[At-Large] ICANN Accountability Mechanisms

sivasubramanian muthusamy 6.internet at gmail.com
Sun Jan 9 09:40:47 UTC 2022


Just to be sure, February 14?

Sivasubramanian M

On Sun, Jan 9, 2022 at 2:26 AM Glenn McKnight via At-Large <
at-large at atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote:

> NARALO will be holding a session on ICANN Accountability Mechanism with
> Jonathan Zuck and Jeff Neuman.
> We will be posting a flyer for the event.  It will be  Monday Feb 14th
> at @2000 UTC
> https://icann.zoom.us/meeting/register/tJArcuyqrDwiGtJw5LvWSjNps7t2hR1Fi03D
> Glenn McKnight, MA
> Virtual School of Internet Governance
> Chief Information Officer
> www.virtualsig.org
> On Sat, Jan 8, 2022 at 2:53 AM parminder via At-Large <
> at-large at atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote:
>> Dear Wolfgang
>> Thank you so much for your responses. 2022 is indeed turning out to be a
>> 'new' year :) . Hope you will stay the course so that we hopefully can (1)
>> try and see if some mutual agreement if not on solutions then at least on
>> issues and 'facts' is reached, and (2) in any case, help others remember or
>> develop very useful knowledge on these issues. Pl see inline below.
>> On 05/01/22 3:29 pm, Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote:
>> Hi Parminder,
>> here are some comments:
>> @ IBSA: My problem with IBSA was,
>> To keep things to specific and thus verifiable facts; i understand you
>> are referring to India's CIRP (Committee on Internet-Related Policies)
>> proposal
>> <https://itforchange.net/sites/default/files/939/India-UN-CIRP-Proposal-at-UNGA-2011.pdf>
>> to the UN in Oct 2011. It had a precursor in a meeting a few weeks earlier
>> in Rio de Janeiro involving IBSA officials, which developed a short
>> document, of a para-official status, though the meeting was recognized
>> meanwhile in an IBSA Summit statement. I can discuss either, but I think
>> you mean India's UN-CIRP proposal, which -- unlike the IBSA doc -- was an
>> official proposal from India to the UN. From now, I will be specifically
>> referring to and discussing hat. (Happy to discuss the IBSA meeting/ doc,
>> and its history, etc, if you wish).
>> that the proposal aimed at the establishment of a centralized
>> intergovernmental decision making body for all Internet related issues.
>> When you make such statements, you need to keep comparing UN-CIRP
>> proposal with OECD's Committee on Digital Economy Policy (CDEP), which is
>> the issue I deliberately introduced, precisely to prevent you/ others from
>> getting away with vague descriptions and allegations, like 'centralized',
>> 'intergovernmental', etc.... Therefore, please be so good as to state how
>> OECD's CDEP - -the key center of global digital policy making today -- but
>> undemocratically controlled only by the richest countries of the world,
>> while expressly pushing its norms, principles and legal instruments on the
>> whole world -- IS NOT 'centralized', 'intergovernmental', 'decision-making'
>> etc. These things you allege India's proposed UN-CIRP to be. Also do
>> address the counter allegation that OECD-CDEP is 'undemocratic', as only
>> involving the richest countries of the world, but pushing its norms,
>> principles and legal instruments on the whole world. The latest one in this
>> regard being its new legal instrument on AI governance
>> <https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0449>. It
>> first immediately pushed it on the G 20
>> <https://www.g20-insights.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/G20-Japan-AI-Principles.pdf>
>> , and now wants the whole world to adopt it through its euphemistically
>> named 'The Global Partnership on AI <https://oecd.ai/en/gpai>".  To me
>> this is what looks like 'centralized', 'intergovernmental', undemocratic,
>> neocolonial, and so on... Anyway, I await your response. Thanks.
>> The idea with the advisory committees for non-state actors (copied from
>> the OECD) was a good one.
>> Thanks. But as far as I can see, it still made no difference at all to
>> people/organizations like you, ISOC, developed countries, and much of the
>> IG civil society.  Even with both -- OECD's CDEP and India's proposed
>> UN-CIRP -- having exactly the same institutional design,  you still
>> (1) kept holding your collective nose over the UN-CIRP being
>> 'intergovernmental', and refused to engage with it even as a proposal open
>> to suggestions and change
>> (2) while at the same time kept calling OECD-CDEP as agreeably
>> 'multistakeholder', and gladly working with it.
