<div dir="auto"><div><br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sat, Nov 27, 2021, 18:52 parminder 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>
<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. </p></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><p>Funny, that hardly anyone is ready to say
outright that LP is a good idea....</p></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto">The leadership panel would do a lot of good if constituted of leaders who are at the risk of being dissuaded by what they might perceive to be controversial based on perceptions of endless arguments as happening now. I say outright that the LP is a good idea and it would be highly purposeful to constitute the panel.<br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><p> 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>On 27/11/21 4:06 pm, Olivier MJ
Crépin-Leblond wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
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>On 26/11/2021 19:28, Mueller, Milton
L wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<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 style="display:inline-block;width:98%">
<div id="m_5479424984579263920divRplyFwdMsg" dir="ltr"><font style="font-size:11pt" face="Calibri, sans-serif" color="#000000"><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 Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond via Governance <a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer"><governance@lists.igcaucus.org></a><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, November 26, 2021 7:01 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> parminder <a href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer"><parminder@itforchange.net></a>;
<a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>
<a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer"><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>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></fieldset>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
</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></div></div>