<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
Dear Parminder,<br>
<br>
thanks for your email. I have reservations about the LP,
particularly the extent to which stakeholders participating in the
LP will be equal... or not. At the moment, I have doubts that they
will be.<br>
But I admit I have not spent the time it takes to be an expert in
exactly how it will work and perhaps there will be room to make
stakeholders equal? <br>
I have found reservations coming from other people too, including
the most vehement ones coming from Milton and you who absolutely
reject it. Fine - so perhaps the LP is *not* the answer to building
the Internet of the future in a multistakeholder manner. So what do
you propose instead?<br>
<br>
The gist of my comment is that if you are bold enough to launch a
campaign against the LP then surely you must have a constructive
counter-proposal to make. That's all I am saying. <br>
<br>
Kindest regards,<br>
<br>
Olivier<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 27/11/2021 14:22, parminder wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:3fe75e8c-9a1c-429f-5552-84bb5fc7b34f@itforchange.net">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<p>Olivier,</p>
<p>From the below I understand that you are greatly bothered about
the huge number of global digital policy issues that need urgent
policy action. I fully agree with you. But you dont tell us how,
as per your thinking, policy action will take place on them.
This is especially ironical for someone who asks others to
provide their precise alternative/ model. <br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p> I understand that your email is basically in support of the
IGF Leadership Panel. But your 3 para email nowhere tells us
what you think the LP should and would do, and how that solves
the the key policy challenges you describe... Isnt that
important to tell, if you support the LP.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>The language that comes the nearest in your email is.... "if
the IGF continues being a talk shop with no actual results or
even suggestions coming out of it that can be picked up using a
well thought out process, in a multistakeholder manner..."</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>So, you think the LP will pick up actual results or suggestions
coming out the IGF?</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Very fine... I had asked Wolfgang on the ISOC list to
illustrate this with an example or two, how the process actually
works. He did not do it, would you please .. Moment you begin to
actually fill in detail into this good-sounding
message-conveying thing, youd realise the immense problems with
it and/ or non plausibility of it .. This being a serious
discussions on the future of IG ecosystem, lets get done to its
real processes and implications ... <br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Sentences like "I am not saying whether an IGF Leadership Panel
is a good or a bad thing" -- are completely unhelpful..... That
is what we are facing right now, and we need to decide if it is
a good idea or a bad one. Funny, that hardly anyone is ready to
say outright that LP is a good idea.... I mean, it must be a
really really bad idea, whereby even those criticizing the
criticism of LP are not ready to vouchsafe for it. <br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Later you say, ". If you want the Internet of the future to
reflect consensus between all parties, that is the way to do
it."</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>What is the way? Setting up an LP ? Interesting, Can you help
us understand how the LP will create / help consensus between
all parties. <br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>This seem to be different from relaying messages ... I did not
read it as a function of LP to create/ help consensus, but you
seem to think it would.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Thanks</p>
<p>parminder<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 27/11/21 4:06 pm, Olivier MJ
Crépin-Leblond wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:c6187ae1-72ea-b6a3-252d-d42f493539a1@gih.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=UTF-8">
Dear Milton,<br>
<br>
thank you for your kind response and thanks for the suggestions
you make in improving the IGF, which I'll let others comment on,
if need be.<br>
To the question "the current status quo is no fit for purpose",
the current IGF mandate was pretty much a result of policies
stemming from a state of the Internet in 2005. We are in 2021,
16 years later. The world is a different place and the Internet
is a very different animal than what it was back in 2005. Let's
stop kidding ourselves that we live in 2005 and open our eyes to
2021 and its geopolitical, societal and technical challenges. We
still live in a world where there is a huge gap between the
Internet haves and the have nots, and that gap is widening, and
might be set to widen further as new technologies like 5G and
the ubiquitous IoT get rolled out in richer parts of the world.
We have a climate emergency on our hands and a significant part
of it is caused by the very network that we love and use daily.
