<div dir="auto">I am wondering how appropriate it is to subject the Secretary General's initiative to constitute a high level body, at as high a level as the Secretary General might conceive. This is the well within the scope and expectations of the highest functionary of the UN. Subjecting the Secretary General's functions to an objection or a public criticism process in a mailing list somewhat exceeds the limits of the Civil Society MS processes. Inputs and comments are pertinent when programs are announced by the high level body that is not yet constituted, when called for, and where necessary. <div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">It ought to be well within the powers of the Secretary General to name individuals and Organisations as it pleases the Secretary General and so constitute the high level body as conceived for the good of the world.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Sivasubramanian M</div><div dir="auto"><br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon, Apr 12, 2021, 12:10 suresh via Governance <<a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><div dir="ltr"><div>
</div><div><div>
<div>An interesting tirade I must say </div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">No point replying as Milton has replied to these to the extent that is necessary </div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">Repeating the same thing with minor rewording doesn’t exactly make it true you know </div>
<div><br></div>
<div id="m_131457704541192594ms-outlook-mobile-signature"><div style="direction:ltr">--srs</div></div>
</div>
<div> </div><hr style="display:inline-block;width:98%"><div id="m_131457704541192594divRplyFwdMsg" dir="ltr"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif"><b>From:</b> Governance <<a href="mailto:governance-bounces@lists.igcaucus.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">governance-bounces@lists.igcaucus.org</a>> on behalf of parminder via Governance <<a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>><br><b>Sent:</b> Monday, April 12, 2021 12:06 PM<br><b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:governance@listsigcaucus.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">governance@listsigcaucus.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<div> </div></font></div>
<p><font face="Arial"><br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial"><a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/business-56701765" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://www.bbc.com/news/business-56701765</a></font></p>
<p><font face="Arial">Jack Ma's Alibaba gets heavily fined for
abusing its marker dominance for many years. Bill Gates's
Microsoft earned most of its money from its monopoly OS and
office applications, employing blatantly anti-competitive
practices in the 1990's and 2000's ...<br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial">Great that It is for Jack Ma and Mrs Gates to
give us the roadmap for global digital cooperation and (non)
regulation , as they did through the "Digital Cooperation'
initiative .... It is quick shocking that the irony of it is
entirely lost on most 'civil society' here. Not sure what is
happening. <br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial">Under the new 'Digital Cooperation' rubric,
being built right now, we would of course soon have Facebook and
Twitter leading policy work on social media, and Google and
Baidu on data governance. <br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial">Already Microsoft plays the biggest part in
developing outcomes from the IGF's best Practices Forum on data
and new technologies ... The new Digital Cooperation rubric is
explicitly supposed to carry forward work from industry
dominated activities in best practices forums to global digital
policy stage, stamped with the legitimacy of a 'bottom up
process' and now the authority of the new High Level
Multistakeholder Body that is being set up. <br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial">Let the people here, and those actively
involved in building and supporting this new global digital
policy architecture, not deny the responsibility when the fully
grown Frankenstein is up and active among us .... <br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial">ON OECD's digital policy making; <br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial">This is an announcement today
<a href="https://www.oecd.org/digital/trusted-government-access-personal-data-private-sector.htm" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://www.oecd.org/digital/trusted-government-access-personal-data-private-sector.htm</a></font></p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in;font-variant:normal;letter-spacing:normal;font-style:normal;font-weight:normal;line-height:100%"><font face="Arial" color="#333333">It says " <font style="font-size:12pt" size="3">The
OECD Committee on Digital Economy Policy, which has long been
at the
forefront of global data governance policy work,"</font></font></p>
<font face="Arial">
</font>
<p>
</p>
<p><font face="Arial">So, well people can still keep denying that
OECD's CDEP does 'policy work' and further that it does 'global
policy work' , and in a fully colonial way keep working with and
supporting the OECD digital policy work, even as they oppose
similar possibilities at the global level. <br>
</font></p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in;font-variant:normal;letter-spacing:normal;font-style:normal;font-weight:normal;line-height:100%"><font face="Arial" color="#333333">It further says, that the
purpose is to "<font style="font-size:12pt" size="3">examine
the possibility of developing, as a matter of priority, an
instrument
setting out high-level principles or policy guidance for
trusted
government access to personal data held by the private
sector."</font></font></p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in;font-variant:normal;letter-spacing:normal;font-style:normal;font-weight:normal;line-height:100%"><font face="Arial" color="#333333"><font style="font-size:12pt" size="3">Not policy work, right! <br>
