<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
</head>
<body>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 23/03/21 11:09 pm, Mueller, Milton L
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:BN7PR07MB4689CCB4BE801FD23DEFD0CBA1649@BN7PR07MB4689.namprd07.prod.outlook.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered
medium)">
<!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]-->
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Calibri Light \,sans-serif";
panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
line-height:normal;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:.1in;
margin-left:0in;
line-height:120%;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
line-height:normal;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";}
tt
{mso-style-priority:99;
font-family:"Courier New";}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:.1in;
margin-left:0in;
line-height:120%;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;}
p.western, li.western, div.western
{mso-style-name:western;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:.1in;
margin-left:0in;
line-height:120%;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
span.EmailStyle22
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle23
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle25
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">All:
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">As
I stated earlier, I think this dialogue is worth having,
even if most of Parminder's arguments are weak and the
neoMarxist ideology underlying them have been proven time
and again to lead to stunted economic development and
authoritarian systems of governance. It is worth having
because it deals with the fundamentals of internet
governance</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>I begin from this point of agreement that the issues here deal
"with the fundamentals if internal governance". I will come later,
or in another email, to my own name calling about what ideologies
your arguments espouse so as not the distract from the most
important parts of this discussion.</p>
<p>Indeed, Milton, I was very much looking forward to your response
but am quite disappointed by it. You have very little to argue
beyond "you like China, want ...", which is a pretty silly level
to debate about what you yourself agree are issues dealing with
the fundamentals of Internet governance. <br>
</p>
<p>I did not think I would need to argue, that too with a prof of
public policy, such well-established principles of public
governance and policy making in general, and global levels of them
in particular, like what are the canons of funding public
governance and policy making, and what indeed is the current role
of global governance as we know it. <br>
</p>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:BN7PR07MB4689CCB4BE801FD23DEFD0CBA1649@BN7PR07MB4689.namprd07.prod.outlook.com">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">You
say it is "unacceptable that such an apex policy body will
have corporation and government nominees sitting as equals."
So, let's be clear: you are rejecting the multistakeholder
principle and advocating for a traditional intergovernmental
arrangement of the sort favored by authoritarian states.
Their preference has always been to exclude the private
sector and civil society from direct participation and make
IG a governments-only game. Your attempt to revive the
long-dead "enhanced cooperation" process pushes in that
direction as well.</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>You have most conveniently avoided the matter of OCED's CDEP
(committee on digital economy policy) entirely, when it was a big
and one of the most important part of my email. I have
deliberately and persistently stuck to a clear 'object of
interest' because otherwise we can keep going in circles accusing
each other in abstract terms, as you again do here, that I am
'rejecting the multistakeholder principle' My email was clear, I
not only fully accept the multistakeholder model that OECD employs
for its digital policy making, I and the networks that I work with
have officially sought as 'the exact same model' for the global
or the UN level, and developing countries have officially sought
in UN committees and the UN GA 'the exact same model' for the
global or the UN level .... How many times do I need to say the
same thing, and you do everything other than engage it. Lets see
if you'd do any better in your next email!</p>
<p>OCED calls its processes of public policy making as a
multistakeholder model ( I had provided a link to an OECD doc
explicitly saying this), ISOC calls it as a multistakeholder model
(can provide link) .... So, if this is the multistakeholder model
for supra-national Internet/ digital policy making, then you are
clearly wrong; no I do not reject the multistakeholder principle.
I indeed advocate it for the global/ UN level<br>
</p>
<p>But if you have some other multistakeholder model in your mind
for supra-national Internet/ digital policy making, please come
out with it and I can tell you whether I support it or not. I
cannot make it any clearer!?<br>
</p>
<p>And sure enough, you consistently refuse to let us know why you
support the OECD's CDEP's policy work, but wont support a similar
(exact cut paste) model at the global level, and how doing that is
not a colonial attitude? I still look forward to your response to
this central question. <br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:BN7PR07MB4689CCB4BE801FD23DEFD0CBA1649@BN7PR07MB4689.namprd07.prod.outlook.com">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">You
also object to the use of private sector funding, allegedly
because this will corrupt the process. While it is true
that, say, an entity funded entirely by Microsoft or
Facebook would be biased and problematic, I am curious as to
why you have no similar concerns about governmental funding.
Are you saying that the U.S., China, Russia, the UK or
European Union are entirely selfless, virtuous entities with
no special interests they would push? Are you saying that
nation-states never support or withhold support for UN
agencies based on their politics? Maybe you have forgotten
about the recent US withdrawal from WHO? Or the infiltration
of the UN Human Rights Council by states that want to
suppress discussion of HR violations? </span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>As a professor of public policy you surely know that public
policy functions cannot - repeat cannot -- be funded by private
funds. At the global level, public funds are the proportionate
contributions that countries make to the UN fund. I remain fully
and consistency of the view that any UN based global public policy
functions can and should only be funded from this pool of funds.