We have a handful of companies with a budget larger than a small
country that have no checks and balances in place regarding the
privacy of data and whose business model is based on tracking
you and me and everyone else. We have a world where if you are
not online, you are nothing, which means that some complete
cultures are bound to disappear altogether if they do not have
an online presence. I know it's a mixed bag of slushy stuff that
strictly speaking you could say has nothing to do with the
Internet, but these issues are real and the Internet's impact is
core to many of these issues.<br>
<br>
In my opinion, the current status quo of having a discussion
forum and nothing else around it to action the discussions is no
longer fit for purpose - it's a lot of money spent to write more
books and papers, but if there is no clear path on how to action
the discussions, it is money wasted for the happy few that
benefit from publishing these papers, at the expense of the
wider world. I am not saying whether an IGF Leadership Panel is
a good or a bad thing, but if you don't like the proposal, then
propose something else because one thing is sure: if the IGF
continues being a talk shop with no actual results or even
suggestions coming out of it that can be picked up using a well
thought out process, in a multistakeholder manner, for further
study or action, some major players in the multistakeholder
model will walk away and turn to other fora, perhaps
multilateral fora, letting the multistakeholder model of
governance be a pipe dream of civil society that will remain by
itself in the IGF.<br>
<br>
As for the "purpose", I interpret it as the "Internet Governance
Forum", where civil society, governments, the private sector,
the technical community and any other actors come together to
discuss Internet Governance issues, leading to a well thought
out future of the Internet that includes input from all players
and not only a single actor. If you want the Internet of the
future to reflect consensus between all parties, that is the way
to do it. If you'd rather engage in poltical wars and arguments
between stakeholder groups, then let the talking continue and
leave the development to government and the private sector:
together I am sure they have a great plan for all of us. <br>
<br>
Kindest regards,<br>
<br>
Olivier<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 26/11/2021 19:28, Mueller,
Milton L wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:DM6PR07MB4700E919AB80A3FDABC2238DA1639@DM6PR07MB4700.namprd07.prod.outlook.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=UTF-8">
<style type="text/css" style="display:none;">P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;}</style>
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica,
sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> Olivier:</div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica,
sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> I don't
agree with the premise that because the UN SG's office
proposed something that I need to have an alternative
proposal. I think the more fundamental issue we are debating
is whether the IGF serves a useful function, under its
current parameters (nonbinding, open, ms discussion forum).
My answer is yes, and my most basic alternative is to stop
trying to turn it into something else, via "high-levelism."
<br>
</div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica,
sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> <br>
</div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica,
sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> The next
question is what can be done to strengthen it? Here is a
simple program</div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica,
sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<ol>
<li><span>Confine discussions to actual global internet
governance issues. Sorry, folks, climate change is
important but it's not IG<br>
</span></li>
<li><span>Start doing something meaningful </span>with
IGF main sessions. Instead of gigantic panels full of
anodyne, inoffensive statements, have focused debates in
which real policy alternatives are debated by people who
have real standing, and make them interact meaningfully
with the broader set of participants</li>
<li>Don't shy away from geopolitical debates involving
state actors. <br>
</li>
</ol>
<div>That would be a good start. <br>
</div>
<div>Now when you say, "the current status quo is not fit
for purpose" please tell me what purpose you have in mind.
<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>--MM<br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<div>
<hr tabindex="-1" style="display:inline-block; width:98%">
<div id="divRplyFwdMsg" dir="ltr"><font
style="font-size:11pt" face="Calibri, sans-serif"
color="#000000"><b>From:</b> Governance <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:governance-bounces@lists.igcaucus.org"
moz-do-not-send="true"><governance-bounces@lists.igcaucus.org></a>
on behalf of Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond via Governance <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org"
moz-do-not-send="true"><governance@lists.igcaucus.org></a><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, November 26, 2021 7:01 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> parminder <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net"
moz-do-not-send="true"><parminder@itforchange.net></a>;
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated
moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org"
moz-do-not-send="true"><governance@lists.igcaucus.org></a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Governance] Seeking roll back of
IGF Leadership Panel</font>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div>Dear Parminder,<br>
<br>
I understand from your letter with Milton that you are
*against* the creation of an IGF Leadership Panel. What
I'd like to hear is what you and Milton propose instead.
It is easy to be against all sorts of things, but the
world isn't static and from the IGF conultations, it is
clear that the current status quo is no longer fit for
purpose. There needs to be evolution.<br>
So what next?<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
<br>
Olivier Crépin-Leblond<br>
(speaking on my own behalf)<br>
<br>
<div class="x_moz-cite-prefix">On 24/11/2021 15:32,
parminder via Governance wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<p><br>
</p>
<p><font face="Liberation Sans">Dear All, <br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Liberation Sans">Please find enclosed a
letter addressed to the UN Secretary General
appealing to him to roll back the decision for an
IGF Leadership Panel. <br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Liberation Sans">The letter is co-signed
by Dr Milton Mueller, on behalf of the Internet
Governance Project, Georgia Institute of Technology
School of Public Policy, and Parmider Jeet Singh,
for IT for Change, and the Just Net Coalition. <br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Liberation Sans">The letter is cc-ed to
representatives of civil society and technical
community groups requesting them to refrain from
sending nominations for the IGF Leadership Panel,
and thus legitimizing it. <br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Liberation Sans">The letter argues how
the IGF Leadership Panel militates against the basic
idea, objectives and structure of the IGF, and will
weaken it.</font></p>
<p><font face="Liberation Sans">Best, parminder </font><br>
</p>
<br>
<fieldset class="x_moz-mime-attachment-header"></fieldset>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.gih.com/ocl.html">http://www.gih.com/ocl.html</a></pre>
</body>
</html>