[Governance] 170 orgs send an open letter to UN SG to stop plans for a new High Level Multistakeholder Body

[parminder]

On 23/03/21 11:09 pm, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
>
> All:
>
>  
>
> As I stated earlier, I think this dialogue is worth having, even if
> most of Parminder's arguments are weak and the neoMarxist ideology
> underlying them have been proven time and again to lead to stunted
> economic development and authoritarian systems of governance. It is
> worth having because it deals with the fundamentals of internet governance
>
I begin from this point of agreement that the issues here deal "with the
fundamentals if internal governance". I will come later, or in another
email, to my own name calling about what ideologies your arguments
espouse so as not the distract from the most important parts of this
discussion.

Indeed, Milton, I was very much looking forward to your response but am
quite disappointed by it. You have very little to argue beyond "you 
like China, want ...", which is a pretty silly level to debate about
what you yourself agree are issues dealing with the fundamentals of
Internet governance.

I did not think I would need to argue, that too with a prof of public
policy, such well-established principles of public governance and policy
making in general, and global levels of them in particular, like what
are the canons of funding public governance and policy making, and what
indeed is the current role of global governance as we know it.


>  
>
> You say it is "unacceptable that such an apex policy body will have
> corporation and government nominees sitting as equals." So, let's be
> clear: you are rejecting the multistakeholder principle and advocating
> for a traditional intergovernmental arrangement of the sort favored by
> authoritarian states. Their preference has always been to exclude the
> private sector and civil society from direct participation and make IG
> a governments-only game. Your attempt to revive the long-dead
> "enhanced cooperation" process pushes in that direction as well.
>
You have most conveniently avoided the matter of OCED's CDEP (committee
on digital economy policy) entirely, when it was a big and one of the
most important part of my email. I have deliberately and persistently
stuck to a clear 'object of interest' because otherwise we can keep
going in circles accusing each other in abstract terms, as you again do
here, that I am 'rejecting the multistakeholder principle'  My email was
clear, I not only fully accept the multistakeholder model that OECD
employs for its digital policy making, I and the networks that I work
with have officially sought as 'the exact same model'  for the global or
the UN level, and developing countries have officially sought in UN
committees and the UN GA 'the exact same model'  for the global or the
UN level .... How many times do I need to say the same thing, and you do
everything other than engage it. Lets see if you'd do any better in your
next email!

OCED calls its processes of public policy making as a multistakeholder
model ( I had provided a link to an OECD doc explicitly saying this),
ISOC calls it as a multistakeholder model (can provide link) .... So, if
this is the multistakeholder model for supra-national Internet/ digital
policy making, then you are clearly wrong; no I do not reject the
multistakeholder principle. I indeed advocate it for the global/ UN level

But if you have some other multistakeholder model in your mind for
supra-national Internet/ digital policy making, please come out with it
and I can tell you whether I support it or not. I cannot make it any
clearer!?

And sure enough, you consistently refuse to let us know why you support
the OECD's CDEP's policy work, but wont support a similar (exact cut
paste) model at the global level, and how doing that is not a colonial
attitude? I still look forward to your response to this central question.

>  
>
> You also object to the use of private sector funding, allegedly
> because this will corrupt the process. While it is true that, say, an
> entity funded entirely by Microsoft or Facebook would be biased and
> problematic, I am curious as to why you have no similar concerns about
> governmental funding. Are you saying that the U.S., China, Russia, the
> UK or European Union are entirely selfless, virtuous entities with no
> special interests they would push? Are you saying that nation-states
> never support or withhold support for UN agencies based on their
> politics? Maybe you have forgotten about the recent US withdrawal from
> WHO? Or the infiltration of the UN Human Rights Council by states that
> want to suppress discussion of HR violations?
>
As a professor of public policy you surely know that public policy
functions cannot - repeat cannot -- be funded by private funds. At the
global level, public funds are the proportionate contributions that
countries make to the UN fund. I remain fully and consistency of the
view that any UN based global public policy functions can and should
only be funded from this pool of funds. In the same way as it will be
scandalous to involve private funding for any public policy function in
the US.  Or do you disagree?

Even for supra-national level policy making, lets take the OECD example
again .. Let some of guys who freely advocate that  global level public
policy making (because it invokes those poor, undependable, developing
countries) should be based on corporate funding, try and suggest any
such thing for the OECD public policy processes.... I challenge you,
just even try write a letter suggesting that, and you know what ridicule
you'd subject to ....... So, are these things only reserved for poor,
undependable, developing countries?  This is why your approach is
colonial, no less. I am just about resting uttering the word racist --
but if you read the literature related to colonialism, racism runs
through it.