</font></font></p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in;font-variant:normal;letter-spacing:normal;font-style:normal;font-weight:normal;line-height:100%">
<font face="Arial" color="#333333"><font style="font-size:12pt" size="3">The "
Committee agreed to convene a drafting group comprised of
nominated
government representatives and experts, including from law
enforcement and national security agencies", for the purpose
if developing a draft instrument.</font></font></p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in;font-variant:normal;letter-spacing:normal;font-style:normal;font-weight:normal;line-height:100%"><font face="Arial" color="#333333"><font style="font-size:12pt" size="3">All drafting group members are gov
representatives or otherwise gov nominated ... And this is
just the drafting group, the final decision making body, the
Committee itself, is of course also fully governmental . <br>
</font></font></p>
<font face="Arial">
</font>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in;font-variant:normal;letter-spacing:normal;font-style:normal;font-weight:normal;line-height:100%"><font face="Arial" color="#333333"><font size="3"> </font></font></p>
<font face="Arial">
</font>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in;font-variant:normal;letter-spacing:normal;font-style:normal;font-weight:normal;line-height:100%"><font face="Arial" color="#333333"><font size="3">
</font></font></p>
<font face="Arial">
</font>
<p>
</p>
<p><font face="Arial">But sure, people can keep calling OECD's
digital policy work as multistakholder, and call the same model
at the UN level as multi--lateral and gov capture of digital
governance. <br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial">parminder </font><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div>On 03/04/21 12:31 pm, parminder wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<p><b><br>
</b></p>
<p><font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">This part in
addressed to others and not Milton. <br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">While I request your
engagement with this debate, especially of those who have
involved themselves with the new 'digital cooperation'
governance models, I must clarify one thing. My use of
personally targeted language, if any, against Milton had only
and exceptionally to do with, and was only in response to, his
habitual way of saying things like, as he did this time, that
the other person is totally ignorant, and that signing
organisations are some fringe inconsequential organisations,
doing ideological name-calling, and so on .. Take this as a
kind of 'private thing' between Milton and me, even as we do
productively discuss very important issues, concepts and
ideas.....</font> </p>
<p><font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"> Let this bilateral
idiosyncrasy of ours not deter you, others, from your public
duty to engage in this very important debate, and, as and if
required, respond to important issues and questions that have
been raised here. <br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">If the global CS
Internet Governance Caucus were not to be discussing global
digital governance models at this critical juncture when one
such model is close to being installed, I do not know what the
IGC is doing at all. <br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">parminder</font><br>
</p>
<p><b><br>
</b></p>
<div>On 03/04/21 12:28 pm, parminder
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<p><br>
</p>
<div>On 03/04/21 3:55 am, Mueller,
Milton L wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">Wow,
Parminder, you’re getting wordier and wordier and I am
not sure I have time to continue this, but let me
provide some parting shots before we agree to disagree
and go our separate ways…</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Dear Milton, I wont wow! you .... Words are definitionally
the body of discursive democracy. If more were needed in this
case that is for reasons that you may at least equally be
responsible for. This discussion is about what mode of global
governance is appropriate for (non CIR or non tech) digital
issues. It is but in order that key interlocutors let know
what kind of model they support and advocate in this regard.
You spent a few emails to reach there, but yes now from your
last email I get a good idea - though still quite vague. I
quote from your email. <br>
</p>
<p>"<span style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">To
deal with these other problems (meaning, non CIR or non-tech
digital issues) we will have to come up with something new.
But, like ICANN, it should try to be global and rooted in
private law rather than in national institutions. So in my
view, that means we have to keep national governments at bay
to buy time for organic institutions to evolve."</span></p>
<p>Very interesting! You want global digital governance to be
based on private law, or, I understand, institutions built on
private law. That is a quite clear, and also an
extra-ordinarily bold, assertion. Entirely your choice to
take forward or not this important discussion on appropriate
institutional models for global digital governance, but can
you please help us understand this more. (Please do not ask me
to read your book :) ) Maybe provide us the outline of how
such a thing would look in practice. It you have written about
it somewhere pl give us a link (again, pl not a whole book
though.) That would be an extremely valuable contribution to
the debate, and to the very cause of appropriate global
digital governance. <br>
</p>
<p>You may please provide one clarification -- what or whose
private law should these institutions for global digital
governance be based on? US? Some other country? Or you have
some conception of global private law? <br>
</p>
<p>I also understand from the above that such a private law
based global digital governance is in your mind an interim
arrangement to 'buy time for organise institutions to evolve'.