In the same way as it will be scandalous to involve private
funding for any public policy function in the US. Or do you
disagree?<br>
</p>
<p>Even for supra-national level policy making, lets take the OECD
example again .. Let some of guys who freely advocate that global
level public policy making (because it invokes those poor,
undependable, developing countries) should be based on corporate
funding, try and suggest any such thing for the OECD public policy
processes.... I challenge you, just even try write a letter
suggesting that, and you know what ridicule you'd subject to
....... So, are these things only reserved for poor, undependable,
developing countries? This is why your approach is colonial, no
less. I am just about resting uttering the word racist -- but if
you read the literature related to colonialism, racism runs
through it. <br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:BN7PR07MB4689CCB4BE801FD23DEFD0CBA1649@BN7PR07MB4689.namprd07.prod.outlook.com">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Note
that it is overwhelmingly private sector funding and
operation that built the internet and keeps it going. Are
you proposing a return to the state-owned PTTs of the 19<sup>th</sup>
and early 20<sup>th</sup> century? They have a pretty poor
record, both in terms of development and rights.</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Ah! One wonders if one is doing this discussion with a professor
of public policy!This was the principle of feudal political system
-- ownership of means of production also ipso facto gave one
political power. The republican-democratic tradition have tried to
separate these two key realms of power -- and the whole
republican-democratic institutional system is based on this
cardinal principle. And here a US prof of public policy is not
able to distinguish between talking about the actors involved in
economic production in a sector, and those who should do public
policy for it! This is almost depressing. <br>
</p>
<p>But lets go past theory, and take an example. Big pharma controls
almost all health related production -- medicines, equipment,
etc.... Is that a good reason whereby big pharma should
legitimately dominate health policy making at the US and the
global level? Fund it, have its reps in decision making positions,
etc. I am very eager to know your views on this. Thanks. <br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:BN7PR07MB4689CCB4BE801FD23DEFD0CBA1649@BN7PR07MB4689.namprd07.prod.outlook.com">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Fact
of the matter is, if IGF - even in its current form - is
going to survive, it is going to need money, and whoever
provides that money is going to see it as in their interests
in some way. Ergo, drawing on diverse private sector
resources in addition to UN's governmental budget or
governmental sources can actually improve its independence
and quality.
</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Id ask the same questions (however shocking your views are to me,
esp as coming from a prof of public policy). Would you advocate
such diversity of funding, tapping into private sector funding,
for digital and health policy processes in the US? And, in the
OECD? Be brave, and let your views be known clearly. Otherwise,
the accusation of a colonial mindset will be well-deserved. <br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:BN7PR07MB4689CCB4BE801FD23DEFD0CBA1649@BN7PR07MB4689.namprd07.prod.outlook.com">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">More
broadly, the corporations who would most likely be tapped do
not have common interests, which I am sure you know if you
have been paying any attention to the
Apple-Google-Microsoft-Facebook-Tiktok disputes). </span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>A trite formulation ((btw, big pharma's interests too diverge
internally).... It is perhaps you who do not pay attention to
where all the interests of these digital corporations actually
converge -- which elements also mostly involve the greatest
divergence from wider public interest. <br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:BN7PR07MB4689CCB4BE801FD23DEFD0CBA1649@BN7PR07MB4689.namprd07.prod.outlook.com">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p><br>
</o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">You
assert that "a High level Multistakeholder Body for ‘Digital
Cooperation’...would become the de facto body for ‘global
digital governance’." This is either a tremendously ignorant
or absurdly demogogic statement. Just to take the three most
significant power centers, the US, the EU and China, all
have active and powerful antitrust authorities, who are
engaged in a rather systematic assault on the platforms. All
three, plus India, have legal and regulatory powers over
data, privacy and so on, and are actively using them. With
the exception of the US, all have extensive censorship
powers, and are actively using them. All are partitioning
the internet based on claims of “national security.” All are
asserting, or exercising, extra territorial jurisdiction I
various ways.</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>I am sorry, Milton, it is you who is tremendously ignorant about
global governance. Since abstracts and concepts have not been
making much headway with you, lets talk again in concrete
examples. You have heard of 'global health governance', right
((google, if you have not)? The WHO is of course at the centre of
it. Despite which all big nations you mention have their own
health systems, like the never ending political debate in the US
about its stupendously bad and inequitous health system. The WHO
has had limited influence on these key health governance issues at
the national level, but still WHO's global health governance is
tremendously important and valuable. Are you getting the point? So
you are basically tilting at self-created windmills, which just
confuses the debate. There are powers of the nation state, and
there is a role for global governance, and then also a continual
contest between the two arenas as well. All this is well known,
for anyone to get carried away by your rhetoric. <br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:BN7PR07MB4689CCB4BE801FD23DEFD0CBA1649@BN7PR07MB4689.namprd07.prod.outlook.com">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">If
you are claiming that somehow a loose, weakly funded
UN-based multistakeholder alliance is going to negate or
supersede these uses of state power, you are really out of
touch with the political and economic realities of internet
governance and have no business accusing anyone of being in
an ivory tower.