>  
>
> Note that it is overwhelmingly private sector funding and operation
> that built the internet and keeps it going. Are you proposing a return
> to the state-owned PTTs of the 19^th and early 20^th century? They
> have a pretty poor record, both in terms of development and rights.
>
Ah! One wonders if one is doing this discussion with a professor of
public policy!This was the principle of feudal political system --
ownership of means of production also ipso facto gave one political
power. The republican-democratic tradition have tried to separate these
two key realms of power -- and the whole republican-democratic
institutional system is based on this cardinal principle. And here a US
prof of public policy is not able to distinguish between talking about
the actors involved in economic production in a sector, and those who
should do public policy for it! This is almost depressing.

But lets go past theory, and take an example. Big pharma controls almost
all health related production -- medicines, equipment, etc....  Is that
a good reason whereby big pharma should legitimately dominate health
policy making at the US and the global level? Fund it, have its reps in
decision making positions, etc. I am very eager to know your views on
this. Thanks.

>  
>
> Fact of the matter is, if IGF - even in its current form - is going to
> survive, it is going to need money, and whoever provides that money is
> going to see it as in their interests in some way. Ergo, drawing on
> diverse private sector resources in addition to UN's governmental
> budget or governmental sources can actually improve its independence
> and quality.
>
Id ask the same questions (however shocking your views are to me, esp as
coming from a prof of public policy). Would you advocate such diversity
of funding, tapping into private sector funding, for digital and health
policy processes in the US? And, in the OECD?   Be brave, and let your
views be known clearly. Otherwise, the accusation of a colonial mindset
will be well-deserved.

>  
>
> More broadly, the corporations who would most likely be tapped do not
> have common interests, which I am sure you know if you have been
> paying any attention to the Apple-Google-Microsoft-Facebook-Tiktok
> disputes).
>
A trite formulation ((btw, big pharma's interests too diverge
internally).... It is perhaps you who do not pay attention to where all
the interests of these digital corporations actually converge -- which
elements also mostly involve the greatest divergence from wider public
interest.

>
>  
>
> You assert that "a High level Multistakeholder Body for ‘Digital
> Cooperation’...would become the de facto body for ‘global digital
> governance’." This is either a tremendously ignorant or absurdly
> demogogic statement. Just to take the three most significant power
> centers, the US, the EU and China, all have active and powerful
> antitrust authorities, who are engaged in a rather systematic assault
> on the platforms. All three, plus India, have legal and regulatory
> powers over data, privacy and so on, and are actively using them. With
> the exception of the US, all have extensive censorship powers, and are
> actively using them. All are partitioning the internet based on claims
> of “national security.” All are asserting, or exercising, extra
> territorial jurisdiction I various ways.
>
I am sorry, Milton, it is you who is tremendously ignorant about global
governance. Since abstracts and concepts have not been making much
headway with you, lets talk again in concrete examples. You have heard
of 'global health governance', right ((google, if you have not)? The WHO
is of course at the centre of it. Despite which all big nations you
mention have their own health systems, like the never ending political
debate in the US about its stupendously bad and inequitous health
system. The WHO has had limited influence on these key health governance
issues at the national level, but still WHO's global health governance
is tremendously important and valuable. Are you getting the point? So
you are basically tilting at self-created windmills, which just confuses
the debate. There are powers of the nation state, and there is a role
for global governance, and then also a continual contest between the two
arenas as well. All this is well known, for anyone to get carried away
by your rhetoric.

>  
>
> If you are claiming that somehow a loose, weakly funded UN-based
> multistakeholder alliance is going to negate or supersede these uses
> of state power, you are really out of touch with the political and
> economic realities of internet governance and have no business
> accusing anyone of being in an ivory tower.
>
It is your ivory tower of some completely implausible Internet
exceptionalism plus some radical libertarian notions that blinds you to
simple well known facts of global governance as have been discussed
above. What the new proposed MS body for digital governance makes
incursions on is what could and should be a 'WHO of digital governance'
and not so much on the power of the nation states to govern themselves.
Although, as mentioned, a lot of work of norms making, soft law, etc
does get undertaken even in this regard. And in time, in every sector,
some harder agreements also do get signed by all.  All these can play a
very important role in domestic governance . Where is the question here
of negating or superseding uses of state power .  You are just creating
your own imagined targets and then taking great pleasure in demolishing
them!

