<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
</head>
<body>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 01/04/21 11:25 pm, Mueller, Milton L
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:BN7PR07MB46890A1D27DC2CFB3CAEB1FDA17B9@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)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Wingdings;
panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@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;}
/* 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.EmailStyle23
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle24
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle25
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle26
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle28
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.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;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:979773159;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:513822076 2114872862 67698691 67698693 67698689 67698691 67698693 67698689 67698691 67698693;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-start-at:0;
mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:-;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:20.5pt;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;}
@list l0:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:56.5pt;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l0:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0A7;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:92.5pt;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0B7;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:128.5pt;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l0:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:164.5pt;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l0:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0A7;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:200.5pt;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0B7;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:236.5pt;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l0:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:272.5pt;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l0:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0A7;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:308.5pt;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l1
{mso-list-id:1675183820;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:1934162852 67698689 67698691 67698693 67698689 67698691 67698693 67698689 67698691 67698693;}
@list l1:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0B7;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l1:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l1:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0A7;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l1:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0B7;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l1:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l1:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0A7;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l1:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0B7;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l1:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l1:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0A7;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Wingdings;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0in;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0in;}
--></style>
<div class="WordSection1">
<p>I begin from this point of agreement that the issues here
deal "with the fundamentals if internal governance".
<span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">MM:
I assume you mean “fundamentals of Internet governance…” If
so, yes, I think it’s good, that’s why we bother to do this.
Let me add that the sharpness of our disagreements stem
from my sincere belief that the policies and institutional
changes you advocate would be harmful (and you no doubt feel
the same) but this should not detract from my appreciation
of your ability to raise these fundamental issues and to put
it in a historical context that goes back to WSIS.</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Again, agree that this discussion is very important. I would
invite others closely involved with the proposal for the new MS
body for digital cooperation to please also get involved - Such
important matters need to go through the test and fire of
discursive democracy. <br>
</p>
<p>At this stage I will try and focus on issues in a few clear
buckets.</p>
<p>1. The OECD model of digital policy making: There are a few
arguments and clams you are making in this regard. One, that the
OECD model is not a multistakeholder model of digital policy
making in your view, even if OECD and ISOC etc call it
multistakeholder, and therefore you really do not approve of it.
You could be clearer and more upfront about such disapproval,
here, and when you/IGP has interacted at numerous occasions with
OCED's digital policy making. You seem to now be disapproving it
only when pushed into an argumentative corner, but well, good
enough -- we take it that you disapprove of the OCED model of
digital policy making. <br>
</p>
<p>Here I will request others who actively work with the OECD model
to let us know their views on that model, clearly and upfront. I
repeat; to support and work with the OECD's CDEP and oppose a
similar body in the UN is both feudal (bec the OECD is a bunch of
richest countries exercising political power over the rest of the
world) as it is colonial (OECD being dominated by western
nations). This is extremely relevant to activity and advocacy with
regard to models of global digital policy making. It wont do to
keep ignoring this all important question, which most of them have
avoided for over a decade now. You owe it to the global public to
put forward your views clearly on this matter -- especially now
that you propose a new system of global digital public policy
development. Thanks.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, Milton, unfortunately, you also again slip back to
saying in your below email that 'OECD does not make supra-national
policy' , which is completely a untruth. (For instance, <a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ834665">see
this</a>. ) I do not know what more can I do than what I already
did -- linked to the page on <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/">OECD's legal
instruments</a>, enclosed as I did earlier a document on an
informal WG for drafting a possible legal instrument on access to
private data, etc. It also does not impress you that OECD's
various documents not only explicitly talk about OECD's policy
function, but also lay out OECD's policy making process. OECD also
makes <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.oecd.org/ctp/treaties/model-tax-convention-on-income-and-on-capital-condensed-version-20745419.htm">model
laws</a>.. I cant do anything more on this .... Meanwhile, I
have also said that (1) in any case, UN organisations too do
nothing more that all these OECD activities that I list here etc,
and (2) Whatever OECD and UN do or do not do, can we agree on the
same model as the OECD one for the global level too, whereby you
meekly loop back to the earlier logic above that you do not
approve of OECD model even, although you neither say it clearly,
nor put such opposition in action, say, by not working with OCED
or actively writing articles and letters opposing OECD model of
digital policy making.</p>
<p>2 The appropriate model for global digital policy making, as per
you: You have earlier made a clear distinction between CIR
governance (ICANN etc) and governance of other Internet/ digital
issues, and rightly so. I understand that in the latter category
we can include platform governance, data governance, AI governance
etc. Right. I now understand, though once again you state is very
mutely, that you would like to see global governance of platforms,
data, AI, and other digital issues undertaken in the same way as
ICANN is governed Right? You need to be clear and upfront about
what is the model you propose for global governance of these
non-CIR digital issues -- because that is what is at the centre of
this discussion. <br>
</p>
<p>From your below email I take it that you want the ICANN model, or
similar, for governance of platforms, social media, data, AI etc
as well. ICANN governance model is dominated by the domain name
industry, with some peep in for civil society and governments
Milton, are you really saying we should be dealing with various
non-CIR digital public policy issues in the same manner? Where
private sector sits at the same or higher level as governments?
