[Governance] Fwd: [Internet Policy] Fwd: [WG-Strategy] [At-Large] Seeking roll back of the IGF Leadership Panel
parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Fri Nov 26 02:21:27 EST 2021
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 <parminder.js at gmail.com>
> To: sivasubramanian muthusamy <6.internet at gmail.com>
> CC: internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org <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
>> <internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org
>> <mailto:internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org>> 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
>> <https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/filedepot_download/9655/2393>.
>> 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/20210304-framing-the-internet-governance-debate-long-road-to-wsis-2025>
>>>>>> <https://circleid.com/posts/20210304-framing-the-internet-governance-debate-long-road-to-wsis-2025>
>>>>>> <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
>>>>>> <https://circleid.com/posts/20200426-cross-pollination-in-cyberspace-internet-governance-spaghetti-ball>
>>>>>> <https://circleid.com/posts/20200426-cross-pollination-in-cyberspace-internet-governance-spaghetti-ball>
>>>>>> <https://circleid.com/posts/20200426-cross-pollination-in-cyberspace-internet-governance-spaghetti-ball>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> parminder via At-Large <at-large at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
>>>>>>> <mailto:at-large at atlarge-lists.icann.org> 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
>>>>>>> <mailto:At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
>>>>>>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
>>>>>>> <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large>
>>>>>>> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
>>>>>>> <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
>>>>>>> <https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>) and the website
>>>>>>> Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos
>>>>>>> <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 <mailto:WG-Strategy at intgovforum.org>
>>>>>> To unsubscribe or manage your options please go to
>>>>>> http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-strategy_intgovforum.org
>>>>>> <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 <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/ <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
>> <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/
>> <https://www.internetsociety.org/become-a-member/code-of-conduct/>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20211126/25959e6d/attachment.htm>
More information about the Governance
mailing list