</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>It is your ivory tower of some completely implausible Internet
exceptionalism plus some radical libertarian notions that blinds
you to simple well known facts of global governance as have been
discussed above. What the new proposed MS body for digital
governance makes incursions on is what could and should be a 'WHO
of digital governance' and not so much on the power of the nation
states to govern themselves. Although, as mentioned, a lot of work
of norms making, soft law, etc does get undertaken even in this
regard. And in time, in every sector, some harder agreements also
do get signed by all. All these can play a very important role in
domestic governance . Where is the question here of negating or
superseding uses of state power . You are just creating your own
imagined targets and then taking great pleasure in demolishing
them!<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:BN7PR07MB4689CCB4BE801FD23DEFD0CBA1649@BN7PR07MB4689.namprd07.prod.outlook.com">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p><br>
</o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Now
let's consider your (quite vague) ideas about what should be
done instead. All you say is that you want a "a genuinely
democratic system for global digital governance, keeping
vested corporate interests at bay." It is evident that you,
like the People Republic of China, mean by "democratic" a
multilateral system, one government one vote, in which
individuals have no role and the actual private sector
owners and operators of networks and applications are "kept
at bay" and regulated in a top-down manner by a collection
of states. </span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>As I said, I mean by democratic the system employed by the OECD
for supra-national digital policy making. How many times I have to
say it, to engage your engagement to that particular matter. There
has to be a limit to how much the China boggie can be used in
global digital governance discussions. Please try and find a
better argument. <br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:BN7PR07MB4689CCB4BE801FD23DEFD0CBA1649@BN7PR07MB4689.namprd07.prod.outlook.com">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">You
have no idea how states with fundamental disagreements about
rights, law, political economy and economic policy will come
to agreement on how to do this, of course. </span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>As someone who claims expertise in global governance matters, I
would have expected you to know the history of how much agreement
on rights, law, political economy and economic policy has actually
been managed by UN based bodies over the last any decades. And btw
if they could not do even more, the chief culprit is not China as
much as the US (it not having even signed the covenant on social
and economic rights). So if there is a 'China problem' for global
governance, there is at least as big if not bigger 'US problem'
too. But we are managing somehow, arent we... Including with a
global Internet domain and routing logic system which is managed
by a body subject entirely to the US law, and considerably to its
executive power too. Democratic global governance is a work in
progress. But regressions, as this proposal for the MS body at the
apex of global digital governance, are certainty to resisted
stoutly. <br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:BN7PR07MB4689CCB4BE801FD23DEFD0CBA1649@BN7PR07MB4689.namprd07.prod.outlook.com">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p><br>
</o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">So
I am sorry, I fail to see anything in your letter other than
posturing, raising the spectre of a huge and powerful
corporate-dominated entity in order to mobilize a bunch of
fringe groups into another anti-capitalist diatribe.</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>I did not know it was capitalist for corporates to fund, and run,
public policy functions! I had a much better view of capitalism. <br>
</p>
<p>Anyway, it does you no credit to call some prime organisations
that lead global movements in areas as diverse as media and
education to health, labour, environment and gender as a bunch of
fringe groups. But, entirely your choice! These organisations
certainly know much more about global governance than you seem to
know. Even beyond formal matters about appropriate global
governance -- which alone is the subject of the campaign letter,,
even for substantive digital policy issues, the interest and
involvement of these groups is very important as the real impact
of the digital, and its governance (or not) is felt principally in
all these different sectors.</p>
<p>As for how well people like you, IGP, and many other
organisations, that have been involved with IG for long, have been
able to represent and serve the interests of those outside these
charmed circles was well demonstrated during the .org sale
controversy. But about that at some other time. <br>
</p>
<br>
<p>regards, parminder <br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:BN7PR07MB4689CCB4BE801FD23DEFD0CBA1649@BN7PR07MB4689.namprd07.prod.outlook.com">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Best
regards,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Dr.
