[At-Large] [Internet Policy] Fwd: [WG-Strategy] Seeking roll back of the IGF Leadership Panel

Fri Nov 26 14:47:00 UTC 2021

+1 Roberto

Regards

Alberto

+El 2021-11-26 10:33, Roberto Gaetano via At-Large escribió:
> Dear all,
> 
> One thing that strikes me is that I do not have the same reading of
> Evan’s message that Parminder has - but this is not really
> important, as I may have misunderstood one or the other - or maybe
> both.
> 
> The point that I would like to make is that I am reasonably sure that
> the folks who have written the letter are not completely happy with
> the status quo and may want to suggest a way forward that is different
> from the UNSG proposal. The problem is that this does not appear at
> all from the letter - unless also in this case I have misunderstood.
> 
> If we by and large agree that the status quo is not satisfactory - and
> therefore agree that something should be done to improve it - it would
> be a better use of our time to put proposals on the table. The UNSG
> approach is not good enough for some? Then I would expect, rather than
> a simple shooting exercise, with attempt to also interpret what others
> say, an exposition of an alternative. In short, if not the LP, what?
> Otherwise this discussion will only get us to polarise in two camps
> and never make any progress - which is something that I am not really
> much interested to do.
> 
> Cheers,
> Roberto
> 
>> On 26.11.2021, at 05:19, parminder via At-Large
>> <at-large at atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote:
>> 
>> Forwarded as a response to Evan's email on this subject on this
>> elist .. parminder
>> 
>> -------- 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 <parminder.js at gmail.com>
>> 
>> 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, 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>
>> [1]
>> 
>> 
> 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>
>> [2]
>> 
>> parminder via At-Large <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
>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large At-Large
>> Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org [3]
>> _______________________________________________ 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/
> 
>  _______________________________________________
> 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.
> 
> 
> Links:
> ------
> [1]
> https://circleid.com/posts/20210304-framing-the-internet-governance-debate-long-road-to-wsis-2025
> [2]
> https://circleid.com/posts/20200426-cross-pollination-in-cyberspace-internet-governance-spaghetti-ball
> [3] http://atlarge.icann.org/
> _______________________________________________
> 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.