through the WSIS prep-coms etc,, and we are 21 years on, mature, very much larger, perhaps in some areas more transparent and impactful in many ways, But very young and immature with respect to the emerging technologies that are going to be with us within a few years with Quantum Technology. AI I found to be the resounding issue of the past 5 years and we have still not mastered it, if we ever will.  So we are now embarking on a future of multiple cross-cutting tracks, at multiple speeds and quality for the internet. One thing is certain, the world is ever more dependent on the internet and it is now a life-line rather than a high-way! I have worked actively at UN IGF and UN ITU WSIS Forum 2021 to highlight the need to talk about the ethics of Quantum Technologies and especially of the issues of "Entanglement" which Einstein called "spooky". We are now on Mars, flying commercially in to out of space and quantum entanglement is already with us. The Quantum Internet is already being tested.  Please, our IGF community's new structure will have to face new realities and Quantum is one of them, for which there is no prior training or insight! Please Don't keep it too long to search for the "Essence of Integrity" for QT/QI. This will be the "Holy Grail" or "Dharma" of Connectivity for the future..... Kind regards and season's best,Amali De Silva-MitchellFounder & CoordinatorUN IGF Dynamic Coalition on Data Driven Health Technologies -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Nov 29 05:02:13 2021 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2021 15:32:13 +0530 Subject: [Governance] Fwd: Calling for ISOC to not associate with the nomination process for IGF Leadership Panel In-Reply-To: <08e90a80-536d-b5e3-ebdf-1b8c560f5eb9@itforchange.net> References: <08e90a80-536d-b5e3-ebdf-1b8c560f5eb9@itforchange.net> Message-ID: IT for Change and Just Coalition sent the below email to ISOC's CEO Andrew Sullivan urging him to (1) protest UN SG's decision to set up a Leadership Panel, going against the outcomes of UN SG's own public consultation on the subject, and (2) ensure that ISOC does not associate with the nomination process for constituting the Leadership Panel, which ISOC had so strongly opposed during the consultation . We also remind him of the time when ISOC had successfully opposed setting up a similar high level body for Internet Governance at the World Economic Forum. ISOC's stand on an issue cannot merely depend on the chance of success. Thee are larger matters of principles, and safeguarding long term public interest in the area of global IG. parminder -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Calling for ISOC to not associate with the nomination process for IGF Leadership Panel Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2021 13:35:02 +0530 From: parminder To: Andrew Sullivan CC: Constance Bommelaer , Mark Carvell , Milton L Mueller Dear Andrew, Please find enclosed a letter addressed to the UN Secretary General that Milton Mueller's and my organization wrote recently seeking the rollback of the decision to set up an IGF Leadership Panel (LP). The letter also appeals to civil society and technical community groups to not associate with nomination process for the LP.  As you know, in the public consultations on the issue, most civil society groups and technical community had opposed any such new high level groups being formed outside the MAG.  ISOC was clear in asserting : "...as we have indicated in previous contributions to the UN HLPDC process, ISOC is not convinced that a new higher-level body of representatives needs to be established." The official summary of the responses to the public consultation on creation of a Multistakeholder High Level Body (MHLB) itself says: "Broadly speaking, the option that seems to have received the most support is to create the MHLB within the MAG." To put it in other words, creation of an MHLB outside the MAG did not have much or enough support. Soon after these public consultations, the UN Secretary General goes right ahead and creates a MHLB outside the MAG, in the form of a IGF Leadership Panel. I do not see the point in doing a public consultation when one is not going to go by its outcomes, and in any case impose one's will on the public -- in this case in the form of IGF LP. The announcement for establishing an LP has been received with great dismay among civil society and technical community groups. *A civil society nomination process, involving the main civil society groups and networks most engaged with global IG processes, which was set up with a clear declaration that it did not amount to an endorsement of the LP, still collapsed after a few days because there was not enough support from the community. * Anyway, that is for the UN Secretary General to consider. My appeal is to those who clearly opposed such a body during the consultation, like ISOC did, to write to the UN SG, opposing ( on a procedural count) his decision to ignore the outcomes of the public consultation, and (on a substantive count) his decision to form the IGF Leadership Panel. In fully ignoring the views of the 'stakeholder community', the UN SG has clearly gone against the basic tenets of multistakeholderism. Whether ISOC stands for multistakeholderism or not depends on whether it is ready to stand up and speak against such blatant violation of multistakeholder principles and practice. Such a strong and well-respected body cannot accept such things - with a fundamental impact on the future of global IG ecosystem - just because they have now been ordained by the powers-that-be. ISOC cannot allow itself to be cowed down in such matters. The world is watching.  The least that ISOC can do at this stage is to not enter into a process of providing nominations for constituting the IGF LP. At least not do it in the very first round of LP processes itself, just a few months after it opposed the formation of such a body. This would compromise ISOC's moral authority and practical strength with respect to global IG. There is after all no point in making a clamor for multistakholderism if the involved groups and people cannot speak up when the voice of multi-stakeholder community is ignored,  and new structures of Internet governance contrary to its majority view are imposed on it. It would be an even bigger travesty if the community then meekly begins to almost immediately participate in providing nominations for the very structures (LP) they spoke against. I do not know whether ISOC is sending nominations for the LP, but if it is, we would like to appeal to you to not do so. Even if nominations have already been sent, we appeal to you to withdraw them. *This is a good time to be reminded of the stellar role ISOC played in a somewhat similar situation when an attempt was made to put up a new IG body at the World Economic Forum, as an extremely ill-advised follow-up to the Net Mundial conference. ISOC had at that time stoutly opposed the formation of any such new body, and it was considerably owing to ISOC's opposition that the WEF based IG body eventually did not come to pass. *I shudder to think where we would have been now with the anchor of global IG being at the WEF. * * I will like ISOC to once again employ its moral leadership in the area of global IG ecosystem, and refuse to accept the new IG body being foisted upon us in the face of clearly expressed public opinion against it. Happy to engage further on this issue. Best regards, Parminder IT for Change, and Just Net Coalition -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Seeking roll back of IGF Leadership Panel.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 77600 bytes Desc: not available URL: From milton at gatech.edu Mon Nov 29 14:22:37 2021 From: milton at gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L) Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2021 19:22:37 +0000 Subject: [Governance] IGF Leadership panel: My personal stance In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Lee Thanks for the reminder. I was also attacked passionately at an IGF meeting because I tried to get a workshop to express a specific opinion about IP address policy. It was pretty funny, these outraged folks (all from DC-based business interests or ISOC) thought I was single-handedly destroying the global IG regime. But IGF has long ago grown out of that mindset. All panels and workshops are now urged to provide specific recommendations. And they do, or many of them try to. So being against the LP does not mean being against the use of the IGF to formulate policy proposals and recommendations. We can and will continue to do that. My point is that a LP disempowers all the bottom up efforts to do that. Milton Mueller Professor, School of Public Policy Georgia Institute of Technology On Nov 28, 2021, at 15:47, Lee W McKnight via Governance wrote:  Following on Nnenna’s excellent points, and example: * The 15 years ‘do nothing but talk’ history of IGF is an accident – a bug not a feature - because it was intentionally stifled at birth. And not permitted in the final WSIS negotiations, to do more. * I engaged in global civil disobedience at the 3rd IGF to register my objection to that stifling; by asking for a show of hands (gasp! The horror!) in a Hyderabad panel discussion I was moderating on the JPA that Milton among others may recall. * I wished to make the point that such stifling was foolish, and not in anyone’s long-term interest. * My breach of IGF etiquette did not pass unnoticed at the time, but that’s also not the point. * Some of the orgs most upset with me at the time -now – would also like the IGF to get out of the box it was put in at birth. So we all move on. * Many, dare I say most, recognize for the IGF to gain/have relevance going forward, more is needed than talk. * Whether the leadership panel is the ideal, or only way to make that happen is not the point. * Only issue now is whether IGC can get out of its own way to engage – with the Secretary General -and other multi-stakeholders. * To help us move ahead, I nominate, or second, and endorse 1000% Nnenna for the Leadership panel on behalf of IGC. From: Governance On Behalf Of Nnenna Nwakanma via Governance Sent: Sunday, November 28, 2021 8:06 AM To: Governance Subject: [Governance] IGF Leadership panel: My personal stance Dear all I do not have energy for drawn-out debates. However, let me state my personal perspective of the IGF Leadership panel * After 15 years of IGF, I, personally would like to see it take on more policy engagement, beyond the "talk, conversation, sharing experience" status in which it is at the moment. Wolfgang and Jovan's points provide enough background * I also do not think that the IGF Leadership panel will prove to be a silver bullet, but it is worth a try. * The process that led to the Digital Cooperation Roadmap, which gave birth to the IGF