Milton L Mueller<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Georgia
Institute of Technology<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">School
of Public Policy<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><img
style="width:2.1666in;height:.868in" id="_x0000_i1026"
src="cid:part1.43695FE2.208EAC3D@itforchange.net"
alt="IGP_logo_gold block" class="" width="208" height="83"
border="0"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">
parminder <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net"><parminder@itforchange.net></a>
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, March 22, 2021 7:51 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Mueller, Milton L <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:milton@gatech.edu"><milton@gatech.edu></a>;
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Governance] 170 orgs send an open
letter to UN SG to stop plans for a new High Level
Multistakeholder Body<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On 22/03/21 2:15 am, Mueller, Milton L
wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">I’ve
looked over the letter and am not impressed;
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p><tt><span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:120%">Milton,
thanks for responding, even though you find the Digital
Cooperation initiative irrelevant. This is certainly much
better than what many here who are actively engaged with
shaping and pushing this initiative have bothered to do. I
hope they also express their response and views.
</span></tt><o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">not
with the argument it presents nor with the astroturfed
list of 170 organizations.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p><tt><span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:120%">So you
find the active involvement and support of global
organisations that are, for instance, the primary global
networks of grassroots organisations in areas like health,
education, food security, and conservation; top global
trade unions; top global organisations working on gender
justice, and global trade; some of the most prominent
global development NGOs; as astroturfing? The most
prominent among these, if not members of Just Net
Coalition, are actually in active partnerships with the
JNC on Internet/ digital governance issues. And mind you,
this is the support we got over just 3 days which
unfortunately included a weekend -- owing to a deadline
for submitting comments to the UN process.
</span></tt><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><tt><span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:120%">You
dismiss them as some irrelevant anti-globalisation
organisations and activists from two decades ago; losers,
perhaps, who lap up any global campaign letter thrown at
them for getting their names printed on it!</span></tt><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><tt><span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:120%">I reckon
then that real people's perspectives and representation in
Internet/digital governance matters should come from from
a certain professorial chair at Syracuse University in the
US, or it is that you have now shifted to somewhere in
Georgia. </span></tt><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><tt><span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:120%">A group
of around 20 prominent global organisations and networks,
having prepared this letter, are currently collaborating
over an e-list for follow-ups, including establishing
contacts with people inside the UN, government delegates
etc, apart from spreading the message wider among CS
groups and engaging them.. And this is outside the Just
Net Coalition, JNC being just a participant in this
collaboration.
</span></tt><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><tt><span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:120%">This
should puncture the pompous arrogance with which you
typically come to such matters, and we can move now to
more substantive matters. See in-line.
</span></tt><o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">We
at IGP have largely, and deliberately, ignored the UN’s
initiatives around so-called High Level
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Digital
Cooperation. Not because we think it is leading in a bad
direction or is part of an evil capitalist plot, nor do we
think the people promoting it are badly motivated. We just
think it is mostly irrelevant. It is founded on model of
governance that is unrealistic and unlikely to have any
impact on the internet (or platforms, which is not the
same as the internet).</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">The
Internet consists of 70,000 autonomous systems using a
common layer 3 and 4 protocol to communicate. Key elements
of the internet infrastructure are governed by what we
call the Organically Developed Internet institutions, such
as IETF (standards), ICANN (domain names) the Regional
Internet Registries (IP addressing) and cooperative action
among network operators (routing, interconnection).
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Because
the internet has created a globalized space for
communication, many new problems and new forms of
governance are evolving at the transnational layer that go
well beyond critical internet resources. They affect
issues areas such as cybersecurity, content moderation,
and privacy.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p><tt><span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:120%">So, you
have defined Internet/ digital governance to be the
technical governance of the Internet plus largely these
three areas involving a digital version of libertarian
minimal state. You do not consider, for instance, data, AI
or platform regulation, especially the distributive issues
involved therein, as Internet/digital governance, right.