>> That was my principal point, and your response unfortunately makes NIL
>> progress on that.
>> But the critical point was, that it was a "one size fits all" proposal.
>> Again, you need to explain your generic statements like this one... How
>> is UN-CIRP "one size fits all" and OECD-CDEP not so. You can check CDEP's
>> breadth of scope and work -- having worked in issues as diverse as
>> security, labor, gender, children, data governance, AI governance, consumer
>> protection, broadband, tax, blockchain ........ . Also see how it also
>> works in conjunction with other OCED committees/ sections on overlapping
>> issues, which was/ is also intended for any such UN based committee/ body.
>> So, indeed, your "one size fits all" critique of the UN-CIRP proposal is
>> also as bogus.
>> When I asked Tullika at the IGF in Nairobi whether ISBA would be
>> responsible also for IP address management, she was very unclear in her
>> response.
>> You mean not IBSA, but the proposed UN-CIRP, right.
>> Yes, this area needed more engagement and more clarity. But all initial
>> proposals come with some points that others may not agree with. You let
>> know what you agree with and what not. It is very convenient that --
>> because this specific thing is not clear, so I wont even engage and let
>> know WHAT I INDEED DO AGREE WITH. That is called a convenient excuse or a
>> ruse. Meanwhile you to engage with -- and never criticize --  OECD- CDEP.
>> In which case, this 'small point' that the OECD is a club of rich countries
>> trying to dominate the world -- including taking over global digital
>> policy/ norms/ soft-law making -- does never rankle you, and you in your
>> entire career have not mentioned one word about it.
>> Meanwhile, within months of making the UN-CIRP proposal, at a UNDESA
>> consultation on 'enhanced cooperation' in Geneva in May 2012, the Indian
>> representative made a statement explaining the context of the CIRP
>> proposal, very significantly observing that:
>> “...a global view in the overall interest of the global community on the
>> issues of the public policy for Internet Governance would be the right
>> approach” and that “India would be pragmatic and flexible in its approach”.
>> India asked for a Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation to undertake this
>> discussions to discuss “all aspects of Internet Governance that have been
>> raised so far, without pre-judging the outcome”.
>> Can you think of a more open attitude? (Btw, havent heard OECD ever say,
>> yes, I agree, OECD deciding digital policy, norms, soft-law etc for the
>> world is a problem, and we are open to discussing it! Why dont you ever try
>> your charms on them?)
>> Meanwhile, the UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development
>> (CSTD) met the next day after 'enhanced cooperation' consultations,, where
>> I had the honor to formally address the session along with a few other
>> unmentionably high dignitaries. I specifically took up the matter of the
>> confusion regarding ICANN etc oversight vis a vis India's UN-CIRP proposal
>> (the issue that you raise here), calling these concerns as being
>> well-placed. I proposed that the issue of -- and institutional proposals
>> for  --- general Internet related policies (OECD-CDEP style) be separated
>> from that of ICANN oversight. This fully addressed the confusion that you
>> refer to here. To quote
>> <https://unctad.org/system/files/non-official-document/ecn162012_p12_EN.pdf>:
>> "In this regard, India's CIRP proposal may therefore need to be re-worked
>> by removing the CIR oversight function of the proposed CIRP. Other more
>> innovative methods for internationalizing CIR oversight can be found. I
>> will not be able to go into the details here, but if we earmark this as the
>> key problem, and list the various concerns around it, I am sure a mutually
>> satisfactory solution can be found."
>> After I spoke, the US CSTD rep, one Mr Andrew I remember,  during the
>> session, said that my proposal of a 'separation' of institutional
>> approaches was a very good and constructive proposal.
>> So much so for your excuse that you have remained so mortally confused
>> about that one thing of "ICANN oversight issue" in India's UN-CIRP
>> proposal, that is has foreclosed all your engagement with it, as well as
>> any proposal resembling it. (  (therefore) meant nothing to you and you did
>> nothing about it.