>
>  
>
> Now let's consider your (quite vague) ideas about what should be done
> instead. All you say is that you want a "a genuinely democratic system
> for global digital governance, keeping vested corporate interests at
> bay." It is evident that you, like the People Republic of China, mean
> by "democratic" a multilateral system, one government one vote, in
> which individuals have no role and the actual private sector owners
> and operators of networks and applications are "kept at bay" and
> regulated in a top-down manner by a collection of states.
>
As I said, I mean by democratic the system employed by the OECD for
supra-national digital policy making. How many times I have to say it,
to engage your engagement to that particular matter. There has to be a
limit to how much the China boggie can be used in global digital
governance discussions. Please try and find a better argument.

> You have no idea how states with fundamental disagreements about
> rights, law, political economy and economic policy will come to
> agreement on how to do this, of course.
>
As someone who claims expertise in global governance matters, I would
have expected you to know the history of how much agreement on rights,
law, political economy and economic policy has actually been managed by
UN based bodies over the last any decades. And btw if they could not do
even more, the chief culprit is not China as much as the US (it not
having even signed the covenant on social and economic rights). So if
there is a 'China problem' for global governance, there is at least as
big if not bigger 'US problem' too. But we are managing somehow, arent
we... Including with a global Internet domain and routing logic system
which is managed by a body subject entirely to the US law, and
considerably to its executive power too. Democratic global governance is
a work in progress. But regressions, as this proposal for the MS body at
the apex of global digital governance, are certainty to resisted stoutly.

>
>  
>
> So I am sorry, I fail to see anything in your letter other than
> posturing, raising the spectre of a huge and powerful
> corporate-dominated entity in order to mobilize a bunch of fringe
> groups into another anti-capitalist diatribe.
>
I did not know it was capitalist for corporates to fund, and run, public
policy functions! I had a much better view of capitalism.

Anyway, it does you no credit to call some prime organisations that lead
global movements  in areas as diverse as media and education to health,
labour, environment and gender  as a bunch of fringe groups. But,
entirely your choice! These organisations certainly know much more about
global governance than you seem to know. Even beyond formal matters
about appropriate global governance -- which alone is the subject of the
campaign letter,, even for substantive digital policy issues, the
interest and involvement of these groups is very important as the real
impact of the digital, and its governance (or not) is felt principally
in all these different sectors.

As for how well people like you, IGP, and many other organisations, that
have been involved with IG for long, have been able to represent and
serve the interests of those outside these charmed circles was well
demonstrated during the .org sale controversy. But about that at some
other time. 