suggestion was fully mutlistakeholder. I have participated, in my personal capacity and via the Web Foundation for the past 3 years, right from BEFORE Paris IGF till today. * There is a Civil Society group (let me know if you or your organisation wishes to engage) that has kept in collaboration with the Office of the UN Tech Envoy since its inception. Many orgs in this list are also there. * Some of us plan to engage in Our Common Agenda, and most importantly, the Global Digital Compact, that we believe will be in the works mainly in 2022 and 2023. This is the "Rebuilding after COVID Pandemic Report" launched by the UNSG at the UNGA76 as requested by the UNGA75 * Personally, I have been asked by many if it is okay to nominate me to the IGF Leadership panel and my response has been "Yes, if you consider it right and think I can bring value". * Again, as a personal principle, I do not self nominate for anything, anywhere. All for now Nnenna -- Governance mailing list Governance at lists.igcaucus.org https://lists.igcaucus.org/mailman/listinfo/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From coffin at isoc.org Mon Nov 29 14:45:22 2021 From: coffin at isoc.org (Jane Coffin) Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2021 19:45:22 +0000 Subject: [Governance] Change of email address Message-ID: <6A6A6DD4-890C-42E9-8901-2E98016B8602@contoso.com> Hi Sheetal – Could you remove my ISOC email from this list (coffin at isoc.org) And, add my gmail address: janercoffin at gmail.com Many thanks, Jane -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From abscoco at gmail.com Mon Nov 29 15:22:08 2021 From: abscoco at gmail.com (Sylvain Baya) Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2021 21:22:08 +0100 Subject: [Governance] Change of email address In-Reply-To: <6A6A6DD4-890C-42E9-8901-2E98016B8602@contoso.com> References: <6A6A6DD4-890C-42E9-8901-2E98016B8602@contoso.com> Message-ID: Dear all, Hope this email finds you in good health! Le lundi 29 novembre 2021, Jane Coffin via Governance < governance at lists.igcaucus.org> a écrit : > Hi Sheetal – > > > Could you remove my ISOC email from this list (coffin at isoc.org) > Hi Jane, Thanks for you email, i hope it could serve some others too. ...so, apologies for this public email :'-( > And, add my gmail address: janercoffin at gmail.com > > > Please simply go to...[1] ...to freely change your options. Here [1] you can also send back your password to your appropriate mailbox. Simply fill your email address and click onto the remind button at the bottom of the page...and there you go! __ [1]: Hope this helps. Shalom, --sb. > Many thanks, > > Jane > -- Best Regards ! __ baya.sylvain[AT cmNOG DOT cm]| Subscribe to Mailing List: __ #‎LASAINTEBIBLE‬|#‎Romains15‬:33«Que LE ‪#‎DIEU‬ de ‪#‎Paix‬ soit avec vous tous! ‪#‎Amen‬!» ‪#‎MaPrière‬ est que tu naisses de nouveau. #Chrétiennement‬ «Comme une biche soupire après des courants d’eau, ainsi mon âme soupire après TOI, ô DIEU!»(#Psaumes42:2) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sheetal at gp-digital.org Tue Nov 30 04:59:16 2021 From: sheetal at gp-digital.org (Sheetal Kumar) Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2021 13:59:16 +0400 Subject: [Governance] IGF Day 0 pre-event: information In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear all, Here is the proposed agenda for the pre-event. We propose to focus it on the Global Digital Compact, but if you would like to discuss anything else please do let us know! - 1) Introductions and agenda/aims of pre-event *10-15 minutes * - 2) Global Digital Compact: context (UNSG Roadmap and UNSG Common Agenda) - *10-15 minutes * - Guiding questions - What do you think about the Compact idea? Do you think civil society should engage? How? - 3) Process/consultation/engagement with Tech Envoy's so far and expected going forward *10 minutes* - * 5) *Break - *10 minutes * - 4) Depending on the above - possible discussion of key priorities/principles under seven proposed areas of the Digital Compact 1) Connect all people to the Internet, including all schools 2) Avoid Internet fragmentation 3) Protect data 4) Apply human rights online 5) Introduce accountability criteria for discrimination and misleading content 6) Promote regulation of artificial intelligence 7) Digital commons as a global public good *30 minutes* - 6) Next steps *10 minutes* Please do chime in with any inputs if you have any ahead of the event next week. Best Sheetal. On Wed, 24 Nov 2021 at 11:48, Sheetal Kumar wrote: > Dear all, > > Bruna and I will follow up with more information on the agenda for the CS > pre-event at this year's IGF but in the meantime,if you are interested in > attending, please block the time and date below. > > IGF 2021 Day 0 Event #68 Civil Society Pre-event: Internet Governance in > times of Crisis > > Ballroom A | > 14:45 GMT (6 Dec) -16:15 GMT (6 Dec) > Best > -- > > *Sheetal Kumar* > Head of Global Engagement and Advocacy | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| Time zone: GMT | M: +44 (0)7739569514 | > PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 > DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| > > > > -- *Sheetal Kumar* Head of Global Engagement and Advocacy | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| Time zone: GMT | M: +44 (0)7739569514 | PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nnenna75 at gmail.com Tue Nov 30 05:12:57 2021 From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma) Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2021 10:12:57 +0000 Subject: [Governance] IGF Day 0 pre-event: information In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Sheetal Maybe worth giving some background info on Civil Society engagement with "Digital Cooperation agenda" in addition to Tech Envoy. The Digital Cooperation precedes the UN Tech Envoy. We might also want to look into global digital Cooperation "emerging issues".. - Tech for Democracy - Freedom Online Coalition - The proposed Alliance for the Future of the Internet.. - The proposed New IP.. - Etc.. Just so folks get general info on how the landscape is shaping up or moving.. All for now.. Nnenna On Tue, 30 Nov 2021, 09:59 Sheetal Kumar via Governance, < governance at lists.igcaucus.org> wrote: > > Dear all, > > Here is the proposed agenda for the pre-event. We propose to focus it on > the Global Digital Compact, but if you would like to discuss anything else > please do let us know! > > - 1) Introductions and agenda/aims of pre-event *10-15 minutes * > - 2) Global Digital Compact: context (UNSG Roadmap and UNSG Common > Agenda) - *10-15 minutes * > - Guiding questions > - What do you think about the Compact idea? Do you think civil > society should engage? How? > - 3) Process/consultation/engagement with Tech Envoy's so far and > expected going forward *10 minutes* > - * 5) *Break - *10 minutes * > - 4) Depending on the above - possible discussion of key > priorities/principles under seven proposed areas of the Digital Compact 1) Connect > all people to the Internet, including all schools 2) Avoid Internet > fragmentation 3) Protect data 4) Apply human rights online 5) Introduce > accountability criteria for discrimination and misleading content 6) Promote > regulation of artificial intelligence 7) Digital commons as a global public > good *30 minutes* > - 6) Next steps *10 minutes* > > Please do chime in with any inputs if you have any ahead of the event next > week. > > Best > Sheetal. > > On Wed, 24 Nov 2021 at 11:48, Sheetal Kumar > wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> Bruna and I will follow up with more information on the agenda for the CS >> pre-event at this year's IGF but in the meantime,if you are interested in >> attending, please block the time and date below. >> >> IGF 2021 Day 0 Event #68 Civil Society Pre-event: Internet Governance in >> times of Crisis >> >> Ballroom A | >> 14:45 GMT (6 Dec) -16:15 GMT (6 Dec) >> Best >> -- >> >> *Sheetal Kumar* >> Head of Global Engagement and Advocacy | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| Time zone: GMT | M: +44 (0)7739569514 | >> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 >> DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >> >> >> >> > > -- > > *Sheetal Kumar* > Head of Global Engagement and Advocacy | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| Time zone: GMT | M: +44 (0)7739569514 | > PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 > DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| > > > > -- > Governance mailing list > Governance at lists.igcaucus.org > https://lists.igcaucus.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sheetal at gp-digital.org Tue Nov 30 05:16:55 2021 From: sheetal at gp-digital.org (Sheetal Kumar) Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2021 14:16:55 +0400 Subject: [Governance] IGF Day 0 pre-event: information In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks, Nnenna! I've added that into the 'context' at the beginning (agenda item 2) and provide a bit more time for that. Will you be able to attend? - 1) Introductions and agenda/aims of pre-event *10-15 minutes * - 2) Global Digital Compact: context (Digital Cooperation agenda, UNSG Roadmap and UNSG Common Agenda, general landscape) - *20 minutes * - 3) Process/consultation/engagement with Tech Envoy's so far and expected going forward *10 minutes* - * 5) *Break - *10 minutes * - 4) Depending on the above - possible discussion of key priorities/principles under seven proposed areas of the Digital Compact 1) Connect all people to the Internet, including all schools 2) Avoid Internet fragmentation 3) Protect data 4) Apply human rights online 5) Introduce accountability criteria for discrimination and misleading content 6) Promote regulation of artificial intelligence 7) Digital commons as a global public good *30 minutes* - 6) Next steps *10 minutes* On Tue, 30 Nov 2021 at 14:13, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote: > Hi Sheetal > > Maybe worth giving some background info on Civil Society engagement with > "Digital Cooperation agenda" in addition to Tech Envoy. > > The Digital Cooperation precedes the UN Tech Envoy. > > We might also want to look into global digital Cooperation "emerging > issues".. > - Tech for Democracy > - Freedom Online Coalition > - The proposed Alliance for the Future of the Internet.. > - The proposed New IP.. > - Etc.. > > Just so folks get general info on how the landscape is shaping up or > moving.. > > All for now.. > > Nnenna > > On Tue, 30 Nov 2021, 09:59 Sheetal Kumar via Governance, < > governance at lists.igcaucus.org> wrote: > >> >> Dear all, >> >> Here is the proposed agenda for the pre-event. We propose to focus it on >> the Global Digital Compact, but if you would like to discuss anything else >> please do let us know! >> >> - 1) Introductions and agenda/aims of pre-event *10-15 