[Chapter-delegates] Fwd: [Internet Policy] Fwd: Calling for ISOC to not associate with the nomination process for IGF Leadership Panel

Tue Nov 30 20:57:58 PST 2021

Veni,

Pasting  here without comment - without comment-  the reply that Andrew
Sullivan's response elicited:

"ISOC too has now denounced the Leadership Panel, and refused to associate
with its nomination process which it thinks gives it undue legitimacy."" -
Parminder

On Wed, Dec 1, 2021, 00:59 Veni Markovski via Chapter-delegates <
chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

> Hi, colleagues.
> This email by Andrew Sullivan might be of interest for all of us,
> chapters, and I am forwarding it here, for our own discussion, if people
> are following the developments around the IGF.
>
> Best,
> Veni
> Chairman of the board
> Internet Society - Bulgaria
>
>
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject: Re: [Internet Policy] Fwd: Calling for ISOC to not associate
> with the nomination process for IGF Leadership Panel
> Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2021 10:38:22 -0500
> From: Andrew Sullivan via InternetPolicy <internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org>
> <internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org>
> Reply-To: Andrew Sullivan <sullivan at isoc.org> <sullivan at isoc.org>
> To: internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org
>
> Dear colleagues,
>
> Since Parminder posted here the mail he sent to me, I thought I would
> share the response I have just sent to him.
>
> Dear Parminder,
>
> Thanks for your note. I had already seen the letter you and Milton sent to
> the UN Secretary General, but I appreciate you bringing it to my attention
> specifically.
>
> You are quite correct that the Internet Society previously opposed a
> proposal to create a panel like the one that has been announced, and that
> we oppose this Leadership Panel. The Internet Society will not, as the
> Internet Society, nominate anyone to the panel. In addition, no staff
> members shall participate in the panel. There is a semi-formal group called
> the Internet Technical Collaboration Group, which has George Sadowsky (in
> his personal capacity) as its chair, and for which we provide minimal
> secretariat services. It is possible that group will nominate someone, but
> it will not be a nomination from the Internet Society as such.
>
> Given the clear expressions made during the public comment and the UN
> decision to proceed anyway, I am sad to say I think it is a waste of time
> to appeal to the Secretary General again, so I will not be writing. It
> seems to me we have to accommodate ourselves to this change in the nature
> of the Internet Governance Forum. That does not mean supporting or
> nominating potential members. We will of course monitor the group's
> activity, especially if it seems likely to threaten the Internet.
>
> Some would argue that it would be better to try to join this panel and
> influence it from the inside. My view is that such participation would
> convey a kind of legitimacy to the Leadership Panel that I do not believe
> it can have. Let me explain.
>
> When the Internet emerged as a large-scale social phenomenon in the 1990s,
> there was a great deal of contention about who would be in charge. This is
> to be expected with a large, transformative technology. Moreover, the early
> history of the Internet may have tended to encourage the idea of someone
> being "in charge", since of course the earliest Internet sites were all
> under the supervision of the US DoD.
>
> Over time, however, everyone seemed to come to realize that, in a network
> of networks, it is not really possible to establish who is in charge: since
> there is no centre, there is no centre of control. Instead, we had to work
> out always-contingent consensus approaches, using forums like the IGF to
> identify issues and figure out who might be able to address them. This, of
> course, is a parallel to the fundamental operational realities of the
> Internet's design. And it tended, I think, to be reinforced by the nature
> of the burgeoning Internet: there were just so many players that ruling by
> authority would be impractical.
>
> Something has become gradually more apparent, however: with consolidation
> and concentration on the Internet, it becomes logistically realistic to get
> "the important players" into a room. Realistically, when the number of
> firms with overwhelming traffic dominance on the Internet falls to perhaps
> 20 or fewer, it is tempting to squeeze those firms and just treat
> everything else as mostly unimportant noise. And this is, of course, a
> pattern that is discernable in various acts both by governments, and by