regards, parminder


>  
>
> Best regards,
>
>  
>
> Dr. Milton L Mueller
>
> Georgia Institute of Technology
>
> School of Public Policy
>
> IGP_logo_gold block
>
>  
>
>  
>
> *From:*parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
> *Sent:* Monday, March 22, 2021 7:51 AM
> *To:* Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu>; governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Governance] 170 orgs send an open letter to UN SG to
> stop plans for a new High Level Multistakeholder Body
>
>  
>
>  
>
> On 22/03/21 2:15 am, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
>
>      
>
>     I’ve looked over the letter and am not impressed;
>
> Milton, thanks for responding, even though you find the Digital
> Cooperation initiative irrelevant. This is certainly much better than
> what many here who are actively engaged with shaping and pushing this
> initiative have bothered to do. I hope they also express their
> response and views.
>
>     not with the argument it presents nor with the astroturfed list of
>     170 organizations.
>
> So you find the active involvement and support of global organisations
> that are, for instance, the primary global networks of grassroots
> organisations in areas like health, education, food security, and
> conservation; top global trade unions; top global organisations
> working on gender justice, and global trade; some of the most
> prominent global development NGOs; as astroturfing? The most prominent
> among these, if not members of Just Net Coalition, are actually in
> active partnerships with the JNC on Internet/ digital governance
> issues. And mind you, this is the support we got over just 3 days
> which unfortunately included a weekend -- owing to a deadline for
> submitting comments to the UN process.
>
> You dismiss them as some irrelevant anti-globalisation organisations
> and activists from two decades ago; losers, perhaps, who lap up any
> global campaign letter thrown at them for getting their names printed
> on it!
>
> I reckon then that real people's perspectives and representation in
> Internet/digital governance matters should come from from a certain
> professorial chair at Syracuse University in the US, or it is that you
> have now shifted to somewhere in Georgia.
>
> A group of around 20 prominent global organisations and networks,
> having prepared this letter, are currently collaborating over an
> e-list for follow-ups, including establishing contacts with people
> inside the UN, government delegates etc, apart from spreading the
> message wider among CS groups and engaging them.. And this is outside
> the Just Net Coalition, JNC being just a participant in this
> collaboration. 
>
> This should puncture the pompous arrogance with which you typically
> come to such matters, and we can move now to more substantive matters.
> See in-line.
>
>      
>
>     We at IGP have largely, and deliberately, ignored the UN’s
>     initiatives around so-called High Level
>
>     Digital Cooperation. Not because we think it is leading in a bad
>     direction or is part of an evil capitalist plot, nor do we think
>     the people promoting it are badly motivated. We just think it is
>     mostly irrelevant. It is founded on model of governance that is
>     unrealistic and unlikely to have any impact on the internet (or
>     platforms, which is not the same as the internet).
>
>      
>
>     The Internet consists of 70,000 autonomous systems using a common
>     layer 3 and 4 protocol to communicate. Key elements of the
>     internet infrastructure are governed by what we call the
>     Organically Developed Internet institutions, such as IETF
>     (standards), ICANN (domain names) the Regional Internet Registries
>     (IP addressing) and cooperative action among network operators
>     (routing, interconnection).
>
>      
>
>     Because the internet has created a globalized space for
>     communication, many new problems and new forms of governance are
>     evolving at the transnational layer that go well beyond critical
>     internet resources. They affect issues areas such as
>     cybersecurity, content moderation, and privacy.
>
> So, you have defined Internet/ digital governance to be the technical
> governance of the Internet plus largely these three areas involving a
> digital version of libertarian minimal state. You do not consider, for
> instance, data, AI or platform regulation, especially the distributive
> issues involved therein, as Internet/digital governance, right. You
> have the right to your definitions of Internet/ digital governance,
> but it is evident that the world overwhelming disagrees with you,
> including the IGF (see its program).
>
>  
>
>     Some of these transnational initiatives are, in our opinion,
>     praiseworthy; others are not. But it is both unlikely and
>     undesirable for them to be consolidated or centralized in the
>     hands of a single global body, whether it is called
>     “multistakeholder” or “intergovernmental.” No such body is going
>     to be able to have the power or the expertise or the widespread
>     legitimacy and participation to address all these areas. Only a
>     dialogue forum is possible at the IGF level.  
>
> Two responses to this: One, lets consider the WHO; It really cannot be
> considered as global health governance being 'consolidated or
> centralized in the hands of a single global body' . But it still does
> very useful norms and standards setting work, develops global legal
> instruments, as required and possible, develops and coordinates
> frameworks of responses and other programmatic action, does neutral
> public interest global research and capacity development, and so on.
> WHO's existence has been extremely useful, and has not impeded other
> transnational initiatives This is true of UN global governance bodies
> in all areas. Digital is more inherently global than any other sector.
> So, why would a similar body for Internet/ digital governance not also