You have the right to your definitions of Internet/
digital governance, but it is evident that the world
overwhelming disagrees with you, including the IGF (see
its program). </span></tt><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><o:p> </o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Some
of these transnational initiatives are, in our opinion,
praiseworthy; others are not. But it is both unlikely and
undesirable for them to be consolidated or centralized in
the hands of a single global body, whether it is called
“multistakeholder” or “intergovernmental.” No such body is
going to be able to have the power or the expertise or the
widespread legitimacy and participation to address all
these areas. Only a dialogue forum is possible at the IGF
level. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p><tt><span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:120%">Two
responses to this: One, lets consider the WHO; It really
cannot be considered as global health governance being
'consolidated or centralized in the hands of a single
global body' . But it still does very useful norms and
standards setting work, develops global legal instruments,
as required and possible, develops and coordinates
frameworks of responses and other programmatic action,
does neutral public interest global research and capacity
development, and so on. WHO's existence has been extremely
useful, and has not impeded other transnational
initiatives This is true of UN global governance bodies in
all areas. Digital is more inherently global than any
other sector. So, why would a similar body for Internet/
digital governance not also be useful. </span></tt><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><tt><span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:120%">Second:
But if in any case you still remain absolutely opposed to
a cross-sectoral, apex, digital policy and governance
body, and I have been raising this same issue for at least
12-13 years now, why you never oppose the OECD's Committee
on Digital Economy Policy (CDEP)? In the name of the body,
'Economy' is there only for forms sake. This committee
shapes digital policy in all areas, from principles for
tech architecture, to platforms and content, to data and
AI. Why do OECD needs a transnational, single digital
governance body, when you so strongly oppose such a body
at the global level. I have raised this issue often, and
at one time when you could not avoid responding, you
dismissed this body as a capacity building body, which is
of course an untruth. OECD committees do go as far as
developing
<a
href="https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flegalinstruments.oecd.org%2Fen%2Finstruments%2FOECD-LEGAL-0347&data=04%7C01%7Cmilton%40gatech.edu%7C2dcfd5131f4f441c626c08d8ed28bb9a%7C482198bbae7b4b258b7a6d7f32faa083%7C0%7C0%7C637520107742995041%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=5A%2F4HOwxmh%2F26SLcBCw7igI4RLu6o3EJ8ybTozsEdDs%3D&reserved=0"
moz-do-not-send="true">
legal instruments</a>. </span></tt><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><tt><span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:120%">The
latest initiative of the CDEP is on
<a
href="https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.oecd.org%2Fsti%2Fieconomy%2Ftrusted-government-access-personal-data-private-sector.htm&data=04%7C01%7Cmilton%40gatech.edu%7C2dcfd5131f4f441c626c08d8ed28bb9a%7C482198bbae7b4b258b7a6d7f32faa083%7C0%7C0%7C637520107743005033%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=%2BsnBqk3C3gn8Ra9l8QcZJNzw7oS0OjELQu8WZ39qW6E%3D&reserved=0"
moz-do-not-send="true">
government access to data held by the private sector</a>.
The likely outcomes could be a document of policy
principles but it could even be a legal instrument. Since
digital policy making is a cross-sectoral work, CDEP often
works in collaboration with other OECD Committees towards
different ends. For instance, it worked with the Committee
on Health to develop
<a
href="https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fone.oecd.org%2Fdocument%2FCOM%2FDELSA%2FDSTI(2016)1%2Fen%2Fpdf&data=04%7C01%7Cmilton%40gatech.edu%7C2dcfd5131f4f441c626c08d8ed28bb9a%7C482198bbae7b4b258b7a6d7f32faa083%7C0%7C0%7C637520107743005033%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=fPxsGyoM%2BliqBAFlwep5erlwRZ2Sy4TRYzgBsA2CW24%3D&reserved=0"
moz-do-not-send="true">
Health Data Principles</a>. A very appropriate kind of
output, and done in the right way too. Similarly a UN body
on digital governance -- while all countries and not just
the richest ones are represented -- should work with the
WHO to develop global Health Data Principles. In default
of an UN Internet/ digital governance body, OECD's norms,
principles and policies become the default global one.
</span></tt><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><tt><span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:120%">But here
you develop cold feet... OECD committees should keep
functioning and rolling out global governance norms,
principles and policies, but not any UN body. That is not
needed, any such thing is completely relevant. This is
plainly a colonial attitude. It is a pity that in the
global Internet/ digital governance space one can openly
do such a thing. It normally does not happen elsewhere, in
global civil society spaces.
</span></tt><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><tt><span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:120%">You are
from the US, why dont you advocate to the OECD, where your
gov sits, to cede its one-point cross-sectoral digital
norms/ policy work, and abolish the body specifically made
for this purpose? What right do you have to tell the rest
of the world to not do it? I repeat, it is plain and
simple colonialism.
</span></tt><o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Worse,
increasingly, national governments are trying to interfere
with or control usage of the internet at the application
layer. This is leading to an increasingly fragmented,
costly, and repressive environment. One could call this
tech nationalism, jurisdictional alignment, fragmentation
or a digital neo-mercantilism. IGP has published numerous
critiques of these pathologies.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">In
this context, for JustNet and its partners to portray
“regulation of big tech” as the salvation of the internet,
and the UN’s attempt to create a High Level MS Body as an
entity with “</span><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F4E79">overweening
power” that “would help Big Tech resist effective
regulation” is just laughable.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p><tt><span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:120%">First,
the term 'overweening power' is used for Big Tech, and not
the proposed High Level MS body. And if you do not think
that Big Tech today has overweening power, which needs to
be urgently regulated, it is you who is entirely out of
touch with global intellectual, political, as well as
public opinion. You are sitting lonesomely in some
untenable libertarian ivory tower. But one thing I must
commend you for is consistency. You responded to one of my
emails years back in this very same space saying that you
think 'social justice' is a meaningless term. So while
consistent you might be, you are completely out of touch
with contemporary digital reality. Internet, and those who
were associated with it, were seen 20 years ago as
representing counter power; today the Internet is
controlled by those who represent the most pernicious
incumbent power. Counters have now to be developed to this
entrenched and fast expanding power. If 'your' internet
governance is not taking note of this -- what is happening
just outside your window -- it is you who is stuck in some
20 year old realities, not the organisations that
developed and supported this campaign letter. </span></tt><o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F4E79">I
do not see how anyone with any deep knowledge of IG can
take it seriously. It has very little relevance to
contemporary problems of IG.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p><tt><span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:120%">Your IG
knowledge has perhaps gone too deep - so deep that you may
be alone wallowing there in the deep, in a manner very
irrelevant to contemporary problems of IG. Although, your
no doubt incisive and well written analyses -- however
besides the point mostly -- do often provide very good
cover to contemporary 'bad' digital forces. And therefore
they get lapped up. Like this current email of yours is
doing great favours to the shapers and supporters of the
Digital Cooperation High Level MS Body, who themselves
have little to be able to present their case in a
democratic-discursive way, in spaces like this public
elist.
