<div dir="ltr">NARALO will be holding a session on ICANN Accountability Mechanism with Jonathan Zuck and Jeff Neuman. <br>We will be posting a flyer for the event. It will be Monday Feb 14th at @2000 UTC <div>ZOOM REGISTRATION LINK: <a href="https://icann.zoom.us/meeting/register/tJArcuyqrDwiGtJw5LvWSjNps7t2hR1Fi03D">https://icann.zoom.us/meeting/register/tJArcuyqrDwiGtJw5LvWSjNps7t2hR1Fi03D</a><br><div><br clear="all"><div><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div>Glenn McKnight, MA </div><div>Virtual School of Internet Governance </div>Chief Information Officer<div><a href="http://www.virtualsig.org" target="_blank">www.virtualsig.org</a> </div><div><b>YOUR SOURCE FOR INTERNET GOVERNANCE EDUCATION </b></div><div><br></div></div></div></div><br></div></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sat, Jan 8, 2022 at 2:53 AM parminder via At-Large <<a href="mailto:at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org">at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<br>
<p>Dear Wolfgang</p>
<p><br>
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. </p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div>
<p>On 05/01/22 3:29 pm, Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote:</p>
<p> </p>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<p>
</p>
<div>
<p> Hi Parminder, </p>
<p> </p>
</div>
<p> </p>
<div>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
</div>
<p> </p>
<div>
<p> here are some comments: </p>
<p> </p>
</div>
<p> </p>
<div>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
</div>
<p> </p>
<div>
<p> @ IBSA: My problem with IBSA was, </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>To keep things to specific and thus verifiable facts; i
understand you are referring to India's CIRP (Committee on
Internet-Related Policies) <a href="https://itforchange.net/sites/default/files/939/India-UN-CIRP-Proposal-at-UNGA-2011.pdf" target="_blank">proposal</a>
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).</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<p>that the proposal aimed at the establishment of a centralized
intergovernmental decision making body for all Internet
related issues.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
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<b> </b><a href="https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0449" target="_blank">new
legal instrument on AI governance</a>. It first immediately <a href="https://www.g20-insights.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/G20-Japan-AI-Principles.pdf" target="_blank">pushed
it on the G 20</a> , and now wants the whole world to adopt it
through its euphemistically named '<a href="https://oecd.ai/en/gpai" target="_blank">The Global Partnership on AI</a>".
To me this is what looks like 'centralized', 'intergovernmental',
undemocratic, neocolonial, and so on... Anyway, I await your
response. Thanks. </p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<p> The idea with the advisory committees for non-state actors
(copied from the OECD) was a good one.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>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 </p>
<p>(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</p>
<p>(2) while at the same time kept calling OECD-CDEP as agreeably
'multistakeholder', and gladly working with it. </p>
<p>That was my principal point, and your response unfortunately
makes NIL progress on that. </p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<p> But the critical point was, that it was a "one size fits
all" proposal.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>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. </p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<p> 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.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>You mean not IBSA, but the proposed UN-CIRP, right. </p>
<p>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. </p>
<p><font style="font-size:12pt" size="3">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: <br>
</font></p>
<blockquote>
<p><font style="font-size:12pt" size="3">“...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”. </font>
</p>
</blockquote>
<p>
</p>
<p>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?) </p>
<p>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. <a href="https://unctad.org/system/files/non-official-document/ecn162012_p12_EN.pdf" target="_blank">To
quote</a>: </p>
<blockquote>
<p style="margin-bottom:0cm;line-height:100%">"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."</p>
<p>
</p>
</blockquote>
<p>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. <br>
</p>
<p>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. <br>
</p>
<p>(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.)</p>
<p>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.) </p>
<p>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. </p>
<p> 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
<i>inter alia</i> 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.</p>
<p>Sorry, Wolfgang, your excuse or justification does not hold
ground. Provable facts speak otherwise - loud and clear. </p>
<p>To substantiate,you may refer <a href="https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/WGEC2016-2018_m4_CompRecom_en.pdf" target="_blank">here</a>
and <a href="https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/WGEC_Summary_of_Responses.pdf" target="_blank">here</a>
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. </p>
<p>------------- </p>
<p>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".
