[Governance] IGF Leadership panel: My personal stance

Lee W McKnight lmcknigh at syr.edu
Sun Nov 28 15:47:21 EST 2021

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 <governance-bounces at lists.igcaucus.org> On Behalf Of Nnenna Nwakanma via Governance
Sent: Sunday, November 28, 2021 8:06 AM
To: Governance <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
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<https://www.un.org/en/content/common-agenda-report/>, 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20211128/1850105e/attachment.htm>

More information about the Governance mailing list