> very large firms who are clamoring for regulation. Industrial history
> teaches us that, when a large incumbent insists it needs regulation, it is
> unlikely to be an effort to ensure the market is open to new players.
>
> So, those of us who believe in the open, globally-connected, secure, and
> trustworthy Internet are now engaged in the fight of our lives. Our vision
> of the Internet is being supplanted, really, by a giant corporatist
> enclosure movement. It aims to turn the Internet into a well-controlled,
> sanitized utility, operated overwhelmingly by a few large, trustworthy
> organizations at the behest of this or that government. Probably such a
> utility would have different properties in different places and would
> interoperate in the more-awkward, more geopolitically-oriented manner of
> the old telephone system than like the Internet we are used to. It would
> likely not be the infrastructure of empowered edges that we have known in
> the opening stages of the Internet. It wouldn't, really, be an internet at
> all, even though people will probably still call it "internet". I do not
> believe we are too late to stop this from coming true, but we are
> definitely at a late hour.
>
> Under these circumstances, I think it would be dangerous to participate
> in—or support in any way—a Leadership Panel that is practically tailor-made
> for Internet-enclosure thinking. As designed, it is a group of Important
> People, where the selection criteria are opaque and the remit is vague. It
> will inevitably be under pressure to support Internet enclosure, and given
> the political sensitivity of many of the panelists' "day jobs" the panel as
> a whole will almost certainly have to bow to that pressure. This will be
> true, in my opinion, no matter how worthy and independent-minded I think
> are many of the nominees I have heard suggested. The institutional design
> is fundamentally wrong, and I cannot support it.
>
> I have a number of thoughts about how the IGF could more effectively
> pursue the useful job it has. I have shared those previously with people
> who I thought might be in a position to try to undertake some of it, and I
> won't reproduce it here, except to note ruefully that I was apparently not
> convincing enough.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Andrew
>
> On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 01:35:02PM +0530, parminder wrote:
>
> Dear Andrew,
>
> Please find enclosed a letter addressed to the UN Secretary General that
> Milton Mueller's and my organization wrote recently seeking the rollback
> of the decision to set up an IGF Leadership Panel (LP). The letter also
> appeals to civil society and technical community groups to not associate
> with nomination process for the LP.
>
> As you know, in the public consultations on the issue, most civil
> society groups and technical community had opposed any such new high
> level groups being formed outside the MAG.
>
>  ISOC was clear in asserting<https://us-west-2.protection.sophos.com?d=intgovforum.org&u=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuaW50Z292Zm9ydW0ub3JnL211bHRpbGluZ3VhbC85M2EtcHVibGljLXJlc3BvbnNlcw==&i=NjExZDIyY2Q4NzUzZDIwZjVkYWQ4Njdi&t=bldUaFRKZklrdnB5elVuZTNjaUhBeThEQUZ5ZXBOSVo3SHFHcHFHZFVJdz0=&h=741ce0e2bd2e433ebe564fe3d4d0708d> <https://us-west-2.protection.sophos.com?d=intgovforum.org&u=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuaW50Z292Zm9ydW0ub3JnL211bHRpbGluZ3VhbC85M2EtcHVibGljLXJlc3BvbnNlcw==&i=NjExZDIyY2Q4NzUzZDIwZjVkYWQ4Njdi&t=bldUaFRKZklrdnB5elVuZTNjaUhBeThEQUZ5ZXBOSVo3SHFHcHFHZFVJdz0=&h=741ce0e2bd2e433ebe564fe3d4d0708d>:
>
>    "...as we have indicated in previous contributions to the UN HLPDC
>    process, ISOC is not convinced that a new higher-level body of
>    representatives needs to be established."
>
> The official summary of the responses<https://us-west-2.protection.sophos.com?d=intgovforum.org&u=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuaW50Z292Zm9ydW0ub3JnL211bHRpbGluZ3VhbC9pbmRleC5waHA_cT1maWxlZGVwb3RfZG93bmxvYWQvMTExMzgvMjQ5MA==&i=NjExZDIyY2Q4NzUzZDIwZjVkYWQ4Njdi&t=Vll2QmVUVVM2RUlObit5VU90djY4L2NaMmx1clh0SVprSlZVZ0ZmVVNYZz0=&h=741ce0e2bd2e433ebe564fe3d4d0708d> <https://us-west-2.protection.sophos.com?d=intgovforum.org&u=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuaW50Z292Zm9ydW0ub3JnL211bHRpbGluZ3VhbC9pbmRleC5waHA_cT1maWxlZGVwb3RfZG93bmxvYWQvMTExMzgvMjQ5MA==&i=NjExZDIyY2Q4NzUzZDIwZjVkYWQ4Njdi&t=Vll2QmVUVVM2RUlObit5VU90djY4L2NaMmx1clh0SVprSlZVZ0ZmVVNYZz0=&h=741ce0e2bd2e433ebe564fe3d4d0708d>
> to the public consultation on creation of a Multistakeholder High Level
> Body (MHLB) itself says:
>
>    "Broadly speaking, the option that seems to have received the most
>    support is to create the MHLB within the MAG."