>> (This meanwhile still does not explain your non engagement with IT for
>> Change's proposals -- being made from right after WSIS. Taking up
>> OECD-CDEP's institutional model for a UN body was first proposed by ITfC in
>> 2010 consultations by the UN on 'enhanced cooperation'. This indeed is
>> where India picked its UN-CIRP model from. But, IT for Change has been
>> doubtful from the very start -- beginning from this 2010 contribution --
>> about the wisdom of mixing the function of developing general
>> Internet-related policies and the function of oversight over "ICANN plus".
>> Our further submissions, including to the 'Net-Mundial process' and WGEC,
>> clearly testify to this.)
>> Coming now to this discussion shifting to the UN Working Group on
>> Enhanced Cooperation (WGEC), which was set up on India's insistence with
>> more or less the sole purpose of resolving the above and related
>> stalemates. (In the interest of brevity, I will skip how you and others
>> tried to subvert the formation of this WG, by now, somewhat spectacularly,
>> insisting that the IGF itself was 'enhanced cooperation', after having for
>> a few years post-WSIS insisted that IGF and enhanced cooperation (EC) were
>> indeed so dramatically different and separate that EC could not even be
>> discussed at the IGF!!! This is in the records of MAG meetings and MAG
>> consultations. So much so that I was refused to have a workshop on EC in
>> the IGF program, and had to get the Brazilian government to strongly
>> intervene to get it accepted. But, ok, lets come back to the original
>> track.)
>> Wolfgang, we were both members of the WGEC, and therefore our
>> responsibilities for what happened in the WGEC (and what did not) are
>> direct - at least per what we ourselves did and, equally important, did not
>> do... Fortunately, not just the documents but complete transcripts of the
>> meetings of WGEC are available on the CSTD website.
>> In the entire 4 years of WGEC existence and its numerous meetings, I did
>> not see you once raise 'this confusion' that seemed to have stalled your
>> entire engagement with the most important IG institutional proposal to come
>> from the South or developing countries -- I mean the UN-CIRP and the
>> similar. Any reason for that? But matter not, I (and others) still gave
>> specific proposals, in written as well as oral submissions, which *inter
>> alia* did specifically address 'your confusion area', including
>> proposing separate institutional mechanisms for 'general Internet related
>> public policies' and 'the ICANN oversight issue'.  I kept on saying over
>> and over, in every single meeting, that this proposed 'general internet
>> related public polices' based CIRP like body at the UN is now definitely
>> the EXACT REPLICA of OECD-CDEP, now that the 'ICANN oversight' confusion
>> was also clearly removed. YOU DID NOT RESPOND ONCE. So, it is a bit amusing
>> to hear you now, after a decade of the original proposal, justify your
>> non-engagement with UN-CIRP proposal in this manner, blaming it on 'a
>> particular confusion', which has publicly -- including at official forums
>> -- been cleared many times over.
>> Sorry, Wolfgang, your excuse or justification does not hold ground.
>> Provable facts speak otherwise - loud and clear.
>> To substantiate,you may refer here
>> <https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/WGEC2016-2018_m4_CompRecom_en.pdf>
>> and here
>> <https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/WGEC_Summary_of_Responses.pdf>
>> the proposals made by various parties to the the two editions of UN-WGEC.
>> These amply evidence that complete institutional proposals (including EXACT
>> OECD-CDEP kind) were repeatedly made, and any confusion vis a vis them as
>> related to the 'ICANN oversight  issue' repeatedly cleared. To these you
>> made no responses, and showed ero engagement, over the 4 years of the
>> existence of the WGEC, or afterwords .. Neither did you forward any
>> proposal from your side.
>> -------------
>> For the sake of completeness, before closing let me explain why India's
>> CIRP proposal indeed had that provision about "Coordinate and oversee the
>> bodies responsible for technical and operational functioning of the
>> Internet, including global standards setting".
>> Do remember that as per WSIS's Tunis Agenda ' para 70, all governments
>> should be able to on an equal footing engage in the "development of
>> globally-applicable principles on public policy issues associated with the
>> coordination and management of critical Internet resources". This is
>> clearly not the case at present. This above section in India's UN-CIRP
>> proposal was proposed to give effect to this mandate from the WSIS.
>> You or others who do not agree to the manner that India's UN-CIRP
>> proposal tried to give effect to that -- TA p 70 - mandate from WSIS are
>> welcome to provide counter-proposals. As IT for Change did. But you havent
>> ever. You must understand that the Government of India could not ordinarily
>> have made an institutional proposal to the UN, as arising from the Tunis
>> Agenda mandate, which left out this crucial part spoken of in TA p 70.
