<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
...and I'll add another thing which just came to mind: a few years
ago a follow-up committee to Netmundial, the Netmundial Initiative,
was started to, amongst a number of things, become a clearinghouse
for funding of projects that involved Internet Governance. A number
of excellent projects were initiated thanks to the money collected
through this initiative, but this community was so unanimous in
rejecting and outright badmouthing the initiative (there is no other
word than that), that the whole thing failed to get community buy-in
and the financing dried up. As a result, today what do we have out
of this? Absolutely nothing - and I am so, so disappointed to hear
about the number of people that have not been able to find any
funding to come to the IGF (before the pandemic issues).<br>
<br>
By saying no to everything, boycotting processes and thus *refusing*
dialogue, you end up doing exactly the opposite of what
multistakeholder dialogue is all about. Ironic, isn't it?<br>
<br>
Kindest regards,<br>
<br>
Olivier<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 27/11/2021 14:44, Olivier MJ
Crépin-Leblond via Governance wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:547de800-448b-694e-cc74-3003da652191@gih.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
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>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>