<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-forward-container"><br>
<br>
-------- Forwarded Message --------
<table class="moz-email-headers-table" cellspacing="0"
cellpadding="0" border="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th valign="BASELINE" nowrap="nowrap" align="RIGHT">Subject:
</th>
<td>Re: [Internet Policy] Seeking roll back of the IGF
Leadership Panel</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th valign="BASELINE" nowrap="nowrap" align="RIGHT">Date: </th>
<td>Sat, 27 Nov 2021 10:02:55 +0530</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th valign="BASELINE" nowrap="nowrap" align="RIGHT">From: </th>
<td>parminder <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:parminder.js@gmail.com"><parminder.js@gmail.com></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th valign="BASELINE" nowrap="nowrap" align="RIGHT">To: </th>
<td><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:cdel@firsthand.net">cdel@firsthand.net</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th valign="BASELINE" nowrap="nowrap" align="RIGHT">CC: </th>
<td><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:internetpolicy@elists.isoc.org">internetpolicy@elists.isoc.org</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<br>
<br>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 25/11/21 7:56 pm, Christian de
Larrinaga wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:87tug0nwfi.fsf@firsthand.net">does
anyone have a handy link to the UN decision and process? </blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>The UN decision is described <a
href="https://www.intgovforum.org/en/content/internet-governance-forum-leadership-panel-call-for-nominations"
moz-do-not-send="true">here</a>, but the process is not
provided. The IGF MAG/ sect was asked to do a public
consultation on what should be done. An overwhelming number of
responses did not want the kind of structure that has now been
set up, the IGF Leadership Panel (LP(, .. See here the <a
href="https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/93a-public-responseshttps://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/93a-public-responses"
moz-do-not-send="true">responses to the consultation</a>. And
here <a
href="https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/index.php?q=filedepot_download/11138/2490"
moz-do-not-send="true">a summary</a>. <br>
</p>
<p>And here is the <a
href="https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/93a-public-responses"
moz-do-not-send="true">ISOC's response</a> which is especially
clear it does not want any such structure. To quote it:
"However, as we have indicated in previous contributions to the
UN HLPDC process, ISOC is not convinced that a new higher-level
body of representatives needs to be established."<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:87tug0nwfi.fsf@firsthand.net">If
this is a "firm" decision it goes against advice from what
seemed a strong consensus I noted at the UK IGF steering team
and I expect other many other groups. <br>
</blockquote>
<p>Indeed, just yesterday a nomination process for the proposed LP
set up by some civil society groups (my group boycotted it)
collapsed due to lack of interest from civil society people and
groups.</p>
<p>What does all this say... I<b>t is clear that the LP decision
is NOT supported by an overwhelming majority of civil society
and technical community groups and people.</b></p>
<p>The question then is, for a decision that will be so important
to the future of the (much loved) IGF, and global digital
governance, <b>why cant civil society and technical community
and ISOC just write to the UN SG that they are dismayed about
the LP decision, and that it goes against what came out of the
'public consultations'</b> , and that the decision be rolled
back. <b>The least they can do is to not participate in the
nomination process - -thus denying the LP any legitimacy ...
This is how stakeholder and people's democratic power is
exercised from below.</b><br>
</p>
<p> This is simply and exactly what Milton's and my letter does,
which has been put to such intense criticism and questioning
here... I do not understand; are we to just accept and go along
with every decision of the UN SG about the IGF and global
digital gov architecture, without even protesting and
questioning it. <b>What is the point of doing a public
consultation when the powers-that-be were to then go against
the outcomes of the consultation</b>, and do as they wish. <br>
</p>
<p>This is what I mean when I say that the civil society and
technical community, which, in their democratic and policy
influencing role, are tasked to 'speak to power' have
unfortunately become status quo ist, and meek. People seem more
worried about their own location within 'the system', and their
prospects in it, rather looking out for the interests of the
public, and their constituencies, and representing and voicing
them.</p>
<p>We appeal to civil society people/ groups, tech community
people/ groups including the ISOC to not associate with the
nomination process, which gives legitimacy to the UN SG's
decision to make a LP, which is inappropriate both in substance
and process. <br>
</p>
<p>If YOU remain silent and say nothing now, and just go along,
you lose your stakeholder/ representative power, and will be
handed down more such decisions. Your constituents and the
public, as well as history, will judge you very poorly for it.
In this manner, it is YOU who <b>weakens multistakeholder
participation and power by being cowed down</b>. <br>
</p>
<p>parminder</p>
<p>PS: All this talk of 'what is the alternative' is very
distractive... We have a clear problem here, and our discussions
are around that clear problem. An invitation to open up all the
deep contestations on how global digital governance should
actually be going forward would achieve just one purpose here
-- cloud and bury this specific issue that we face right now. <br>
</p>
<p>Having said that, I have never been amiss on giving
alternatives.. I give full bodied ones almost every six months
on these elists, and have been doing it for years.. Sure, I'd do
it again. But cant allow that (legitimately) expansive,
complicated and often divisive discussion to bury this important
specific thing we face now. So pl give your views on this thing,
rather than raise all kinds of distractions. <br>
</p>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:87tug0nwfi.fsf@firsthand.net"> <br>
<br>
On Wed 24 Nov 2021 at 14:34, parminder via InternetPolicy <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:internetpolicy@elists.isoc.org"
moz-do-not-send="true"><internetpolicy@elists.isoc.org></a>
wrote: <br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Dear All, <br>
<br>
Please find enclosed a letter addressed to the UN Secretary
General <br>
appealing to him to roll back the decision for an IGF
Leadership Panel. <br>
<br>
The letter is co-signed by Dr Milton Mueller, on behalf of
the Internet <br>
Governance Project, Georgia Institute of Technology School of
Public <br>
Policy, and Parmider Jeet Singh, for IT for Change, and the
Just Net <br>
Coalition. <br>
<br>
It is cc-ed to representatives of civil society and technical
community <br>
groups requesting them to refrain from sending nominations for
the IGF <br>
Leadership Panel, and thus legitimizing it. <br>
<br>
The letter argues how the IGF Leadership Panel militates
against the <br>
basic idea, objectives and structure of the IGF, and will
weaken it. <br>
<br>
Best, parminder <br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</body>
</html>