minutes * >> - 2) Global Digital Compact: context (UNSG Roadmap and UNSG Common >> Agenda) - *10-15 minutes * >> - Guiding questions >> - What do you think about the Compact idea? Do you think civil >> society should engage? How? >> - 3) Process/consultation/engagement with Tech Envoy's so far and >> expected going forward *10 minutes* >> - * 5) *Break - *10 minutes * >> - 4) Depending on the above - possible discussion of key >> priorities/principles under seven proposed areas of the Digital Compact 1) Connect >> all people to the Internet, including all schools 2) Avoid Internet >> fragmentation 3) Protect data 4) Apply human rights online 5) Introduce >> accountability criteria for discrimination and misleading content 6) Promote >> regulation of artificial intelligence 7) Digital commons as a global public >> good *30 minutes* >> - 6) Next steps *10 minutes* >> >> Please do chime in with any inputs if you have any ahead of the event >> next week. >> >> Best >> Sheetal. >> >> On Wed, 24 Nov 2021 at 11:48, Sheetal Kumar >> wrote: >> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> Bruna and I will follow up with more information on the agenda for the >>> CS pre-event at this year's IGF but in the meantime,if you are interested >>> in attending, please block the time and date below. >>> >>> IGF 2021 Day 0 Event #68 Civil Society Pre-event: Internet Governance in >>> times of Crisis >>> >>> Ballroom A | >>> 14:45 GMT (6 Dec) -16:15 GMT (6 Dec) >>> Best >>> -- >>> >>> *Sheetal Kumar* >>> Head of Global Engagement and Advocacy | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| Time zone: GMT | M: +44 (0)7739569514 | >>> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 >>> DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> -- >> >> *Sheetal Kumar* >> Head of Global Engagement and Advocacy | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| Time zone: GMT | M: +44 (0)7739569514 | >> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 >> DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >> >> >> >> -- >> Governance mailing list >> Governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> https://lists.igcaucus.org/mailman/listinfo/governance >> > -- *Sheetal Kumar* Head of Global Engagement and Advocacy | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| Time zone: GMT | M: +44 (0)7739569514 | PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From judith at jhellerstein.com Tue Nov 30 05:20:19 2021 From: judith at jhellerstein.com (Judith Hellerstein) Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2021 05:20:19 -0500 Subject: [Governance] IGF Day 0 pre-event: information In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: HI All, Looks great!! I will be there in person so look forward to seeing others Best Judith Sent from my iPad judith at jhellerstein.com Skype ID:JudithHellerstein > On Nov 30, 2021, at 5:17 AM, Sheetal Kumar via Governance wrote: > >  > Thanks, Nnenna! I've added that into the 'context' at the beginning (agenda item 2) and provide a bit more time for that. Will you be able to attend? > > 1) Introductions and agenda/aims of pre-event 10-15 minutes > 2) Global Digital Compact: context (Digital Cooperation agenda, UNSG Roadmap and UNSG Common Agenda, general landscape) - 20 minutes > 3) Process/consultation/engagement with Tech Envoy's so far and expected going forward 10 minutes > 5) Break - 10 minutes > 4) Depending on the above - possible discussion of key priorities/principles under seven proposed areas of the Digital Compact 1) Connect all people to the Internet, including all schools 2) Avoid Internet fragmentation 3) Protect data 4) Apply human rights online 5) Introduce accountability criteria for discrimination and misleading content 6) Promote regulation of artificial intelligence 7) Digital commons as a global public good 30 minutes > 6) Next steps 10 minutes > >> On Tue, 30 Nov 2021 at 14:13, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote: >> Hi Sheetal >> >> Maybe worth giving some background info on Civil Society engagement with "Digital Cooperation agenda" in addition to Tech Envoy. >> >> The Digital Cooperation precedes the UN Tech Envoy. >> >> We might also want to look into global digital Cooperation "emerging issues".. >> - Tech for Democracy >> - Freedom Online Coalition >> - The proposed Alliance for the Future of the Internet.. >> - The proposed New IP.. >> - Etc.. >> >> Just so folks get general info on how the landscape is shaping up or moving.. >> >> All for now.. >> >> Nnenna >> >>> On Tue, 30 Nov 2021, 09:59 Sheetal Kumar via Governance, wrote: >>> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> Here is the proposed agenda for the pre-event. We propose to focus it on the Global Digital Compact, but if you would like to discuss anything else please do let us know! >>> 1) Introductions and agenda/aims of pre-event 10-15 minutes >>> 2) Global Digital Compact: context (UNSG Roadmap and UNSG Common Agenda) - 10-15 minutes >>> Guiding questions >>> What do you think about the Compact idea? Do you think civil society should engage? How? >>> 3) Process/consultation/engagement with Tech Envoy's so far and expected going forward 10 minutes >>> 5) Break - 10 minutes >>> 4) Depending on the above - possible discussion of key priorities/principles under seven proposed areas of the Digital Compact 1) Connect all people to the Internet, including all schools 2) Avoid Internet fragmentation 3) Protect data 4) Apply human rights online 5) Introduce accountability criteria for discrimination and misleading content 6) Promote regulation of artificial intelligence 7) Digital commons as a global public good 30 minutes >>> 6) Next steps 10 minutes >>> Please do chime in with any inputs if you have any ahead of the event next week. >>> >>> Best >>> Sheetal. >>> >>>> On Wed, 24 Nov 2021 at 11:48, Sheetal Kumar wrote: >>>> Dear all, >>>> >>>> Bruna and I will follow up with more information on the agenda for the CS pre-event at this year's IGF but in the meantime,if you are interested in attending, please block the time and date below. >>>> >>>> IGF 2021 Day 0 Event #68 Civil Society Pre-event: Internet Governance in times of Crisis >>>> Ballroom A | >>>> 14:45 GMT (6 Dec) -16:15 GMT (6 Dec) >>>> >>>> Best >>>> -- >>>> >>>> Sheetal Kumar >>>> Head of Global Engagement and Advocacy | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>>> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| Time zone: GMT | M: +44 (0)7739569514 | >>>> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Sheetal Kumar >>> Head of Global Engagement and Advocacy | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| Time zone: GMT | M: +44 (0)7739569514 | >>> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Governance mailing list >>> Governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> https://lists.igcaucus.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > > > -- > > Sheetal Kumar > Head of Global Engagement and Advocacy | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| Time zone: GMT | M: +44 (0)7739569514 | > PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| > > > > -- > Governance mailing list > Governance at lists.igcaucus.org > https://lists.igcaucus.org/mailman/listinfo/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sullivan at isoc.org Tue Nov 30 10:37:05 2021 From: sullivan at isoc.org (Andrew Sullivan) Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2021 10:37:05 -0500 Subject: [Governance] Fwd: Calling for ISOC to not associate with the nomination process for IGF Leadership Panel In-Reply-To: References: <08e90a80-536d-b5e3-ebdf-1b8c560f5eb9@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <20211130153705.krfclzkwevjbghyb@outlook.office365.com> Dear colleagues, In reply to Parminder's email, I have sent the following. I forward it here because, since his note was effectively an open letter, I think it requires an open reply: Dear Parminder, Thanks for your note. I had already seen the letter you and Milton sent to the UN Secretary General, but I appreciate you bringing it to my attention specifically. You are quite correct that the Internet Society previously opposed a proposal to create a panel like the one that has been announced, and that we oppose this Leadership Panel. The Internet Society will not, as the Internet Society, nominate anyone to the panel. In addition, no staff members shall participate in the panel. There is a semi-formal group called the Internet Technical Collaboration Group, which has George Sadowsky (in his personal capacity) as its chair, and for which we provide minimal secretariat services. It is possible that group will nominate someone, but it will not be a nomination from the Internet Society as such. Given the clear expressions made during the public comment and the UN decision to proceed anyway, I am sad to say I think it is a waste of time to appeal to the Secretary General again, so I will not be writing. It seems to me we have to accommodate ourselves to this change in the nature of the Internet Governance Forum. That does not mean supporting or nominating potential members. We will of course monitor the group's activity, especially if it seems likely to threaten the Internet. Some would argue that it would be better to try to join this panel and influence it from the inside. My view is that such participation would convey a kind of legitimacy to the Leadership Panel that I do not believe it can have. Let me explain. When the Internet emerged as a large-scale social phenomenon in the 1990s, there was a great deal of contention about who would be in charge. This is to be expected with a large, transformative technology. Moreover, the early history of the Internet may have tended to encourage the idea of someone being "in charge", since of course the earliest Internet sites were all under the supervision of the US DoD. Over time, however, everyone seemed to come to realize that, in a network of networks, it is not really possible to establish who is in charge: since there is no centre, there is no centre of control. Instead, we had to work out always-contingent consensus approaches, using forums like the IGF to identify issues and figure out who might be able to address them. This, of course, is a parallel to the fundamental operational realities of the Internet's design. And it tended, I think, to be reinforced by the nature of the burgeoning Internet: there were just so many players that ruling by authority would be impractical. Something has become gradually more apparent, however: with consolidation and concentration on the Internet, it becomes logistically realistic to get "the important players" into a room. Realistically, when the number of firms with overwhelming traffic dominance on the Internet falls to perhaps 20 or fewer, it is tempting to squeeze those firms and just treat everything else as mostly