Well, I repeat, it is scandalous... BTW if you really believe in
this model, pray why haven't you advocated it for digital policy
making in the US, and for the OECD .... I understand that you
wish to avoid the universal ridicule that you would immediately
face among quarters that cant rub on the wrong side, and need to
keep a reputation among ..... Which is why I ask, why tell all
this to us, poor, developing countries? This is what is both
colonial, and intellectually confused ( i do not want to say,
dis-honest) in this .. <br>
</p>
<p>3 Appropriate funding of public policy bodies: Like the absolute
untruth that 'OECD does not make supra-national policy' which
assertion of yours I have disproved, equally a non-truth is that
OECD is "<span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">just
a government- (and partially privately-) funded think tank' </span>
. I have no idea where you got this partially privately funded
part. OECD is <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.oecd.org/about/budget/#:~:text=OECD%20is%20funded%20by%20its,the%20OECD%20programme%20of%20work.">entirely
funded by members contributions</a>. Repeat, there is no private
funding. Indeed, I am sure that any suggestion towards private
(esp corporate) funding -- try making such a proposal if you
think I am wrong -- will cause a major uproar and be rejected
out-of-hand both by civil society and governments in the west
(OECD) ... This is what I call as colonial - why different
standards when developing countries come in? I again challenge
you, let you or a corporate moot the idea of corporate funding of
OECD's public policy functions and you would know what I mean. Of
course, you guys already know what will happen which is why you
would never attempt any such thing.. Therefore, my humble request
it; do not be colonial minded, please spare us developing
countries your advice and models on how digital public policy
should be done at a supra-national level!</p>
<p>Then there are equally funny things as:<br>
</p>
<p><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">
"Ask yourself things like, “does the ITU-T’s financing of its
standardization process by selling expensive documents to
private telcos and charging 5-figure sector membership fees
constitute public or private funding? Are you aware of the fact
that the Gates Foundation donated $530 million to the World
Health Organization, or 12% of its budget? Should they give the
money back? Is WIPO’s reliance on patent registration fees
public or private funding?" (Milton)</span></p>
<p>These are the kind of places where I would have expected better
rigour from a prof of public policy . Two examples above (the ITU
and WIPO ones) are simply of governments collecting some fees for
its services -- they do so all over the world, like collecting
toll at a public highway. How do such revenue stream make it
private funding of government!? Additionally, ITU is a technical
standards body and such a membership fees model as its is common
among such standards bodies -- but_not_ for_
public_policy_bodies. Gates Foundation and the WHO example is
indeed a serious one. And you would have read about immense
controversies that this has been surrounded with. A few things
here. Philanthropy funding is a little different from corporate
funding, but that is relatively a smaller point here. Second, and
most importantly, public policy functions of thee WHO still get
conducted by the untied members contributions. Private funds like
from Gates Foundation etc go to specific programs. You see the
difference. Every government allows private donations to specific
programs which is different from funding its public policy
functions. But still there exist major issues and concerns about
the sheer scale of Gates funding of WHO activities which, even if
indirectly, can begin influencing WHO's norms developing
activities. <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.devex.com/news/big-concerns-over-gates-foundation-s-potential-to-become-largest-who-donor-97377">Read
this </a>for instance. And <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.businesstoday.in/magazine/policy/the-curious-case-of-who-funding/story/407833.html">this
quoting an</a> India's ex secretary for health, about problems
for developing countries that arise from this. There are many
academic paper too on this phenomenon, and the health related
global civil society -- part of what you call as 'fringe groups'
-- are mostly opposed to this untenable increasing influence of
the Gates Foundation on the WHO. There are papers on WHO's Covid
response in this regard, and all these issues are going to become
worse with the launch of the <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.who.int/news/item/27-05-2020-who-foundation-established-to-support-critical-global-health-needs">WHO
Foundation</a> .. But still all this private funding is sought
to remain limited to programmatic functions. There is at least
some effort to keep WHO's core normative and policy function
relatively insulated from it. As I said, very major concerns
remain though, and people and CS groups are not convinced ... But
here, with the new proposed MS body for global digital policy
making, private funding is directly and explicitly for public
policy development function -- there is no programmatic work
here... With all its funding the Gates Foundation is still not
admitted to the WHO Executive Board, much less its General
Assembly ... Again, you see the difference? <br>
</p>
<p>In fact, as the our joint letter points out, there are clear
indications for seats on the proposed top digital policy body
being connected to resource commitment, including as coming from
the private sector . (This is from the main proposal for the