> be useful.
>
> Second: But if in any case you still remain absolutely opposed to a
> cross-sectoral, apex, digital policy and governance body, and I have
> been raising this same issue for at least 12-13 years now, why you
> never oppose the OECD's Committee on Digital Economy Policy (CDEP)? In
> the name of the body, 'Economy'  is there only for forms sake. This
> committee shapes digital policy in all areas, from principles for tech
> architecture, to platforms and content, to data and AI. Why do OECD
> needs a transnational, single digital governance body, when you so
> strongly oppose such a body at the global level. I have raised this
> issue often, and at one time when you could not avoid responding, you
> dismissed this body as a capacity building body, which is of course an
> untruth. OECD committees do go as far as developing legal instruments
> <https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flegalinstruments.oecd.org%2Fen%2Finstruments%2FOECD-LEGAL-0347&data=04%7C01%7Cmilton%40gatech.edu%7C2dcfd5131f4f441c626c08d8ed28bb9a%7C482198bbae7b4b258b7a6d7f32faa083%7C0%7C0%7C637520107742995041%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=5A%2F4HOwxmh%2F26SLcBCw7igI4RLu6o3EJ8ybTozsEdDs%3D&reserved=0>.
>
>
> The latest initiative of the CDEP is on government access to data held
> by the private sector
> <https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.oecd.org%2Fsti%2Fieconomy%2Ftrusted-government-access-personal-data-private-sector.htm&data=04%7C01%7Cmilton%40gatech.edu%7C2dcfd5131f4f441c626c08d8ed28bb9a%7C482198bbae7b4b258b7a6d7f32faa083%7C0%7C0%7C637520107743005033%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=%2BsnBqk3C3gn8Ra9l8QcZJNzw7oS0OjELQu8WZ39qW6E%3D&reserved=0>.
> The likely outcomes could be a document of policy principles but it
> could even be a legal instrument. Since digital policy making is a
> cross-sectoral work, CDEP often works in collaboration with other OECD
> Committees towards different ends. For instance, it worked with the
> Committee on Health to develop Health Data Principles
> <https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fone.oecd.org%2Fdocument%2FCOM%2FDELSA%2FDSTI(2016)1%2Fen%2Fpdf&data=04%7C01%7Cmilton%40gatech.edu%7C2dcfd5131f4f441c626c08d8ed28bb9a%7C482198bbae7b4b258b7a6d7f32faa083%7C0%7C0%7C637520107743005033%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=fPxsGyoM%2BliqBAFlwep5erlwRZ2Sy4TRYzgBsA2CW24%3D&reserved=0>.
> A very appropriate kind of output, and done in the right way too.
> Similarly a UN body on digital governance -- while all countries and
> not just the richest ones are represented  -- should work with the WHO
> to develop global Health Data Principles. In default of an UN
> Internet/ digital governance body, OECD's norms, principles and
> policies become the default global one.
>
> But here you develop cold feet... OECD committees should keep
> functioning and rolling out global governance norms, principles and
> policies, but not any UN body. That is not needed, any such thing is
> completely relevant. This is plainly a colonial attitude. It is a pity
> that in the global Internet/ digital governance space one can openly
> do such a thing. It normally does not happen elsewhere, in global
> civil society spaces.
>
> You are from the US, why dont you advocate to the OECD, where your gov
> sits,  to cede its one-point cross-sectoral digital norms/ policy
> work, and abolish the body specifically made for this purpose? What
> right do you have to tell the rest of the world to not do it? I
> repeat, it is plain and simple colonialism.
>
>      
>
>     Worse, increasingly, national governments are trying to interfere
>     with or control usage of the internet at the application layer.
>     This is leading to an increasingly fragmented, costly, and
>     repressive environment. One could call this tech nationalism,
>     jurisdictional alignment, fragmentation or a digital
>     neo-mercantilism. IGP has published numerous critiques of these
>     pathologies.
>
>      
>
>     In this context, for JustNet and its partners to portray
>     “regulation of big tech” as the salvation of the internet, and the
>     UN’s attempt to create a High Level MS Body as an entity with
>     “overweening power” that “would help Big Tech resist effective
>     regulation” is just laughable.
>
> First, the term 'overweening power' is used for Big Tech, and not the
> proposed High Level MS body. And if you do not think that Big Tech
> today has overweening power, which needs to be urgently regulated, it
> is you who is entirely out of touch with global intellectual,
> political, as well as public opinion. You are sitting lonesomely in
> some untenable libertarian ivory tower. But one thing I must commend
> you for is consistency. You responded to one of my emails years back
> in this very same space saying that you think 'social justice' is a
> meaningless term. So while consistent you might be, you are completely
> out of touch with contemporary digital reality. Internet, and those
> who were associated with it, were seen 20 years ago as representing
> counter power; today the Internet is controlled by those who represent
> the most pernicious incumbent power. Counters have now to be developed
> to this entrenched and fast expanding power. If 'your' internet
> governance is not taking note of this -- what is happening just
> outside your window -- it is you who is stuck in some 20 year old
> realities, not the organisations that developed and supported this
> campaign letter. 
>
>     I do not see how anyone with any deep knowledge of IG can take it
>     seriously. It has very little relevance to contemporary problems
>     of IG.
>
> Your IG knowledge has perhaps gone too deep - so deep that you may be
> alone wallowing there in the deep, in a manner very irrelevant to
> contemporary problems of IG. Although, your no doubt incisive and well
> written analyses -- however besides the point mostly -- do often