</span></tt><o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F4E79"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F4E79">Insofar
as it has any substance, it seems to call for more
nation-state based regulation of internet operations and
content. But this is something that, from Trump’s Great
Firewall of America, to Russia’s “sovereign” Internet, to
Europe’s NIS2, to India’s app blocking and censorship, to
China’s insulated internet, we already have plenty of. And
we are getting more and it seems to be making things
worse.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p><tt><span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:120%">There has
to be a limit to the Libertarians' clever technique to
continue quoting the undoubted statist excesses vis a vis
the digital to keep at bay appropriate regulation of Big
Tech, and also the needed national policies to escape the
coming bi-polar US-China's complete digital and AI
domination of the word. State's undue power has to be
resisted at the same time as a rule of law has to be
established and applied for governing non-state bad
actors.
</span></tt><o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F4E79"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F4E79">By
the way, has anyone at JustNet noticed that Facebook is
joining them in their call for more internet regulation at
the national level? Think about the implications of that
for a moment: <a
href="https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fabout.fb.com%2Fregulations%2F&data=04%7C01%7Cmilton%40gatech.edu%7C2dcfd5131f4f441c626c08d8ed28bb9a%7C482198bbae7b4b258b7a6d7f32faa083%7C0%7C0%7C637520107743015025%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=9JSoftenN07OggfE7WOl8hKhaP54A4QNK2oiyJH8k9Q%3D&reserved=0"
moz-do-not-send="true">
<span style="color:#00007F">https://about.fb.com/regulations/</span></a>
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F4E79"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F4E79">If
you read the letter, you can see that they obtained the
support of all these organization – very few of whom
actually focus on Internet or ICT governance</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p><tt><span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:120%">For you
Internet governance is about core technical systems of the
Internet/ digital. For everyone else, its scope and
meaning is fast expanding outwards, getting closer to the
points and manners of the real-life impacts of the
digital. There are of course organisations in this list of
170 plus organisations that deal centrally with digital
governance, but then many others that are looking at
platform/data/AI governance in relation to food and
agriculture, health, education, trade, gender relations,
labour, and so on. There is one that is a chief
port-of-call for developing country governments on
e-commerce issues in trade deals (btw, much of IG today is
done in and through trade deals), another is represented
in a new data working group of the World Committee on Food
security of FAO, a third is developing health data
principles, another working on feminist digital justice,
another on how platforms use data to control dependent
businesses, .... I can keep going, but you get the point.
</span></tt><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Should they all come to Prof Milton Mueller
to get what Internet/ digital governance is!? It is perhaps
time you go to them, if you have to keep 'your' IG relevant.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p><o:p> </o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F4E79">–
by equating the UN HLDC with the World Economic Forum.
This is factually wrong, but it does succeed at throwing
red meat in front of the anti-globalization activists from
two decades ago. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p><tt><span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:120%">No one
equated UN HLDC with the WEF. It is was another WEF we
wont have such a problem. What we have shown is that UN
HLDC represent the exact unfolding of a plan for global
governance that WEF laid out 10 years back through its
Global Redesign Imitative. And we provide exact
quotations. Dont you see the difference?
</span></tt><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><tt><span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:120%">I have
already described what these organisations are. You make
fun of them at your own cost.
</span></tt><o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F4E79"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F4E79">Internet
governance needs to be accomplished from the bottom up,
and rely heavily on networked, non-hierarchical forms of
governance.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p><tt><span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:120%">But not
when OECD does it ... They are rich people and nations,
mostly of the western civilisation, they know what they
are doing, they have superior rights over the world!