structure of the body developed by MAG of IGF). Isnt it absolutely
shameful!<br>
</p>
<p>I will stop here for now ... But do let me know of any pressingly
important issue/ question that I might have missed.... <br>
</p>
<p>Happy to discuss this further with you, and with others actors
engaged with the proposal for the MS body for digital cooperation.</p>
<p>Best regards</p>
<p>parminder <br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:BN7PR07MB46890A1D27DC2CFB3CAEB1FDA17B9@BN7PR07MB4689.namprd07.prod.outlook.com">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="color:#1F497D">P: </span>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.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">MM:
Yeah, I will pass over your attempts to lecture me about
what a professor of PP should know and what you consider
“well-established principles of public governance.” This
kind of posturing just makes you look boastful and ignorant
and basically begs the questions we are trying to debate. As
you will see as we dig in to the substantive arguments.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">MM:
In my initial message, I said that your rejection of parity
among government and private sector stakeholders revealed a
rejection of the multi-stakeholderism and indicated your
support for a state-led, state-dominated system of global
IG. I noted that these principles of parity are
characteristic of the governance of Internet identifiers
(names and addresses) and routing and connectivity, and
seems to be working well. Your response:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="color:#1F497D">P: </span>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.<span
style="color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">MM:
Yes, I did not respond about OECD because your message about
it was confused. On the one hand you were saying it is a
“colonial” entity, on the other hand you were incorrectly
saying it is multistakeholder as ICANN or RIRs, and on the
third hand (nice of you to have three hands, by the way) you
were holding it up as a model for global internet
governance. But I think this is clarified now.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">MM:
The OECD is an intergovernmental organization that fosters
policy research and promotes cooperation in policy among its
member states. It does not make global public policy, in the
sense that it can formally enact and enforce anything, only
its member states can do that. It describes its own output
as “guidelines” or what IR/political science people would
call norms. It has incorporated input from labor
stakeholders for some time, and around 2005 or 2006, it
began to incorporate civil society input in a more
formalized way. But nongovernmental stakeholders have no
formal decision making power over what OECD does. So when
you say,
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p>P: 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<o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">MM…you
are proving my point: you reject the globalized,
multistakeholder model in which civil society and the
private sector have parity and you want a state-led system.
Let me add that the fact that OECD calls itself
“multistakeholder” (MS from now on) doesn’t prove anything
other than that people use the MS word in different ways.
The ITU also calls itself MS. The MS label has some cachet
and makes the organization seem open. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Perhaps
a better word for the difference in the models is
sovereignty-based or not. I support a global public policy
emerging from an open, global, multistakeholder regime in
which the actual public, not just states, are directly
making policy. You want a state-led policy and thus are
fundamentally a conservative supporting traditional
governance mechanisms of the past two centuries.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="color:#1F497D">P: </span>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.<span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">MM:
I never said OECD is a model for global IG. IGP has
participated, to some degree, in OECD’s openness to civil
society input, but we have never “supported” it as a model
for global IG. And OECD’s research reports are very good,
very useful, so in that sense I support it. But it’s not
“policy development” work in the sense we are debating; it’s
just a government- (and partially privately-) funded think
tank. And one of the reasons OECD works smoothly is that it
is indeed a smaller club of like-minded states. This is not
to say it couldn’t be more inclusive, but realistically
making it bigger will also make it more difficult to achieve
consensus. This is standard collective action theory, look
into it.</span><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> There
are also clubs of developing or non-western states, e.g.
SCO, APEC, etc. Governments sort themselves into clubs for a
reason. Look into it.</span><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="color:#1F497D">P: </span>As a professor of
public policy you surely know that public policy functions
cannot - repeat cannot -- be funded by private funds.<span
style="color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">This
is a bizarre argument from authority, when in fact you are
not an authority, not a professor of public policy, you have
no formal education or research credentials in that area, so
I don’t know where you get these absolutist notions. Maybe
do a little more investigation, both contemporary and
historical. Ask yourself things like, “does the ITU-T’s
financing of its standardization process by selling
expensive documents to private telcos and charging 5-figure
sector membership fees constitute public or private funding?
