[WG-Strategy] [At-Large] Seeking roll back of the IGF Leadership Panel

Shreedeep Rayamajhi weaker41 at gmail.com
Thu Nov 25 00:02:19 EST 2021


Completely agree with wolfgang regarding this. The Civil society space is
not a space for a few powerful organizations to move around and work around
with limitations of power shared, in fact it should be  the platform of
voice of people from the Globe. The dynamics of Internet governance is not
limited to power control but a more diplomatic way of keeping things
straight facilitating the value of multistakeholder practice in lobbying
and safeguarding the  standard.
It is more about collaboration and how Civil society keeps up with the
other stakeholders in creating better values of standards for them to adopt
and recommend things for a collaborative internet ecosystem.

Regards
Shreedeep

______________________
*Shreedeep Rayamajhi *


*ICT4D Consultant | Editor Rayznews Founder Learn Internet Governance *
[image: Professionally Connect with SR]
<https://np.linkedin.com/in/shreedeeprayamajhi>
+1(301)485-9395(US)


*DISCLAIMER:* This message is intended only for the recipient. If you are
not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying,
distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this
information is strictly prohibited.


On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 2:27 AM Wolfgang Kleinwächter via At-Large <
at-large at atlarge-lists.icann.org> 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/20200426-cross-pollination-in-cyberspace-internet-governance-spaghetti-ball
>
>
>
> 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
> _______________________________________________ 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: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/wg-strategy_intgovforum.org/attachments/20211125/984ec662/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the WG-Strategy mailing list