unimportant noise. And this is, of course, a pattern that is discernable in various acts both by governments, and by very large firms who are clamoring for regulation. Industrial history teaches us that, when a large incumbent insists it needs regulation, it is unlikely to be an effort to ensure the market is open to new players. So, those of us who believe in the open, globally-connected, secure, and trustworthy Internet are now engaged in the fight of our lives. Our vision of the Internet is being supplanted, really, by a giant corporatist enclosure movement. It aims to turn the Internet into a well-controlled, sanitized utility, operated overwhelmingly by a few large, trustworthy organizations at the behest of this or that government. Probably such a utility would have different properties in different places and would interoperate in the more-awkward, more geopolitically-oriented manner of the old telephone system than like the Internet we are used to. It would likely not be the infrastructure of empowered edges that we have known in the opening stages of the Internet. It wouldn't, really, be an internet at all, even though people will probably still call it "internet". I do not believe we are too late to stop this from coming true, but we are definitely at a late hour. Under these circumstances, I think it would be dangerous to participate in—or support in any way—a Leadership Panel that is practically tailor-made for Internet-enclosure thinking. As designed, it is a group of Important People, where the selection criteria are opaque and the remit is vague. It will inevitably be under pressure to support Internet enclosure, and given the political sensitivity of many of the panelists' "day jobs" the panel as a whole will almost certainly have to bow to that pressure. This will be true, in my opinion, no matter how worthy and independent-minded I think are many of the nominees I have heard suggested. The institutional design is fundamentally wrong, and I cannot support it. I have a number of thoughts about how the IGF could more effectively pursue the useful job it has. I have shared those previously with people who I thought might be in a position to try to undertake some of it, and I won't reproduce it here, except to note ruefully that I was apparently not convincing enough. Best regards, Andrew On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 01:35:02PM +0530, parminder wrote: >Dear Andrew, > >Please find enclosed a letter addressed to the UN Secretary General that >Milton Mueller's and my organization wrote recently seeking the rollback >of the decision to set up an IGF Leadership Panel (LP). The letter also >appeals to civil society and technical community groups to not associate >with nomination process for the LP.  > >As you know, in the public consultations on the issue, most civil >society groups and technical community had opposed any such new high >level groups being formed outside the MAG. > > ISOC was clear in asserting >: > > "...as we have indicated in previous contributions to the UN HLPDC > process, ISOC is not convinced that a new higher-level body of > representatives needs to be established." > >The official summary of the responses > >to the public consultation on creation of a Multistakeholder High Level >Body (MHLB) itself says: > > "Broadly speaking, the option that seems to have received the most > support is to create the MHLB within the MAG." > >To put it in other words, creation of an MHLB outside the MAG did not >have much or enough support. > >Soon after these public consultations, the UN Secretary General goes >right ahead and creates a MHLB outside the MAG, in the form of a IGF >Leadership Panel. > >I do not see the point in doing a public consultation when one is not >going to go by its outcomes, and in any case impose one's will on the >public -- in this case in the form of IGF LP. > >The announcement for establishing an LP has been received with great >dismay among civil society and technical community groups. > >*A civil society nomination process, involving the main civil society >groups and networks most engaged with global IG processes, which was set >up with a clear declaration that it did not amount to an endorsement of >the LP, still collapsed after a few days because there was not enough >support from the community. * > >Anyway, that is for the UN Secretary General to consider. > >My appeal is to those who clearly opposed such a body during the >consultation, like ISOC did, to write to the UN SG, opposing ( on a >procedural count) his decision to ignore the outcomes of the public >consultation, and (on a substantive count) his decision to form the IGF >Leadership Panel. > >In fully ignoring the views of the 'stakeholder community', the UN SG >has clearly gone against the basic tenets of multistakeholderism. >Whether ISOC stands for multistakeholderism or not depends on whether it >is ready to stand up and speak against such blatant violation of >multistakeholder principles and practice. Such a strong and >well-respected body cannot accept such things - with a fundamental >impact on the future of global IG ecosystem - just because they have now >been ordained by the powers-that-be. ISOC cannot allow itself to be >cowed down in such matters. The world is watching.  > >The least that ISOC can do at this stage is to not enter into a process >of providing nominations for constituting the IGF LP. At least not do it >in the very first round of LP processes itself, just a few months after >it opposed the formation of such a body. This would compromise ISOC's >moral authority and practical strength with respect to global IG. > >There is after all no point in making a clamor for multistakholderism if >the involved groups and people cannot speak up when the voice of >multi-stakeholder community is ignored,  and new structures of Internet >governance contrary to its majority view are imposed on it. It would be >an even bigger travesty if the community then meekly begins to almost >immediately participate in providing nominations for the very structures >(LP) they spoke against. > >I do not know whether ISOC is sending nominations for the LP, but if it >is, we would like to appeal to you to not do so. Even if nominations >have already been sent, we appeal to you to withdraw them. > >*This is a good time to be reminded of the stellar role ISOC played in a >somewhat similar situation when an attempt was made to put up a new IG >body at the World Economic Forum, as an extremely ill-advised follow-up >to the Net Mundial conference. ISOC had at that time stoutly opposed the >formation of any such new body, and it was considerably owing to ISOC's >opposition that the WEF based IG body eventually did not come to pass. >*I shudder to think where we would have been now with the anchor of >global IG being at the WEF. * >* > >I will like ISOC to once again employ its moral leadership in the area >of global IG ecosystem, and refuse to accept the new IG body being >foisted upon us in the face of clearly expressed public opinion against it. > >Happy to engage further on this issue. > >Best regards, > >Parminder > >IT for Change, and Just Net Coalition > > > > > > > -- Andrew Sullivan President & CEO, Internet Society sullivan at isoc.org +1 416 731 1261 -- Andrew Sullivan President & CEO, Internet Society sullivan at isoc.org +1 416 731 1261 From george.sadowsky at gmail.com Tue Nov 30 13:41:01 2021 From: george.sadowsky at gmail.com (George Sadowsky) Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2021 13:41:01 -0500 Subject: [Governance] FYI: ITCG's submission regarding the creation and membership of the IGF Leadership Panel Message-ID: <12FCF589-0803-4F4F-BDCD-9DAE22CBB74A@gmail.com> On 27 November 2021, the Internet Technical Collaboration Group , or ITCG, (https://www.internetcollaboration.org ) sent the message below to the Office of the United Nations Secretary-General We reproduce the letter below, omitting the curriculum vitae of the candidates recommended. The Internet Technical Collaboration Group, or ITCG (https://www.internetcollaboration.org ) brings together the technical and policy expertise of individuals and organizations involved in the technical evolution and administration of specific Internet resources in a decentralized network approach to policy formulation for the Internet. The ITCG is dedicated to sharing information within the technical community, and ensuring effective and appropriate technical representation in the formulation and implementation of multi-stakeholder Internet governance. Its technical contributors cooperate and coordinate to facilitate constructive contributions to Internet governance fora such as national and international Internet governance meetings. The ITCG is not endorsed by any organization within the Internet ecosystem. Members of the ITCG participate as individuals. Any output of the ITCG is the result of consensus amongst these individuals, and is not officially endorsed by their employers or any Internet technical organisation. The views and opinions expressed in any output of the ITCG are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect official policies or positions of their respective institutions. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Office of the Secretary-General The United Nations New York, NY USA Dear Mr. Secretary-General, The Internet Technical Collaboration Group (ITCG) has noted the Call for Nominations to an IGF Leadership Panel, issued by the IGF Secretariat at the invitation of the UN Secretary-General on 8 November 2021. We also note the Terms of Reference for the IGF Leadership Panel published on the IGF website. As a group of individuals and organizations involved in the technical evolution and administration of specific Internet resources, the ITCG has regularly provided recommendations to the UN Secretary-General on nominations to the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory Group (IGF-MAG) on behalf of the Internet technical community stakeholder group. We believe that this group plays a useful role, ensuring that the technical community can be represented by individuals with relevant expertise, trust, and the support of the global technical community. We feel that this model of ensuring effective representation extends to all multistakeholder structures within the IGF. In making these nominations, however, the ITCG joins other stakeholder groups in expressing serious reservations about the formation process, timeline, and role of the proposed IGF Leadership Panel, as outlined in the Terms of Reference and the Call for Nominations. With these serious reservations, detailed below, we provide the following nominations to the seats reserved for the Internet technical community stakeholder group on the proposed IGF Leadership Panel. Their professional qualifications are attached below: • Maria Häll • Toomas Hendrik