<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Dear Olivier,</p>
<p>Thanks for your response, which I take as a constructive
engagement. <br>
</p>
<p>First of all, it is simply NOT PRACTICAL that in a communication
to the UN SG where we reject the specific idea of IGF Leadership
Panel as a bad idea, and describe why so in a few paras, we then
use a few more pages to put out our entire alternative vision of
global digital governance. These things do not work like that.
Please do not put impossible expectations on us, and then be
disappointed that these are not met. <br>
</p>
<p>Apart from the practical need to be short, succinct and to the
point when addressing a letter to high authorities regarding a
specific new institutional proposal, there was also this other
equally important consideration. While an overwhelming number of
civil society and tech community people actually hate this new LP
proposal, one cannot expect them all to agree on a design for a
future global digital governance architecture. Any letter putting
a detailed alternative proposal would have diverted all attention
towards various alternative views about such a future architecture
-- bringing up intense contentions and arguments and
counter-arguments -- distracting from the part people agree on;
which is that, whatever be the other differences, the LP is
certainly a very bad idea and should not exist. <br>
</p>
<p>We wished and still wish to create and use such an agreement
within civil society and technical community groups 'on this one
point' towards the objective of resisting the formation of the LP.
That is simply how advocacy works. (Evan, you called me
non-strategic.. But that is how one actually is strategic .. Not
by saying in the same email that LP may be a cure worse than the
disease, and that at a cursory reading it looks like taking us to
ICANN style corporate capture of governance but what the heck,
lets still support that LP idea. That is NOT strategic.)<br>
</p>
<p>For instance Milton and I would not agree on our visions and
proposals for the future of global digital governance. But just
because there still exist a few alternative ideas around for this
future (perhaps all better than the LP proposal), you cannot use
that diversity and lack of consensus to say, ok, the next bad idea
given by UN SG is therefore accepted .. Any such logic sounds
absolutely strange is to me, and that is the crux of most people's
responses here to our joint letter. <br>
</p>
<p>parminder <br>
</p>
<p>ps: Dont worry, I will indeed still address in full detail your
issue about "the status quo is no longer fit for purpose", and
"what next", in two subsequent emails. <br>
</p>
<p>Although I do find it strange that so many have said that I do
not present alternatives, which I have done almost every 6 months
for the last almost 15 years on these elists, as well in form of
institutional submissions to NetMundial, various CSTd WGs, WSIS
plus 10, the IGF, you name it , .. All of them public .. You are
therefore just dead wrong to say I dont present alternatives (and
thus have no right to criticize the LP). I'd provide the proof to
rejig your conveniently sieve like memory for my concrete
proposals. I started at the very first IGF in 2006 with a proposal
for a Framework Law on IG, right at the very first IGF, at a
workshop cosponsored by Internet Governance Project, and have not
stopped since.... . That proposal had the support of a colleague
of Milton's at the IGP, and the government of Brazil, .... I can
write a few pages about the proposals I/ we have made since then
... You dont have to agree those proposals to accept that we have
regularly made concrete proposals, which is something you seem to
deny or forget, which does disappoint me :) <br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 26/11/21 5:31 pm, Olivier MJ
Crépin-Leblond wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:5d730e14-f487-7a3e-940e-54bc5414ccc5@gih.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
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="moz-cite-prefix">On 24/11/2021 15:32, parminder via
Governance wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:01253f6f-a799-528b-b822-cac8389e7065@itforchange.net">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;
charset=UTF-8">
<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="moz-mime-attachment-header"></fieldset>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>