>> Meanwhile, India did make official statement immediately afterwards that
>> they were open to hear other views -- but such views never came.....
>> The context of India's proposal is important. It is not that ICANN-plus
>> at that time (or even now) existed free from government oversight. ICANN
>> was at this time under express US gov oversight, and, well, it still is
>> under US oversight. Everyone knows why ICANN went back on the issue of .org
>> sale -- bec governments in the US insisted that it did. That is what gets
>> called as OVERSIGHT. But I know such minor things entirely bypass your
>> critical thinking and scrutiny.  It was entirely fair for those who
>> developed India's CIRP proposal to seek transfer of ICANN-plus's oversight
>> from just the US government -- as at present -- to a globally more
>> democratic system. You have alternative to how CIRP tried it? Please
>> present them. I havent heard ever of  them if they indeed exit. IT for
>> Change DID present constructive alternatives to how CIRP approached the
>> issue, which too you never engaged with.
>> In fact-- while at the subject let me also bring this up -- during the
>> IANA transition process -- when I along with the Brazilian gov kept asking
>> for jurisdictional immunity for ICANN under US's own existing law
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Organizations_Immunities_Act>,
>> you never supported or even responded to our proposal - -even when you were
>> very actively engaged with the transition process.. Under an existing US
>> law, US does provide such jurisdictional immunity, including to non-UN
>> global entities... The possible 'solution' of such  'jurisdictional
>> immunity' under existing US law is also contained in an earlier ICANN
>> document. You never even engaged with this proposal, and gave no reasons
>> for your non-engagement either.
>> Perhaps you should explain why you, and others, did not support even such
>> a mild effort to address developing country concerns about US's unilateral
>> oversight of ICANN?  This despite the Civil Society Internet Governance
>> Caucus having adopted the position in 2005 that "ICANN will negotiate an
>> appropriate host country agreement to replace its California
>> Incorporation". Host country agreements do almost always include
>> jurisdictional immunity. When the crunch came -- and the issue was
>> officially up for 'community's decision' -- you all went against the common
>> adopted position of the CS-IGC... Such biased actions and non-actions give
>> no confidence to developing country actors - governments and civil society
>> organizations.
>> Regards,
>> Parminder
>> PS: My response is already long. I will therefore come back separately on
>> other issues raised in your email . This includes your very unfortunate
>> descending to some 'dirty tricks'. But be assured that I will respond to
>> every single part and thing.. Right now I do not want to take the bait and
>> provide you the distraction you seem to be looking for.
>> parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> <parminder at itforchange.net> hat am
>> 03.01.2022 15:55 geschrieben:
>> Dear Wolfgang
>> The problem is that you provide sophisticated theories, which is normally
>> a good thing, but you never respond to questions in the spirit of good
>> theorists as well as that of deliberative democracy. This makes me wonder
>> what to make of your theories, especially when the questions I ask are not
>> abstract but directly related to your own actions and words at different
>> times -- which seem to very conveniently be different for very similar
>> situations, which is never good for a theorist.
>> But I will persist, and ask again. Hope you answer them this time. Please
>> see below:
>> On 03/01/22 4:39 pm, Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote:
>> 1+ to Olivier:
>> There is no "ism". It is better to use language like "the
>> multistakeholder approach". The original concept came from the WSIS 1
>> (2003) when two conflicting proposals for a "one stakeholder approach"
>> (leadership) for the governing of the Internet were on the table:
>> I understand that in your country, Germany, it is the government which
>> sets and enforces all Internet/ digital policies, as it does in all other
>> areas (in howsoever a consultative manner, which btw is the realm of
>> participatory democracy and not MSism which is a direct post-democratic
>> political capture). have you called out this problematic "one stakeholder
>> approach" in your country? If not, why so... Do you believe that Germany
>> should make its Internet/ digital policies with equal right to corporations
>> as with the government?
>> Governments (China) vs. Private Sector (US). The wisdom of the WGIG was
>> to recognize that the Internet does not need a "leader", but the
>> involvement of *all *related stakeholders (in their respective roles).
>> Is Germany's Internet governance 'the respective roles' thing or "one
>> stakeholder approach"? I will appreciate clear and direct responses .