Ilves • Nii Narku Quaynor The ITCG has concluded that each of these individuals possess extensive, relevant experience and an understanding of the Internet's technical operations adequate to bring those perspectives to this panel and discuss them with others. They would therefore be able to contribute significant value to the work of this panel and the quality of its conclusions. The ITCG collectively supports these candidates without reservation. Pertinent biographical information in included below. With regard to our reservations, we start by noting that that various organisations and individuals in the global Internet technical community responded to the earlier call for comment regarding the formation of a multi-stakeholder high-level body (the ‘Consultation on Paragraph 93(a) of the Roadmap for Digital Cooperation’, held in March 2021: https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/content/93a-questionnaire-template ). The points made in the responses from organisations including APNIC, the RIPE NCC, the Internet Society and others clearly resonate with the concerns that we now have in relation to the proposed IGF Leadership Panel. Our two key concerns are as follows: 1. We deplore that the the Terms of Reference for this IGF Leadership Panel have been produced with minimal multistakeholder community engagement. It is not evident that the engagement carried out earlier in 2021 has been incorporated in the final Terms of Reference. Strong concerns have been raised that the role of the Leadership Panel, particularly in relation to the MAG, and the way in which the Leadership Panel is expected to, “complement and support similar and ongoing efforts by the MAG.” A "Leadership Panel", by its name alone, is inconsistent with the multistakeholder approach of the IGF, and the current proposal has drawn strong criticism from all of the stakeholder groups of whom we are aware and whhave statements (or expressed opinions) on the matter. A more inclusive, multistakeholder approach to defining this body may have helped to address this, and any process going forward must prioritise openness, transparency, and a commitment to the IGF's multistakeholder approach. We would therefore strongly suggest that the formation process itself be now paused to allow for substantial community input and feedback during the upcoming IGF 2021. 2. The process in relation to the formation of the Leadership Panel is very short, with less than a month to collect nominations. Numerous stakeholders groups have noted this lack of time, and it does not suggest a good-faith effort to find the most effective representatives of each stakeholder group. This is particularly important given that this proposal would inject a new and potentially highly influential function within the IGF ecosystem. We welcome this opportunity to put these concerns on record, and we ask that the Office of the Secretary-General now reflect on them and take steps to address them with stakeholders directly. We trust that if the formation of the IGF Leadership Panel proceeds as outlined, due consideration will be given to the individuals nominated by the ITCG on behalf of the global Internet technical community, and there will be transparent communication regarding the final selection process. Best regards, George Sadowsky, Chair The Internet Technical Collaboration Group (ITCG) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From arsenebaguma at gmail.com Tue Nov 30 14:15:58 2021 From: arsenebaguma at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ars=C3=A8ne_Tungali?=) Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2021 21:15:58 +0200 Subject: [Governance] FYI: ITCG's submission regarding the creation and membership of the IGF Leadership Panel In-Reply-To: <12FCF589-0803-4F4F-BDCD-9DAE22CBB74A@gmail.com> References: <12FCF589-0803-4F4F-BDCD-9DAE22CBB74A@gmail.com> Message-ID: Thanks for sharing this with this group, George! On Tue, Nov 30, 2021, 8:41 PM George Sadowsky via Governance < governance at lists.igcaucus.org> wrote: > On 27 November 2021, the Internet Technical Collaboration Group , or ITCG, > (https://www.internetcollaboration.org) sent the message below to the > Office of the United Nations Secretary-General We reproduce the letter > below, omitting the *curriculum vitae* of the candidates recommended. > > The Internet Technical Collaboration Group, or ITCG ( > https://www.internetcollaboration.org) brings together the technical and > policy expertise of individuals and organizations involved in the technical > evolution and administration of specific Internet resources in a > decentralized network approach to policy formulation for the Internet. > > The ITCG is dedicated to sharing information within the technical > community, and ensuring effective and appropriate technical representation > in the formulation and implementation of multi-stakeholder Internet > governance. Its technical contributors cooperate and coordinate to > facilitate constructive contributions to Internet governance fora such as > national and international Internet governance meetings. > > The ITCG is not endorsed by any organization within the Internet > ecosystem. Members of the ITCG participate as individuals. Any output of > the ITCG is the result of consensus amongst these individuals, and is not > officially endorsed by their employers or any Internet technical > organisation. The views and opinions expressed in any output of the ITCG > are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect official policies > or positions of their respective institutions. > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Office of the Secretary-General > The United Nations > New York, NY USA > > Dear Mr. Secretary-General, > > The Internet Technical Collaboration Group (ITCG) has noted the Call for > Nominations to an IGF Leadership Panel, issued by the IGF Secretariat at > the invitation of the UN Secretary-General on 8 November 2021. We also note > the Terms of Reference for the IGF Leadership Panel published on the IGF > website. > > As a group of individuals and organizations involved in the technical > evolution and administration of specific Internet resources, the ITCG has > regularly provided recommendations to the UN Secretary-General on > nominations to the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory Group (IGF-MAG) on behalf > of the Internet technical community stakeholder group. We believe that this > group plays a useful role, ensuring that the technical community can be > represented by individuals with relevant expertise, trust, and the support > of the global technical community. We feel that this model of ensuring > effective representation extends to all multistakeholder structures within > the IGF. > > In making these nominations, however, the ITCG joins other stakeholder > groups in expressing serious reservations about the formation process, > timeline, and role of the proposed IGF Leadership Panel, as outlined in the > Terms of Reference and the Call for Nominations. With these serious > reservations, detailed below, we provide the following nominations to the > seats reserved for the Internet technical community stakeholder group on > the proposed IGF Leadership Panel. Their professional qualifications are > attached below: > > > *• Maria Häll • Toomas Hendrik Ilves* > * • Nii Narku Quaynor* > > The ITCG has concluded that each of these individuals possess extensive, > relevant experience and an understanding of the Internet's technical > operations adequate to bring those perspectives to this panel and discuss > them with others. They would therefore be able to contribute significant > value to the work of this panel and the quality of its conclusions. The > ITCG collectively supports these candidates without reservation. Pertinent > biographical information in included below. > > With regard to our reservations, we start by noting that that various > organisations and individuals in the global Internet technical community > responded to the earlier call for comment regarding the formation of a > multi-stakeholder high-level body (the ‘Consultation on Paragraph 93(a) of > the Roadmap for Digital Cooperation’, held in March 2021: > https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/content/93a-questionnaire-template). > The points made in the responses from organisations including APNIC, the > RIPE NCC, the Internet Society and others clearly resonate with the > concerns that we now have in relation to the proposed IGF Leadership > Panel. Our two key concerns are as follows: > > 1. We deplore that the the Terms of Reference for this IGF Leadership > Panel have been produced with minimal multistakeholder community > engagement. It is not evident that the engagement carried out earlier in > 2021 has been incorporated in the final Terms of Reference. Strong concerns > have been raised that the role of the Leadership Panel, particularly in > relation to the MAG, and the way in which the Leadership Panel is expected > to, “complement and support similar and ongoing efforts by the MAG.” > > A "Leadership Panel", by its name alone, is inconsistent with the > multistakeholder approach of the IGF, and the current proposal has drawn > strong criticism from all of the stakeholder groups of whom we are aware > and whhave statements (or expressed opinions) on the matter. A more > inclusive, multistakeholder approach to defining this body may have helped > to address this, and any process going forward must prioritise openness, > transparency, and a commitment to the IGF's multistakeholder approach. > > We would therefore strongly suggest that the formation process itself be > now paused to allow for substantial community input and feedback during the > upcoming IGF 2021. > > 2. The process in relation to the formation of the Leadership Panel is > very short, with less than a month to collect nominations. Numerous > stakeholders groups have noted this lack of time, and it does not suggest a > good-faith effort to find the most effective representatives of each > stakeholder group. This is particularly important given that this proposal > would inject a new and potentially highly influential function within the > IGF ecosystem. > > We welcome this opportunity to put these concerns on record, and we ask > that the Office of the Secretary-General now reflect on them and take steps > to address them with stakeholders directly. > > We trust that if the formation of the IGF Leadership Panel proceeds as > outlined, due consideration will be given to the individuals nominated by > the ITCG on behalf of the global Internet technical community, and there > will be transparent communication regarding the final selection process. > > Best regards, > > George Sadowsky, Chair > The Internet Technical Collaboration Group (ITCG) > > > -- > Governance mailing list > Governance at lists.igcaucus.org > https://lists.igcaucus.