Please stop this colonial narrative. </span></tt><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><o:p> </o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F4E79">We
need to protect and strengthen, not destroy or undermine,
the organically developed internet institutions. When
state-based, hierarchical interventions are necessary,
they need to be carefully circumscribed and focused to
address real problems that cannot be handled in any other
way, such as crime, fraud, and coercion.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p><tt><span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:120%">Your
libertarian definition of the scope of Internet/ digital
governance! Sorry, developing countries at least cannot
agree. For us economic issues, regulating Big Tech,
developing domestic digital industry, etc are all very
important. </span></tt><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F4E79">The
UN should stop trying to become a centerpoint of global
internet governance and continue to serve as a place for
dialogue and network building.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p><tt><span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:120%">Go first
tell this to your country and the OECD...</span></tt><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><tt><span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:120%">Meanwhile,
further discussion is very welcome.</span></tt><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><tt><span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:120%">Regards,
parminder </span>
</tt><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><o:p> </o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F4E79"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Dr.
Milton L Mueller</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Georgia
Institute of Technology</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">School
of Public Policy</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><img
style="width:2.2152in;height:.8819in"
id="Picture_x0020_1"
src="cid:part6.8216AD41.7B086635@itforchange.net"
alt="IGP_logo_gold block" class="" width="213"
height="85" border="0"></span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">
Governance
<a href="mailto:governance-bounces@lists.igcaucus.org"
moz-do-not-send="true"><governance-bounces@lists.igcaucus.org></a>
<b>On Behalf Of </b>parminder via Governance<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Saturday, March 13, 2021 12:30 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a
href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [Governance] 170 orgs send an open
letter to UN SG to stop plans for a new High Level
Multistakeholder Body</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p>The open letter was sent to the official consultation
process, signed by more than 170 organisations.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>It was titled "“More than 170 Civil Society Groups
Worldwide Oppose Plans for a Big Tech Dominated Body for
Global Digital Governance” .<o:p></o:p></p>
<pre><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Please see the final statement and endorsements at</span><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><a href="https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fjustnetcoalition.org%2Fbig-tech-governing-big-tech.pdf&data=04%7C01%7Cmilton%40gatech.edu%7C2dcfd5131f4f441c626c08d8ed28bb9a%7C482198bbae7b4b258b7a6d7f32faa083%7C0%7C0%7C637520107743015025%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=R7auhjhRX4Dnf1vbQFhXSpww5b%2BqGDufxLERpz5op8g%3D&reserved=0" moz-do-not-send="true">https://justnetcoalition.org/big-tech-governing-big-tech.pdf</a> .</span> <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre> <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">It was also translated into Spanish, French, German and Dutch. All versions are linked from the enclosed document </span><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">We had just 3 days to get sign ons, out of which 2 were weekend days. In the circumstances, the number is quite good. It shows the groundswell to opposition to this move. Thanks to everyone who supported this.</span><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre> <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">We will now get this letter also sent directly to the UN SG and his new Tech Envoy.</span><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre> <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">We will like to keep this campaign open for some time to get additional support and build awareness ...</span><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre> <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">This ongoing campaign is just a start, much more needs to be done and will be done to stop this assault on democracy and on possibilities of effective regulation of Big Tech. We will be doing all it takes, including engaging with governments.</span><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre> <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">We will follow a twin track: develop a powerful movement within civil society groups, and engage with governments and the UN.</span><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre> <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Will keep you posted.</span><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre> <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Best regards</span><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">parminder</span><o:p></o:p></pre>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On 05/03/21 2:15 pm, parminder via
Governance wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="western"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:5.75pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.75pt;margin-left:0in;line-height:115%"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri Light
,sans-serif",serif">Dear All</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="western"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:5.75pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.75pt;margin-left:0in;line-height:115%"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri Light
,sans-serif",serif">This is an<a
href="https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fjustnetcoalition.org%2Fbig-tech-governing-big-tech.pdf&data=04%7C01%7Cmilton%40gatech.edu%7C2dcfd5131f4f441c626c08d8ed28bb9a%7C482198bbae7b4b258b7a6d7f32faa083%7C0%7C0%7C637520107743025019%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=3TT8bEZQ3%2B%2BctKS6oTJgzZFiND6Jwl5gv4vXvmdr9Zc%3D&reserved=0"
moz-do-not-send="true"> open letter to the UN
Secretary General</a> initiated by 16 global and
national level civil society networks and
organisations urging him to shelve plans for a
High Level Multistakeholder Body which, if set up,
can be expected to become the default apex global
digital governance and policy body. This body is
proposed to have a private funding model, with
strong hints also at a 'pay to play' model. It is
but obvious that Big Tech will come to dominate
any such body.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="western"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:5.75pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.75pt;margin-left:0in;line-height:115%"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri Light
,sans-serif",serif">Quoting from the letter:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="western"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:5.75pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.75pt;margin-left:0in;line-height:115%"><i><span
style="font-family:"Calibri Light
,sans-serif",serif">Not only in
developing countries but also in the US and
EU, calls for stronger regulation of Big Tech
are rising. At the precise point when we
should be shaping global norms to regulate Big
Tech, plans have emerged for an ‘empowered’
global digital governance body that will
evidently be dominated by Big Tech. Adding
vastly to its already overweening power, this
new Body would help Big Tech resist effective
regulation, globally and at national levels.
