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

Pedro de Perdigão Lana pedrodeperdigaolana at gmail.com
Fri Nov 26 15:04:16 UTC 2021

Hi Parminder and all,

As someone who usually likes and closely follows your positions related to
IG, it seems to me that the efforts you are promoting here will most likely
be in vain if they do not have a broad adherence at least from civil
society, so treating divergent opinions with condescendence or irony does
not seem to be an effective path to achieve this.
Even though I'm a newcomer to this ecosystem, it didn't seem to me that
either Evan's or Wolfgang's opinions are unsubstantiated or fragile as you
presented them in your answer - I, for one, am also a big supporter of
giving the IGF greater practical influence, even though I agree the LP as
it was presented would be the wrong tool to achieve that. But, you see,
there is room for honest and straightforward debate.

If the main idea of the IGF (and its most positive aspect) is to discuss
controversial topics broadly and deeply, we can apply this philosophy here
as well and at least try to make it clear to everyone that reads this list
what (specifically) are the main problems of the proposal, whether they are
attenuable, if there are tools to exert some kind of control over the
entity, etc. This way, even if the main idea of blocking the proposal does
not work, at least there would be a plan B on what to watch out for to
minimize damages or try to freeze capture, even if this is done through an
external approach to the LP.


*Pedro de Perdigão Lana*
Lawyer, OAB/PR 90.600 @ Faria Santos <https://cutt.ly/RfkTFrK>, Professor @
ISULPAR <https://www.isulpar.edu.br/>
LLM in Corporate Law @ UCoimbra, Researcher @ GEDAI/UFPR
Board member of Youth SIG <https://youthsig.org/> (Internet Society), Creative
Commons Brazil <https://br.creativecommons.net/> and IODA
The information available in this email is restricted to the sender and the
intended recipient(s).

Em sex., 26 de nov. de 2021 às 08:52, Evan Leibovitch via InternetPolicy <
internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org> escreveu:

> I have neither the time nor patience for an extended back-and-forth.
> On Thu, 25 Nov 2021 at 23:17, parminder via InternetPolicy <
> internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>> 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.
> One is welcome to read into my comments, sentiments and motivations that
> don't exist; I can't stop that. But the above is not what I said.
> My core point is simple; rejection of the LP proposal, without offering an
> alternative path to reform, is rightfully begging to be ignored.
> I am not advocating for the LP, indeed from cursory glance it does appear
> like an express path to ICANN-style industry capture. But I am asserting
> that the status quo has become unacceptable to all outside the talk-shop
> bubble, and refusing to acknowledge (let alone making a proposal to
> address) this is guaranteed to lead to undesired outcomes. Worse than a
> blown opportunity, it is a thoroughly avoidable own-goal.
> If the response to this PoV is that it
>> does not deserve any serious consideration among people who concern
>> themselves with long term nature and implications of governance institutions
> ... well, good luck with that level of condescension. Maybe this explains
> why consensus is so undesirable within the IGF status quo.
> Yes, there is desperation to be sure. The current state of IG is leading
> to a visible deterioration of global society before our eyes; meanwhile the
> elites (very much including civil society elites) have shirked their
> responsibility to the public interest, because actual outputs are too messy
> and might actually demand compromise and diplomacy. Into this vacuum we
> will see authoritarians and populists step forward, while the IGF just
> keeps on talking. Cue the UNSG and its leadership folks. This is your fault.
>> 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.
> As yes, the venerable IG Working Group, the gold standard of bikeshedding.
> Discussing what colour to paint the doors while the house burns down.
> That's not fighting the status quo, that's being an agent for it.
> The reality is that the IGF, as a component of IG infrastructure, has next
> to nothing to offer society given a nearly two-decade existence.
> Something's got to change. If not the UNSG's path, then what?
> - Evan
> _______________________________________________
> 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: <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/private/at-large/attachments/20211126/c488ab61/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the At-Large mailing list