>> Because one wants to really know what things conveniently elastic concepts
>> are meant to mean. So, please, as a good theorist, when you use concepts,
>> define them, and if possible also illustrate, including with counter
>> examples.
>> Meanwhile, I asked in another email, why, for instance, trade unions (or
>> women and farmers) are not stakeholders, as in UN systems and in OECD
>> (trade unions), and we have this industry-serving foursome formula as the
>> mantra in IG? Who decides who the relevant stakeholders are?
>> The working definition, which made its way "1to1" into the Tunis Agenda,
>> included also the concept of "sharing". The working definition was
>> presented as an invitation for further conceptual clarification.
>> Yes, are you happy to do a meeting on such conceptual clarification -- I
>> have been asking for it for at least 15 years.. Including above, as you
>> will see, which I am almost sure -- from long experience -- that you will
>> not engage with.
>> Unfortunately, after 2005 the WGIG concept was pulled into a senseless
>> power struggle between "isms": Multilateralism vs. Multistakeholderism.
>> This conflict was nonsense from the very first day.
>> Ah! Nonsense! Right .. the MSists made it nonsense.. Developing countries
>> and groups like ours supported IGF formation at WSIS when developed
>> countries, and ISOC and ICANN were firmly opposed to it. Others including
>> in civil society were happy with a capacity building role for IGF, which we
>> firmly opposed and sought a policy dialogue role.
>> Including at the UN WG on IGF Improvements, developing countries and
>> organizations like ours gave detailed proposals to further genuine
>> multistakeholder participation (with very good safeguards too) -- which you
>> as a member of the group joined developed countries, tech community and
>> business to firmly oppose, whereby those could not be adopted. Find
>> enclosed the 'India proposal' in this regard, which I helped develop. May I
>> question why you did you not support this effort to strengthen
>> multistakeholder systems, and rejected it out of hand, did not even
>> negotiate with it. We had, through some hard work, got almost all
>> developing countries behind this proposal.
>> Now, I come to how these ideas, terms, etc, become nonsensical, and your
>> contribution to it.
>> First: I have often asked you this, and wont stop asking. How OECD's
>> Committee for Digital Economy Policies -- which is where globally the most
>> digital policy development work currently takes place  (and wonder of
>> wonders, none talks about -- they recently adopted a legal instrument on AI
>> governance, and are now forcing it on the whole world) -- with its intergov
>> decision making with stakeholder advisory committees, and similar digital
>> policy making systems of CoE, are considered as multistakeholder? IISOC has
>> officially called them that, and you yourself participate in them -----
>> But when IBSA or India proposes the EXACT same governance model --
>> deliberately a cut-paste from OECD, the whole IG world erupts in disgust
>> over 'imposition' of multilateral-ism and governmental control over the
>> Internet, including yourself. In fact when the same model was proposed by
>> developing countries -- i have that proposal too -- at the WG for enhanced
>> cooperation too,  you rejected it in my presence as
>> anti-multistakeholderist -- joining with developing countries, business and
>> ISOC in doing so?
>> It is all this that made these ideas and concepts nonsensical -- the way
>> they were blatantly used and abused to further the incumbent power of US
>> and its allies, and their corporations.... You are right there, in bearing
>> the responsibility, for such nonsensical-isation of these otherwise worthy
>> ideas and concepts .. Which now you rue ..
>> And more recently, bringing back precisely the kind of things you
>> rejected at the IGF improvement WG through the backdoor of MAG based IGF
>> 'evolution' and now the digital cooperation thing (led by that great
>> monopolist Bill Gates, sorry his then wife, and Jack Ma, who now is almost
>> in hiding from regulatory crackdown), but shorn of the safeguards we have
>> kept in our IGF WG proposal to contain abuse by corporatist power ...
>> (happy to discuss the differences)
>> But maybe you have responses, and can show that all what I say simply did
>> not happen... eager to hear that..