I find this even more interesting, and genuinely so... Again
your choice to expound further what you have put across
somewhat cryptically, but can you tell us a little more about
what kind of organic institutions you have in mind even as a
future possibility? Are these too also be based on private
law? Or, is this something going towards directly elected
global parliament kind of things? I am very interesting in any
and all such democratic yearnings and projects, and we may
indeed find common ground here. <br>
</p>
<p>You have ridiculed my asking for clear respective positions
on global governance models.... Well, I do not know whether
you know much about this area or not but such mutual
accountabilities and answer-abilities are at core of global
and infra-global civil society working and networking. IT for
Change, for instance has a 'your right to know' button on our
website, and we promise to respond to any question about us
within 2 weeks... This is because we use public money on
public trust, and cannot refuse to answer public questions
about ourselves. It is in the same spirit that I ask questions
from you and others in this space. <br>
</p>
<p>regards, parminder</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<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. <u></u><u></u></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">Yep.
Yay, discursive democracy! That’s what we’re doing here,
folks. <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><span style="color:#1f497d">> </span>buckets.<span style="color:#1f497d"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">Buckets.
Not a very cyber metaphor. Packets? Photons? Anyway….<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><span style="color:#1f497d">></span>therefore you
really do not approve of <span style="color:#1f497d">
[OECD] </span>You could be clearer and more upfront
about such <span style="color:#1f497d"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><span style="color:#1f497d">> </span>disapproval,
here<span style="color:#1f497d"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">And
why do I need to do that, here? I see no point in
denouncing them on public mailing lists. As I said, I
approve of their research, it’s often useful, good
economists and policy analysts live there. But I did
stop participating. These advisory committees to IGOs
have very little voice or power in these organizations.
Essentially you’re a worker for no pay. I choose to
voluntarily donate my time elsewhere. <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><span style="color:#1f497d">></span>when pushed into
an argumentative corner,<span style="color:#1f497d"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">That,
sir, is an excellent description of your tactics on
these email lists. But I can’t complain, I do the same
thing. <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><span style="color:#1f497d">></span>Here I will
request others who actively work with the OECD model to
let us know their views on <span style="color:#1f497d"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><span style="color:#1f497d">></span>that model,
clearly and upfront. <span style="color:#1f497d"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">Parminder,
this is a mailing list of a diverse civil society
coalition, not the monthly meeting of a Trotskyite
advocacy collective. Nobody has to make their views
known, “clearly and upfront,” to pass your loyalty test.
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">Let’s
go back to what this disagreement was fundamentally
about. You want the internet to be controlled by
sovereign states, and I want it to be self-governing and
independent of sovereign states, insofar as that’s
possible. Those are two distinct paths for internet
governance. I will fight for its autonomy, you will
fight for its subordination to nation-states. We meet in
this space because that is the space that was set up to
have those debates. <u></u><u></u></span></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.
<u></u><u></u></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">Here
you make a good point, I do need to be clear about that,
as a matter of practical reality if not logical
consistency. So I stated this “very mutely,” did I? LOL!
OK, I will speak louder. Undertaken the same way as
ICANN? Depends on what you mean. You mean, organize it
under ICANN? or start with the US government and then
privatize it? No. ICANN was a governance experiment that
can never be repeated. To deal with these other problems
we will have to come up with something new. But, like
ICANN, it should try to be global and rooted in private
law rather than in national institutions. So in my view,
that means we have to keep national governments at bay
to buy time for organic institutions to evolve. <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p>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? <span style="color:#1f497d"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">Definitely.
We need a coalition of governments, private sector and
civil society to work together in nonhierarchical forms
of cooperation, and we need to have governments refrain
from militarizing, territorializing, surveilling,
censoring and restricting cyberspace for enough time for
peaceful forms of cooperation to remain possible.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p>Well, I repeat, it is scandalous... <span style="color:#1f497d"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:120%;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">Parminder,
scandalizing you is what I live for. It’s the only
reason I’m on this list.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</div></div></div>
-- <br>
Governance mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Governance@lists.igcaucus.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">Governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.igcaucus.org/mailman/listinfo/governance" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.igcaucus.org/mailman/listinfo/governance</a><br>
</blockquote></div>