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Tue Nov 30 16:02:18 2021 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2021 21:02:18 +0000 Subject: [Governance] FYI: ITCG's submission regarding the creation and membership of the IGF Leadership Panel In-Reply-To: References: <12FCF589-0803-4F4F-BDCD-9DAE22CBB74A@gmail.com> Message-ID: Well done George and ITCG! Excellent nominations and appointments. On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 7:16 PM Arsène Tungali via Governance < governance at lists.igcaucus.org> wrote: > Thanks for sharing this with this group, George! > > On Tue, Nov 30, 2021, 8:41 PM George Sadowsky via Governance < > governance at lists.igcaucus.org> wrote: > >> On 27 November 2021, the Internet Technical Collaboration Group , or >> ITCG, (https://www.internetcollaboration.org) sent the message below to >> the Office of the United Nations Secretary-General We reproduce the >> letter below, omitting the *curriculum vitae* of the candidates >> recommended. >> >> The Internet Technical Collaboration Group, or ITCG ( >> https://www.internetcollaboration.org) brings together the technical and >> policy expertise of individuals and organizations involved in the technical >> evolution and administration of specific Internet resources in a >> decentralized network approach to policy formulation for the Internet. >> >> The ITCG is dedicated to sharing information within the technical >> community, and ensuring effective and appropriate technical representation >> in the formulation and implementation of multi-stakeholder Internet >> governance. Its technical contributors cooperate and coordinate to >> facilitate constructive contributions to Internet governance fora such as >> national and international Internet governance meetings. >> >> The ITCG is not endorsed by any organization within the Internet >> ecosystem. Members of the ITCG participate as individuals. Any output of >> the ITCG is the result of consensus amongst these individuals, and is not >> officially endorsed by their employers or any Internet technical >> organisation. The views and opinions expressed in any output of the ITCG >> are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect official policies >> or positions of their respective institutions. >> >> >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> >> Office of the Secretary-General >> The United Nations >> New York, NY USA >> >> Dear Mr. Secretary-General, >> >> The Internet Technical Collaboration Group (ITCG) has noted the Call for >> Nominations to an IGF Leadership Panel, issued by the IGF Secretariat at >> the invitation of the UN Secretary-General on 8 November 2021. We also note >> the Terms of Reference for the IGF Leadership Panel published on the IGF >> website. >> >> As a group of individuals and organizations involved in the technical >> evolution and administration of specific Internet resources, the ITCG has >> regularly provided recommendations to the UN Secretary-General on >> nominations to the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory Group (IGF-MAG) on behalf >> of the Internet technical community stakeholder group. We believe that this >> group plays a useful role, ensuring that the technical community can be >> represented by individuals with relevant expertise, trust, and the support >> of the global technical community. We feel that this model of ensuring >> effective representation extends to all multistakeholder structures within >> the IGF. >> >> In making these nominations, however, the ITCG joins other stakeholder >> groups in expressing serious reservations about the formation process, >> timeline, and role of the proposed IGF Leadership Panel, as outlined in the >> Terms of Reference and the Call for Nominations. With these serious >> reservations, detailed below, we provide the following nominations to the >> seats reserved for the Internet technical community stakeholder group on >> the proposed IGF Leadership Panel. Their professional qualifications are >> attached below: >> >> >> *• Maria Häll • Toomas Hendrik Ilves* >> * • Nii Narku Quaynor* >> >> The ITCG has concluded that each of these individuals possess extensive, >> relevant experience and an understanding of the Internet's technical >> operations adequate to bring those perspectives to this panel and discuss >> them with others. They would therefore be able to contribute significant >> value to the work of this panel and the quality of its conclusions. The >> ITCG collectively supports these candidates without reservation. Pertinent >> biographical information in included below. >> >> With regard to our reservations, we start by noting that that various >> organisations and individuals in the global Internet technical community >> responded to the earlier call for comment regarding the formation of a >> multi-stakeholder high-level body (the ‘Consultation on Paragraph 93(a) of >> the Roadmap for Digital Cooperation’, held in March 2021: >> https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/content/93a-questionnaire-template). >> The points made in the responses from organisations including APNIC, the >> RIPE NCC, the Internet Society and others clearly resonate with the >> concerns that we now have in relation to the proposed IGF Leadership >> Panel. Our two key concerns are as follows: >> >> 1. We deplore that the the Terms of Reference for this IGF Leadership >> Panel have been produced with minimal multistakeholder community >> engagement. It is not evident that the engagement carried out earlier in >> 2021 has been incorporated in the final Terms of Reference. Strong concerns >> have been raised that the role of the Leadership Panel, particularly in >> relation to the MAG, and the way in which the Leadership Panel is expected >> to, “complement and support similar and ongoing efforts by the MAG.” >> >> A "Leadership Panel", by its name alone, is inconsistent with the >> multistakeholder approach of the IGF, and the current proposal has drawn >> strong criticism from all of the stakeholder groups of whom we are aware >> and whhave statements (or expressed opinions) on the matter. A more >> inclusive, multistakeholder approach to defining this body may have helped >> to address this, and any process going forward must prioritise openness, >> transparency, and a commitment to the IGF's multistakeholder approach. >> >> We would therefore strongly suggest that the formation process itself be >> now paused to allow for substantial community input and feedback during the >> upcoming IGF 2021. >> >> 2. The process in relation to the formation of the Leadership Panel is >> very short, with less than a month to collect nominations. Numerous >> stakeholders groups have noted this lack of time, and it does not suggest a >> good-faith effort to find the most effective representatives of each >> stakeholder group. This is particularly important given that this proposal >> would inject a new and potentially highly influential function within the >> IGF ecosystem. >> >> We welcome this opportunity to put these concerns on record, and we ask >> that the Office of the Secretary-General now reflect on them and take steps >> to address them with stakeholders directly. >> >> We trust that if the formation of the IGF Leadership Panel proceeds as >> outlined, due consideration will be given to the individuals nominated by >> the ITCG on behalf of the global Internet technical community, and there >> will be transparent communication regarding the final selection process. >> >> Best regards, >> >> George Sadowsky, Chair >> The Internet Technical Collaboration Group (ITCG) >> >> >> -- >> 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 > -- *Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala T* *P. O. Box 17862* *Suva* *Republic of Fiji* *Cell: +679 7656770; * *Home: +679 3362003* *Twitter: @SalanietaT* *"You will never do anything in this world without courage. It is the greatest quality of the mind next to honour." Aristotle* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From abscoco at gmail.com Tue Nov 30 17:56:37 2021 From: abscoco at gmail.com (Sylvain Baya) Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2021 23:56:37 +0100 Subject: [Governance] [Internet Policy] Fwd: Calling for ISOC to not associate with the nomination process for IGF Leadership Panel In-Reply-To: <20211130153705.krfclzkwevjbghyb@outlook.office365.com> References: <08e90a80-536d-b5e3-ebdf-1b8c560f5eb9@itforchange.net> <20211130153705.krfclzkwevjbghyb@outlook.office365.com> Message-ID: Dear all, Hope this email finds you in good health! Please find my comments below, inline... Le mardi 30 novembre 2021, Andrew Sullivan via Governance < governance at lists.igcaucus.org> a écrit : > Dear colleagues, > > Hi Andrew, Thanks for sharing your reply here, brother! > In reply to Parminder's email, I have sent the following. I forward it > here because, since his note was effectively an open letter, I think it > requires an open reply: > > The below argumentation appears to be deeply aligned with those of both Parminder & Milton. Question: where is the Andrew, we are used to? ...please, excuse my interpellation; i'm too glad to read the following as i'm firmly in agreement with your stance in defending the bottom-up principle; with interesting illustrations as such...but, i (and almost everyone here) know your determination in fighting for what you think it's worth fighting for... Andrew, allow me to state it cristal clear: Brother, i would have expected you to fight more and certainly, not to abandon your profound beliefs before being sure to have lost the war. As usual, please, use all kind of weapons you think could be effective. Please try again...and defend the IGF's community...as you seem to have confirmed that it deserves to be defended! ...it's not that i think you have not sufficiently considered the situation...instead, my point is that, in what you said, you expressed a clear rueful abandonment; before the end of the story...that seems to not be our own Andrew's habit...i expect more determination from those in charge to defend the Internet. Please stand-up & continue to fight, for the well, brother! Thanks once more. Remain blessed! Shalom, --sb. > Dear Parminder, > > Thanks for your note. I had already seen the letter you and Milton sent > to the UN Secretary General, but I appreciate you bringing it to my > attention specifically. > > You are quite correct that the Internet Society previously opposed a > proposal to create a panel like the one that has been announced, and that > we oppose this Leadership Panel. The Internet Society will not, as the > Internet Society, nominate anyone to the panel. In addition, no staff > members shall participate in the panel. There is a semi-formal group > called the Internet Technical Collaboration Group, which has George > Sadowsky (in his personal capacity) as its chair, and for which we provide > minimal secretariat services. It is possible that group will nominate > someone, but it will not be a nomination from the Internet Society as such. > > Given the clear expressions made during the public comment and the UN > decision to proceed anyway, I am sad to say I think it is a waste of time > to appeal to the Secretary General again, so I will not be writing. It > seems to me we have to accommodate ourselves to this change in the nature > of the Internet Governance Forum. That does not mean supporting or > nominating potential members. We will of course monitor the group's > activity, especially if it seems likely to threaten the Internet. > > Some would argue that it would be better to try to join this panel and > influence it from the inside. My view is that such participation would > convey a kind of legitimacy to the Leadership Panel that I do not believe > it can have. Let me explain. > > When the Internet emerged as a large-scale social phenomenon in the 1990s, > there was a great deal of contention about who would be in charge. This is > to be expected with a large, transformative technology. Moreover, the > early history of the Internet may have tended to encourage the idea of > someone being "in charge", since of course the earliest Internet sites were > all under the supervision of the US DoD. > > Over time, however, everyone seemed to come to realize that, in a network > of networks, it is not really possible to establish who is in charge: since > there is no centre, there is no centre of control. Instead, we had to work > out always-contingent consensus approaches, using forums like the IGF to > identify issues and figure out who might be able to address them. This, of > course, is a parallel to the fundamental operational realities of the > Internet's design. And it tended, I think, to be reinforced by the nature > of the burgeoning Internet: there were just so many players that ruling by > authority would be impractical. > > Something has become gradually more apparent, however: with consolidation > and concentration on the Internet, it becomes logistically realistic to get > "the important players" into a room. Realistically, when the number of > firms with overwhelming traffic dominance on the Internet falls to perhaps > 20 or fewer, it is tempting to squeeze those firms and just treat > everything else as mostly unimportant noise. And this is, of course, a > pattern that is discernable in various acts both by governments, and by > very large firms who are clamoring for regulation. Industrial history > teaches us that, when a large incumbent insists it needs regulation, it is > unlikely to be an effort to ensure the market is open to new players. > > So, those of us who believe in the open, globally-connected, secure, and > trustworthy Internet are now engaged in the fight of our lives. Our vision > of the Internet is being supplanted, really, by a giant corporatist > enclosure movement. It aims to turn the Internet into a well-controlled, > sanitized utility, operated overwhelmingly by a few large, trustworthy > organizations at the behest of this or that government. Probably such a > utility would have different properties in different places and would > interoperate in the more-awkward, more geopolitically-oriented manner of > the old telephone system than like the Internet we are used to. It would > likely not be the infrastructure of empowered edges that we have known in > the opening stages of the Internet. It wouldn't, really, be an internet at > all, even though people will probably still call it "internet". I do not > believe we are too late to stop this from coming true, but we are > definitely at a late hour. > > Under these circumstances, I think it would be dangerous to participate > in—or support in any way—a Leadership Panel that is practically tailor-made > for Internet-enclosure thinking. As designed, it is a group of Important > People, where the selection criteria are opaque and the remit is vague. It > will inevitably be under pressure to support Internet enclosure, and given > the political sensitivity of many of the panelists' "day jobs" the panel as > a whole will almost certainly have to bow to that pressure. This will be > true, in my opinion, no matter how worthy and independent-minded I think > are many of the nominees I have heard suggested. The institutional design > is fundamentally wrong, and I cannot support it. > > I have a number of thoughts about how the IGF could more effectively > pursue the useful job it has. I have shared those previously with people > who I thought might be in a position to try to undertake some of it, and I > won't reproduce it here, except to note ruefully that I was apparently not > convincing enough. > > Best regards, > > Andrew > > On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 01:35:02PM +0530, parminder wrote: > >> Dear Andrew, >> >> [...] >> >> > > -- > Andrew Sullivan > President & CEO, Internet Society > sullivan at isoc.org > +1 416 731 1261 > [...] -- Best Regards ! __ baya.sylvain[AT cmNOG DOT cm]| Subscribe to Mailing List: __ #‎LASAINTEBIBLE‬|#‎Romains15‬:33«Que LE ‪#‎DIEU‬ de ‪#‎Paix‬ soit avec vous tous! ‪#‎Amen‬!» ‪#‎MaPrière‬ est que tu naisses de nouveau. #Chrétiennement‬ «Comme une biche soupire après des courants d’eau, ainsi mon âme soupire après TOI, ô DIEU!»(#Psaumes42:2) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Nov 30 23:37:32 2021 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2021 10:07:32 +0530 Subject: [Governance] Fwd: [JNC - Forum] Fwd: Fwd: Calling for ISOC to not associate with the nomination process for IGF Leadership Panel In-Reply-To: <8ce0a603-b45c-cf0e-cd08-8d5ba284ccdc@itforchange.net> References: <8ce0a603-b45c-cf0e-cd08-8d5ba284ccdc@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <618bb4b9-4bd3-b54e-a30c-7b033663f484@itforchange.net> In the below email is my report back on the issue to the Just Net Coalition group .. Since it involves comments on my disappointment with how the overall IG civil society has engaged with this issue, I thought to share it here.  This disappointment is not so much about differences of views, which is expected and fine, but more about how civil society groups have conducted themselves even as per their own declared views. It astonishes me how groups that have closely involved themselves with these processes chose to stay completely mum when the UN SG holds a public consultation about a new structure -- that represents a very significant shift in the global IG system -- and then soon after acts against the outcomes from his own public consultation. This is even apart from the what views a person/ group may have on the specific idea of an LP .. Although I must mention it here that *I saw no civil society or technical community group support the idea of LP before or after the consultation and its formation*, only just a very few freelancers... The latter are of course also entitled to their view, but the larger observation I make in this regard is important to take note of. There is nothing personal here .. It is in my understanding the main task of civil society people and groups is to openly express and discuss their views on the conduct of public actors -- not just governments and corporations but when needed also civil society groups and persons. parminder -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [JNC - Forum] Fwd: [Governance] Fwd: Calling for ISOC to not associate with the nomination process for IGF Leadership Panel Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2021 09:36:50 +0530 From: parminder Reply-To: Internet governance related discussions To: Forum at Justnetcoalition. Org Please refer to the enclosed letter that the Just Net Coalition (and Internet Governance Project) addressed to the UN Secretary General denouncing his setting up of an (Internet Governance Forum) IGF Leadership Panel. It also appealed to civil society groups and the technical community to not associate with the nomination process that will give the LP undue legitimacy. ISOC is the anchor body for the technical community in the Internet/ digital governance system. We are happy to report that ISOC has now declared that it wont associate with the nomination process, which it thinks gives undue legitimacy to the IGF Leadership Panel. Please*see the below email from ISOC's CEO *in this regard. We are also happy to report that a process involving key civil society groups set up to consider nominations for the LP has collapsed because it did not find enough support in the community. This is wonderful. It strongly makes the point that public interest groups cant be played around with, and that if the UN Secretary General undertakes a public consultation, where the LP idea did not find support, he cant then go ahead in any case and set up an LP. Public interest groups will speak up, and not go along! We are however disappointed that other than JNC and the Internet Governance Project , civil society groups, unlike ISOC, have not made public their dismay and opposition to the setting up of a LP. In fact, one would normally expect such 'speaking out' much more and louder from civil society groups even than the technical community. Indeed, some groups/ individuals seem to have meekly joined in the nominatin process, now seeking seats on a body that they had earlier opposed, and which did not find the favour of public opnion in the UN SG's own public consultation. There however are a (very) few others, almost all free-lancers ( I did not see any group actualy support the LP, before or after its setting it up), that may always have been supporting the LP idea. It seems that many of them are also among the nominations for the LP panel. It is fine if there are genuine differences in views in the civil society. But what is odd is that this LP will have people/ groups from a very very small minority that either always supported the LP, or post LP formation dumped their positons and agreed to get into the nomination process; and the vast majority which remained opposed to the LP will not be in the Panel .. What does it say about what is supposed to the Leadership Panel with respect to the public engaged with digital policy processes? What legitimacy does it have? In any case, we will remain doggedly watchful ... Thanks to all who worked on our joint letter that made an impact. parminder -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: [Governance] Fwd: Calling for ISOC to not associate with the nomination process for IGF Leadership Panel Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2021 10:37:05 -0500 From: Andrew Sullivan via Governance Reply-To: Andrew Sullivan To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Dear colleagues, In reply to Parminder's email, I have sent the following. I forward it here