Are you aware of the fact that the Gates Foundation donated
$530 million to the World Health Organization, or 12% of its
budget? Should they give the money back? Is WIPO’s reliance
on patent registration fees public or private funding?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p>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?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Again,
your lack of knowledge of actual public policy processes is
showing. You are advancing a very simplistic sovereigntist
argument about international institutions. You have an
idealized, ahistorical notion of the public/private
distinction and view public funds (which are inevitably
gained through taxation or expropriation of private actors,
and thus are highly dependent on the private economy) as
some sacrosanct, disinterested source of funds. This
underestimates the self-interest of state bureaucracies,
among other flaws, but I really don’t have time to engage in
further education of you. Let’s focus instead on what,
exactly, is the point you are trying to make? As I
understand it, you are saying that any contribution of
private funds to support the IGF is “scandalous.”
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">This
ignores several salient points, some of which were raised on
my last message and never answered:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="margin-left:20.5pt;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0
level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><span
style="mso-list:Ignore">-<span style="font:7.0pt
"Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">What
if governments are unwilling or unable to provide the needed
funds but the community of actors involved can raise their
own (private) funds? <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="margin-left:20.5pt;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0
level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><span
style="mso-list:Ignore">-<span style="font:7.0pt
"Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Don’t
national governments also have key geopolitical interests in
internet governance and wouldn’t they be able to use their
funding as leverage? Why isn’t this “scandalous”?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="margin-left:20.5pt;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0
level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><span
style="mso-list:Ignore">-<span style="font:7.0pt
"Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">If
private sectors funds are sufficiently diversified, can bad
influence be mitigated?
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="color:#1F497D">P: </span>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)
<span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">MM:
I have not seen anyone here make an argument that corporate
funding is needed because of poor, undependable developing
countries. I do see concerns that funding for IGF from _<i>all</i>_
governments can be undependable or inadequate, or
geopolitically biased.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">MM:
I am certainly aware of the problem of corruption or bias of
public governance functions by private funds or private
influence. But with your devotion to nation-state funding
and the sovereign system, you seem incredibly unaware of how
the same problem exists with state funding. Indeed, state
funding and influence can actually be more “colonial” than
the alternative, because who except for the richest and most
powerful countries are most likely to fund and participate
in international institutions? And that includes rich
non-white countries with their own empires and forms of
colonialism, such as China. Are you really unaware of the
extent to which international institutions reinforce or
maintain the hegemony of colonial powers? Read some history.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">MM:
You would like to present this as a polar choice, due to
your anti-private sector, anti-business ideology. Either we
are entirely state-dominated and funded, or entirely
private. But that is not the choice we have. Public
governance institutions ALWAYS involve buy-in and support
from private stakeholders if they are to function at all,
just as private sector market interactions require publicly
formulated and impartially enforced rules. The problem in
the IG space is that internet connectivity is transnational
and non-territorial, and there is a mismatch between the
territorial nation-state system of governance and the
globally connected users and suppliers in the internet
economy. Traditional intergovernmental institutions are
therefore poor and even fundamentally unjust representatives
of the policy making needs of cyberspace. So we have to
develop new institutions. It is a never-ending source of
amusement to me that the folks who think they are radical,
progressive lefty types have for the past 20 years been
conservative defenders of traditional territorial
nation-state governance
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="color:#1F497D">P: </span>As I said, I mean by
democratic the system employed by the OECD for supra-national
digital policy making.
<span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">MM:
This is not democratic, this is delegation by nation-states,
with very thin, long-stretched lines back to democratically
elected governments in some cases, and involving _<i>entirely
undemocratic</i>_ states in many others. Further: OECD
does not make supra-national policy. It is simply a club for
a subset of nation-states to (at best) coordinate their own
national policies and (most of the time) do research on
policy. In a global polity, a system of representation that
relies on territorial nation states is not democratic, both
because the public is not confined to geographic spaces, and
because at least half of the governments are not democratic.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="color:#1F497D">P: </span>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. <span
style="color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">MM:
Ah yes, this is why Internet censorship has ceased to exist.
All governments are adhering religiously to Article 19 of
the UN Declaration of Human Rights, and if they don’t, these
UN bodies send in international police forces to enforce the
international law, and haul them before international courts
to….oh wait, I am not describing reality, am I?
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>