Indeed, we face the unbelievable prospect of ‘<b>a
Big Tech led body for Global Governance of
Big Tech’</b>.</span></i><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri Light
,sans-serif",serif"> Two technical annexes to
the open letter explain the background of the
matter in considerable detail.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="western"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:5.75pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.75pt;margin-left:0in;line-height:115%"><b><span
style="font-family:"Calibri Light
,sans-serif",serif">This letter is open for
endorsements,
</span></b><span style="font-family:"Calibri
Light ,sans-serif",serif">which can be done
by writing an email to
</span><u><span style="color:navy"><a
href="mailto:secretariat@justnetcoalition.org"
moz-do-not-send="true"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri Light
,sans-serif",serif" lang="EN-GB">secretariat@justnetcoalition.org</span></a></span></u><span
style="font-family:"Calibri Light
,sans-serif",serif"> or filling </span><u><span
style="color:navy"><a
href="https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fjustnetcoalition.org%2Fbig-tech-governing-big-tech-form&data=04%7C01%7Cmilton%40gatech.edu%7C2dcfd5131f4f441c626c08d8ed28bb9a%7C482198bbae7b4b258b7a6d7f32faa083%7C0%7C0%7C637520107743025019%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=OHqaUWlDEw2GrBwrCfqJ%2F7DxnMYCbUPvoMLTkjuWGng%3D&reserved=0"
moz-do-not-send="true"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri Light
,sans-serif",serif" lang="EN-GB">this
form</span></a></span></u><span
style="font-family:"Calibri Light
,sans-serif",serif"> before midnight PST
(GMT-8) of the 7<sup>th
</sup></span><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">of
March.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="western"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:5.75pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.75pt;margin-left:0in;line-height:115%"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="western"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:5.75pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.75pt;margin-left:0in;line-height:115%"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri Light
,sans-serif",serif">Please also do circulate
to other groups and networks where it may attract
interest.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="western"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:5.75pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.75pt;margin-left:0in;line-height:115%"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="western"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:5.75pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.75pt;margin-left:0in;line-height:115%"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri Light
,sans-serif",serif">The open letter may also
be accessed at
<a
href="https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fjustnetcoalition.org%2Fbig-tech-governing-big-tech.pdf&data=04%7C01%7Cmilton%40gatech.edu%7C2dcfd5131f4f441c626c08d8ed28bb9a%7C482198bbae7b4b258b7a6d7f32faa083%7C0%7C0%7C637520107743035014%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=1%2FkmdHKbyNos00%2FjJKXEYAiDMmo9YqYxycHhBbk8ODM%3D&reserved=0"
moz-do-not-send="true">
https://justnetcoalition.org/big-tech-governing-big-tech.pdf</a></span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="western"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:5.75pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.75pt;margin-left:0in;line-height:115%"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="western"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:5.75pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.75pt;margin-left:0in;line-height:115%"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri Light
,sans-serif",serif">French text is at <a
href="https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fjustnetcoalition.org%2Fbig-tech-governing-big-tech-french.pdf&data=04%7C01%7Cmilton%40gatech.edu%7C2dcfd5131f4f441c626c08d8ed28bb9a%7C482198bbae7b4b258b7a6d7f32faa083%7C0%7C0%7C637520107743045008%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=9SmzlOs7upKDdi%2FtZOK9phgb00rUbsol2vJeWMQ1G7I%3D&reserved=0"
moz-do-not-send="true">
:
https://justnetcoalition.org/big-tech-governing-big-tech-french.pdf</a>
and Spanish version at -
<a
href="https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fjustnetcoalition.org%2Fbig-tech-governing-big-tech-spanish.pdf&data=04%7C01%7Cmilton%40gatech.edu%7C2dcfd5131f4f441c626c08d8ed28bb9a%7C482198bbae7b4b258b7a6d7f32faa083%7C0%7C0%7C637520107743045008%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=Kmx1IA2dhXbY8saboeEMC%2Frkis8Ul0%2FxCVLITBygdLk%3D&reserved=0"
moz-do-not-send="true">
https://justnetcoalition.org/big-tech-governing-big-tech-spanish.pdf</a>
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="western"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:5.75pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.75pt;margin-left:0in;line-height:115%"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="western"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:5.75pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.75pt;margin-left:0in;line-height:115%"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri Light
,sans-serif",serif">Please let us know if you
have any questions or comments regarding the
above.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="western"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:5.75pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.75pt;margin-left:0in;line-height:115%"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri Light
,sans-serif",serif">Best, parminder
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>