</p>
<p>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. <br>
</p>
<p>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..... </p>
<p>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.<br>
</p>
<p>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 <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Organizations_Immunities_Act" target="_blank">US's
own existing law</a>, 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. </p>
<p> </p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0cm;line-height:100%">
<font style="font-size:12pt" size="3">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. </font>
</p>
<p>
</p>
Regards,
<br>
Parminder<br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>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. </p>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div> <br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div> parminder <a href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net" target="_blank"><parminder@itforchange.net></a>
hat am 03.01.2022 15:55 geschrieben: </div>
<div> <br>
</div>
<div> <br>
</div>
<p><span style="font-family:"Liberation Sans"">Dear Wolfgang</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Liberation Sans"">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.<br>
</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Liberation Sans"">But I will
persist, and ask again. Hope you answer them this time.
Please see below:</span><br>
</p>
<div> On 03/01/22 4:39 pm, Wolfgang
Kleinwächter wrote: <br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div> 1+ to Olivier: <br>
</div>
<div> <br>
</div>
<div> 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: </div>
</blockquote>
<p>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? <br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div> 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 <em><strong>all</strong>
</em>related stakeholders (in their respective roles). </div>
</blockquote>
<p>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. <br>
</p>
<p>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? <br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div> <br>
</div>
<div> 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. </div>
</blockquote>
<p>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.
<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div> 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. </div>
</blockquote>
<p>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. <br>
</p>
<p>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. <br>
</p>
<p>Now, I come to how these ideas, terms, etc, become
nonsensical, and your contribution to it.</p>
<p>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 ----- <br>
</p>
<p>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?</p>
<p>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 .. <br>
</p>
<p>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)<br>
</p>
<p>But maybe you have responses, and can show that all what I
say simply did not happen... eager to hear that..</p>
<p>With best personal wises, and a very happy new year,
parminder <br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div> 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). <br>
</div>
<div> <br>
</div>
<div> 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. <br>
</div>
<div> <br>
</div>
<div> The WGIG definition differentiated
also between the <strong><em>development</em> </strong>and
the <em><strong>use</strong> </em>of the Internet, that is
the Governance <em><strong>of</strong> </em>the Internet
and Governance <em><strong>on</strong></em> 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). </div>
<div> <br>
</div>
<div> Wolfgang <br>
</div>
<div> <br>
</div>
<div> <br>
</div>
<div> Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond via
At-Large <a href="mailto:at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org" target="_blank"><at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org></a>
hat am 03.01.2022 03:16 geschrieben: </div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div> <br>
</div>
<div> <br>
</div>
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? :-) <br>
<br>
Olivier <br>
<br>
<div> On 03/01/2022 01:35, Barry
Shein via At-Large wrote: <br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>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."
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Multistakeholder_governance&diff=768793583&oldid=750897618" target="_blank">https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Multistakeholder_governance&diff=768793583&oldid=750897618</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
_______________________________________________ At-Large
mailing list <a href="mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org" target="_blank">At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org</a>
<a href="https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large" target="_blank">https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large</a>
At-Large Official Site: <a href="http://atlarge.icann.org" target="_blank">http://atlarge.icann.org</a>
_______________________________________________ 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 (<a href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy" target="_blank">https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy</a>)
and the website Terms of Service (<a href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos" target="_blank">https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos</a>).
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. </blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
At-Large mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org" target="_blank">At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large</a><br>
<br>
At-Large Official Site: <a href="http://atlarge.icann.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://atlarge.icann.org</a><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
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 (<a href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy</a>) and the website Terms of Service (<a href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos</a>). 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.</blockquote></div>