because, since his note was effectively an open letter, I think it requires an open reply: Dear Parminder, Thanks for your note. I had already seen the letter you and Milton sent to the UN Secretary General, but I appreciate you bringing it to my attention specifically. You are quite correct that the Internet Society previously opposed a proposal to create a panel like the one that has been announced, and that we oppose this Leadership Panel. The Internet Society will not, as the Internet Society, nominate anyone to the panel. In addition, no staff members shall participate in the panel. There is a semi-formal group called the Internet Technical Collaboration Group, which has George Sadowsky (in his personal capacity) as its chair, and for which we provide minimal secretariat services. It is possible that group will nominate someone, but it will not be a nomination from the Internet Society as such. Given the clear expressions made during the public comment and the UN decision to proceed anyway, I am sad to say I think it is a waste of time to appeal to the Secretary General again, so I will not be writing. It seems to me we have to accommodate ourselves to this change in the nature of the Internet Governance Forum. That does not mean supporting or nominating potential members. We will of course monitor the group's activity, especially if it seems likely to threaten the Internet. Some would argue that it would be better to try to join this panel and influence it from the inside. My view is that such participation would convey a kind of legitimacy to the Leadership Panel that I do not believe it can have. Let me explain. When the Internet emerged as a large-scale social phenomenon in the 1990s, there was a great deal of contention about who would be in charge. This is to be expected with a large, transformative technology. Moreover, the early history of the Internet may have tended to encourage the idea of someone being "in charge", since of course the earliest Internet sites were all under the supervision of the US DoD. Over time, however, everyone seemed to come to realize that, in a network of networks, it is not really possible to establish who is in charge: since there is no centre, there is no centre of control. Instead, we had to work out always-contingent consensus approaches, using forums like the IGF to identify issues and figure out who might be able to address them. This, of course, is a parallel to the fundamental operational realities of the Internet's design. And it tended, I think, to be reinforced by the nature of the burgeoning Internet: there were just so many players that ruling by authority would be impractical. Something has become gradually more apparent, however: with consolidation and concentration on the Internet, it becomes logistically realistic to get "the important players" into a room. Realistically, when the number of firms with overwhelming traffic dominance on the Internet falls to perhaps 20 or fewer, it is tempting to squeeze those firms and just treat everything else as mostly unimportant noise. And this is, of course, a pattern that is discernable in various acts both by governments, and by very large firms who are clamoring for regulation. Industrial history teaches us that, when a large incumbent insists it needs regulation, it is unlikely to be an effort to ensure the market is open to new players. So, those of us who believe in the open, globally-connected, secure, and trustworthy Internet are now engaged in the fight of our lives. Our vision of the Internet is being supplanted, really, by a giant corporatist enclosure movement. It aims to turn the Internet into a well-controlled, sanitized utility, operated overwhelmingly by a few large, trustworthy organizations at the behest of this or that government. Probably such a utility would have different properties in different places and would interoperate in the more-awkward, more geopolitically-oriented manner of the old telephone system than like the Internet we are used to. It would likely not be the infrastructure of empowered edges that we have known in the opening stages of the Internet. It wouldn't, really, be an internet at all, even though people will probably still call it "internet". I do not believe we are too late to stop this from coming true, but we are definitely at a late hour. Under these circumstances, I think it would be dangerous to participate in—or support in any way—a Leadership Panel that is practically tailor-made for Internet-enclosure thinking. As designed, it is a group of Important People, where the selection criteria are opaque and the remit is vague. It will inevitably be under pressure to support Internet enclosure, and given the political sensitivity of many of the panelists' "day jobs" the panel as a whole will almost certainly have to bow to that pressure. This will be true, in my opinion, no matter how worthy and independent-minded I think are many of the nominees I have heard suggested. The institutional design is fundamentally wrong, and I cannot support it. I have a number of thoughts about how the IGF could more effectively pursue the useful job it has. I have shared those previously with people who I thought might be in a position to try to undertake some of it, and I won't reproduce it here, except to note ruefully that I was apparently not convincing enough. Best regards, Andrew On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 01:35:02PM +0530, parminder wrote: > Dear Andrew, > > Please find enclosed a letter addressed to the UN Secretary General that > Milton Mueller's and my organization wrote recently seeking the rollback > of the decision to set up an IGF Leadership Panel (LP). The letter also > appeals to civil society and technical community groups to not associate > with nomination process for the LP.  > > As you know, in the public consultations on the issue, most civil > society groups and technical community had opposed any such new high > level groups being formed outside the MAG. > >  ISOC was clear in asserting > : > > "...as we have indicated in previous contributions to the UN HLPDC > process, ISOC is not convinced that a new higher-level body of > representatives needs to be established." > > The official summary of the responses > > to the public consultation on creation of a Multistakeholder High Level > Body (MHLB) itself says: > > "Broadly speaking, the option that seems to have received the most > support is to create the MHLB within the MAG." > > To put it in other words, creation of an MHLB outside the MAG did not > have much or enough support. > > Soon after these public consultations, the UN Secretary General goes > right ahead and creates a MHLB outside the MAG, in the form of a IGF > Leadership Panel. > > I do not see the point in doing a public consultation when one is not > going to go by its outcomes, and in any case impose one's will on the > public -- in this case in the form of IGF LP. > > The announcement for establishing an LP has been received with great > dismay among civil society and technical community groups. > > *A civil society nomination process, involving the main civil society > groups and networks most engaged with global IG processes, which was set > up with a clear declaration that it did not amount to an endorsement of > the LP, still collapsed after a few days because there was not enough > support from the community. * > > Anyway, that is for the UN Secretary General to consider. > > My appeal is to those who clearly opposed such a body during the > consultation, like ISOC did, to write to the UN SG, opposing ( on a > procedural count) his decision to ignore the outcomes of the public > consultation, and (on a substantive count) his decision to form the IGF > Leadership Panel. > > In fully ignoring the views of the 'stakeholder community', the UN SG > has clearly gone against the basic tenets of multistakeholderism. > Whether ISOC stands for multistakeholderism or not depends on whether it > is ready to stand up and speak against such blatant violation of > multistakeholder principles and practice. Such a strong and > well-respected body cannot accept such things - with a fundamental > impact on the future of global IG ecosystem - just because they have now > been ordained by the powers-that-be. ISOC cannot allow itself to be > cowed down in such matters. The world is watching.  > > The least that ISOC can do at this stage is to not enter into a process > of providing nominations for constituting the IGF LP. At least not do it > in the very first round of LP processes itself, just a few months after > it opposed the formation of such a body. This would compromise ISOC's > moral authority and practical strength with respect to global IG. > > There is after all no point in making a clamor for multistakholderism if > the involved groups and people cannot speak up when the voice of > multi-stakeholder community is ignored,  and new structures of Internet > governance contrary to its majority view are imposed on it. It would be > an even bigger travesty if the community then meekly begins to almost > immediately participate in providing nominations for the very structures > (LP) they spoke against. > > I do not know whether ISOC is sending nominations for the LP, but if it > is, we would like to appeal to you to not do so. Even if nominations > have already been sent, we appeal to you to withdraw them. > > *This is a good time to be reminded of the stellar role ISOC played in a > somewhat similar situation when an attempt was made to put up a new IG > body at the World Economic Forum, as an extremely ill-advised follow-up > to the Net Mundial conference. ISOC had at that time stoutly opposed the > formation of any such new body, and it was considerably owing to ISOC's > opposition that the WEF based IG body eventually did not come to pass. > *I shudder to think where we would have been now with the anchor of > global IG being at the WEF. * > * > > I will like ISOC to once again employ its moral leadership in the area > of global IG ecosystem, and refuse to accept the new IG body being > foisted upon us in the face of clearly expressed public opinion against it. > > Happy to engage further on this issue. > > Best regards, > > Parminder > > IT for Change, and Just Net Coalition > > > > > > > -- Andrew Sullivan President & CEO, Internet Society sullivan at isoc.org +1 416 731 1261 -- Andrew Sullivan President & CEO, Internet Society sullivan at isoc.org +1 416 731 1261 -- Governance mailing list Governance at lists.igcaucus.org https://lists.igcaucus.org/mailman/listinfo/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Seeking roll back of IGF Leadership Panel.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 77600 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Forum mailing list Forum at justnetcoalition.org https://lists.justnetcoalition.org/listinfo/forum