>
> To put it in other words, creation of an MHLB outside the MAG did not
> have much or enough support.
>
> Soon after these public consultations, the UN Secretary General goes
> right ahead and creates a MHLB outside the MAG, in the form of a IGF
> Leadership Panel.
>
> I do not see the point in doing a public consultation when one is not
> going to go by its outcomes, and in any case impose one's will on the
> public -- in this case in the form of IGF LP.
>
> The announcement for establishing an LP has been received with great
> dismay among civil society and technical community groups.
>
> *A civil society nomination process, involving the main civil society
> groups and networks most engaged with global IG processes, which was set
> up with a clear declaration that it did not amount to an endorsement of
> the LP, still collapsed after a few days because there was not enough
> support from the community. *
>
> Anyway, that is for the UN Secretary General to consider.
>
> My appeal is to those who clearly opposed such a body during the
> consultation, like ISOC did, to write to the UN SG, opposing ( on a
> procedural count) his decision to ignore the outcomes of the public
> consultation, and (on a substantive count) his decision to form the IGF
> Leadership Panel.
>
> In fully ignoring the views of the 'stakeholder community', the UN SG
> has clearly gone against the basic tenets of multistakeholderism.
> Whether ISOC stands for multistakeholderism or not depends on whether it
> is ready to stand up and speak against such blatant violation of
> multistakeholder principles and practice. Such a strong and
> well-respected body cannot accept such things - with a fundamental
> impact on the future of global IG ecosystem - just because they have now
> been ordained by the powers-that-be. ISOC cannot allow itself to be
> cowed down in such matters. The world is watching.
>
> The least that ISOC can do at this stage is to not enter into a process
> of providing nominations for constituting the IGF LP. At least not do it
> in the very first round of LP processes itself, just a few months after
> it opposed the formation of such a body. This would compromise ISOC's
> moral authority and practical strength with respect to global IG.
>
> There is after all no point in making a clamor for multistakholderism if
> the involved groups and people cannot speak up when the voice of
> multi-stakeholder community is ignored,  and new structures of Internet
> governance contrary to its majority view are imposed on it. It would be
> an even bigger travesty if the community then meekly begins to almost
> immediately participate in providing nominations for the very structures
> (LP) they spoke against.
>
> I do not know whether ISOC is sending nominations for the LP, but if it
> is, we would like to appeal to you to not do so. Even if nominations
> have already been sent, we appeal to you to withdraw them.
>
> *This is a good time to be reminded of the stellar role ISOC played in a
> somewhat similar situation when an attempt was made to put up a new IG
> body at the World Economic Forum, as an extremely ill-advised follow-up
> to the Net Mundial conference. ISOC had at that time stoutly opposed the
> formation of any such new body, and it was considerably owing to ISOC's
> opposition that the WEF based IG body eventually did not come to pass.
> *I shudder to think where we would have been now with the anchor of
> global IG being at the WEF. *
> *
>
> I will like ISOC to once again employ its moral leadership in the area
> of global IG ecosystem, and refuse to accept the new IG body being
> foisted upon us in the face of clearly expressed public opinion against it.
>
> Happy to engage further on this issue.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Parminder
>
> IT for Change, and Just Net Coalition
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Andrew Sullivan
> President & CEO, Internet Societysullivan at isoc.org
> +1 416 731 1261
>
>
>
> --
> Andrew Sullivan
> President & CEO, Internet Societysullivan at isoc.org
> +1 416 731 1261
> _______________________________________________
> To manage your Internet Society subscriptions
> or unsubscribe, log into the Member Portal athttps://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/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> As an Internet Society Chapter Officer you are automatically subscribed
> to this list, which is regularly synchronized with the Internet Society
> Chapter Portal (AMS):
> https://admin.internetsociety.org/622619/User/Login
> 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://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20211201/c70c37cb/attachment.htm>