>> With best personal wises, and a very happy new year, parminder
>> The Multilateral (Intergovernmental) treaty system will not disappear or
>> can not be substituted by multistakeholder arrangements, but it is embedded
>> in a "multistakeholder environment". If governments ignore, what civil
>> society, business or the technical community has to say, it won´t work. On
>> the other hand: Non-State actors can not substitute governments. But there
>> are possibilities for additional multistakeholder arrangements which are
>> based on voluntary commitments (RFCs are a good example). The
>> multistakeholder approach is a process, a "round table" discussion where
>> wisdom emerges from an open and inclusive debate bottom up. It is an
>> exersize of free and frank discussion where listening is sometimes more
>> important than shouting. This goes far beyond "formal consultations" (as
>> parliamentary hearings).
>> This is indeed a new (political) culture which needs further conceptual
>> and procedural clarifications. The NetMundial Statement (2014) delivered
>> some criteria which allow a certain "measurement" for the quality of a
>> multistakeholder process. There is no "one size fits all" multistakeholder
>> model. How the relationship among the stakeholders in policy development
>> and decision making is proceduraly organized, depends to a high degree from
>> the nature of the subject. Cybersecurity needs a different governance model
>> than digital trade or the protection of individual human rights as freedom
>> of expression or privacy in the digital age.The IGF+ process (including the
>> drafting of the proposed Global Digital Compact) offers an opportunity, to
>> take the next conceptual steps. Openess, transparency, bottom up,
>> inclusion, human rights based are good guidelines, but needs further
>> clarification. And it needs procedures, how to move from A to B. Ther
>> procedure which was developed within ICANN how the ICANN Board should deal
>> with GAC advice is a good source of inspiration, how stakeholders can
>> enhance their communication, coordination and collaboration within a
>> multistakeholder process to produce tangible results. It is "stumbing
>> forward" into unchartered territory.
>> The WGIG definition differentiated also between the *development *and
>> the *use *of the Internet, that is the Governance *of *the Internet and
>> Governance *on* the Internet. Governance of the Internet is described
>> today as "Technical Internet Governance" (TIC), that is the management of a
>> "neutral technical ressource" in the public interest of the global
>> community. Such ressources are like "air". There is no American or Chinese
>> air, there is clean air or polluted air. This risk in today´s geo-strategic
>> armtwisting is, that those ressources are pulled into political conflicts
>> with the risk to "pollute the air" (see the Russian proposal in the
>> ITU-CWG-Internet).
>> Wolfgang
>> Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond via At-Large <at-large at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
>> <at-large at atlarge-lists.icann.org> hat am 03.01.2022 03:16 geschrieben:
>> I have real issues taking seriously people who refer to
>> "multistakeholderism" as an "...ism" like communism, fascism,
>> totalitarianism, capitalism, Buddhism, Catholicism.... There really is not
>> such a thing a "multistakeholderism" but perhaps multistakeholder systems
>> of governance. Lehto's criticism assumes that there is a single type of
>> multistakeholder model out there and there really is not. Multistakeholder
>> basically means that a variety of multiple stakeholder sit at the decision
>> and discussion table, so how can one criticise it as if it was some form of
>> established "system" by the elites, the cabal, the illuminati? Whatever? Or
>> should we get back to absolute monarchy? :-)
>> Olivier
>> On 03/01/2022 01:35, Barry Shein via At-Large wrote:
>> The following, in a Criticism section, was removed from the
>> wikipedia's page on "Multistakeholder governance":
>>   Criticism of multistakeholderism comes from Paul R. Lehto,
>>   J.D.{{Citation needed|date=March 2014}}, who fears that in
>>   multistakeholderism, those who would be lobbyists become
>>   legislators, and nobody else has a vote. Lehto states that "In a
>>   democracy, it is a scandal when lobbyists have so much influence
>>   that they write the drafts of laws. But in multistakeholder
>>   situations they take that scandal to a whole new level: those who
>>   would be lobbyists in a democracy (corporations, experts, civil
>>   society) become the legislators themselves, and dispense with all
>>   public elections and not only write the laws but pass them, enforce
>>   them, and in some cases even set up courts of arbitration that are
>>   usually conditioned on waiving the right to go to the court system
>>   set up by democracies. A vote is just a minimum requirement of
>>   justice. Without a vote, law is just force inflicted by the wealthy
>>   and powerful. Multistakeholderism is a coup d’etat against democracy
>>   by those who would merely be lobbyists in a democratic system."
>>   https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Multistakeholder_governance&diff=768793583&oldid=750897618
>> _______________________________________________ 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.
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large/attachments/20220109/a4010fd2/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the At-Large mailing list