> provide very good cover to contemporary 'bad' digital forces. And
> therefore they get lapped up. Like this current email of yours is
> doing great favours to the shapers and supporters of the Digital
> Cooperation High Level MS Body, who themselves have little to be able
> to present their case in a democratic-discursive way, in spaces like
> this public elist.
>
>      
>
>     Insofar as it has any substance, it seems to call for more
>     nation-state based regulation of internet operations and content.
>      But this is something that, from Trump’s Great Firewall of
>     America, to Russia’s “sovereign” Internet, to Europe’s NIS2, to
>     India’s app blocking and censorship, to China’s insulated
>     internet, we already have plenty of. And we are getting more and
>     it seems to be making things worse.
>
> There has to be a limit to the Libertarians' clever technique to
> continue quoting the undoubted statist excesses vis a vis the digital
> to keep at bay appropriate regulation of Big Tech, and also the needed
> national policies to escape the coming bi-polar US-China's complete
> digital and AI domination of the word. State's undue power has to be
> resisted at the same time as a rule of law has to be established and
> applied for governing non-state bad actors.
>
>      
>
>     By the way, has anyone at JustNet noticed that Facebook is joining
>     them in their call for more internet regulation at the national
>     level? Think about the implications of that for a moment:
>     https://about.fb.com/regulations/
>     <https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fabout.fb.com%2Fregulations%2F&data=04%7C01%7Cmilton%40gatech.edu%7C2dcfd5131f4f441c626c08d8ed28bb9a%7C482198bbae7b4b258b7a6d7f32faa083%7C0%7C0%7C637520107743015025%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=9JSoftenN07OggfE7WOl8hKhaP54A4QNK2oiyJH8k9Q%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>      
>
>     If you read the letter, you can see that they obtained the support
>     of all these organization – very few of whom actually focus on
>     Internet or ICT governance
>
> For you Internet governance is about core technical systems of the
> Internet/ digital. For everyone else, its scope and meaning is fast
> expanding outwards, getting closer to the points and manners of the
> real-life impacts of the digital. There are of course organisations in
> this list of 170 plus organisations that deal centrally with digital
> governance, but then many others that are looking at platform/data/AI
> governance in relation to food and agriculture, health, education,
> trade, gender relations, labour, and so on. There is one that is a
> chief port-of-call for developing country governments on e-commerce
> issues in trade deals (btw, much of IG today is done in and through
> trade deals), another is represented in a new data working group of
> the World Committee on Food security of FAO, a third is developing
> health data principles, another working on feminist digital justice,
> another on how platforms use data to control dependent businesses,
> .... I can keep going, but you get the point.
>
> Should they all come to Prof Milton Mueller to get what Internet/
> digital governance is!? It is perhaps time you go to them, if you have
> to keep 'your' IG relevant.
>
>  
>
>     – by equating the UN HLDC with the World Economic Forum. This is
>     factually wrong, but it does succeed at throwing red meat in front
>     of the anti-globalization activists from two decades ago.
>
> No one equated UN HLDC with the WEF. It is was another WEF we wont
> have such a problem. What we have shown is that UN HLDC represent the
> exact unfolding of a plan for global governance that WEF laid out 10
> years back through its Global Redesign Imitative. And we provide exact
> quotations. Dont you see the difference? 
>
> I have already described what these organisations are. You make fun of
> them at your own cost.
>
>      
>
>     Internet governance needs to be accomplished from the bottom up,
>     and rely heavily on networked, non-hierarchical forms of governance.
>
>  
>
> But not when  OECD does it ... They are rich people and nations,
> mostly of the western civilisation, they know what they are doing,
> they have superior rights over the world! Please stop this colonial
> narrative.  
>
>  
>
>     We need to protect and strengthen, not destroy or undermine, the
>     organically developed internet institutions. When state-based,
>     hierarchical interventions are necessary, they need to be
>     carefully circumscribed and focused to address real problems that
>     cannot be handled in any other way, such as crime, fraud, and
>     coercion.
>
> Your libertarian definition of the scope of Internet/ digital
> governance! Sorry, developing countries at least cannot agree. For us
> economic issues, regulating Big Tech, developing domestic digital
> industry, etc are all very important.
>
>  
>
>
>
>     The UN should stop trying to become a centerpoint of global
>     internet governance and continue to serve as a place for dialogue
>     and network building.
>
> Go first tell this to your country and the OECD...
>
> Meanwhile, further discussion is very welcome.
>
> Regards, parminder
>
>  
>
>      
>
>      
>
>     Dr. Milton L Mueller
>
>     Georgia Institute of Technology
>
>     School of Public Policy
>
>     IGP_logo_gold block
>
>      
>
>      
>
>      
>
>      
>
>     *From:*Governance <governance-bounces at lists.igcaucus.org>
>     <mailto:governance-bounces at lists.igcaucus.org> *On Behalf Of
>     *parminder via Governance
>     *Sent:* Saturday, March 13, 2021 12:30 AM
>     *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>     <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>     *Subject:* [Governance] 170 orgs send an open letter to UN SG to
>     stop plans for a new High Level Multistakeholder Body
>
>      
>
>     The open letter was sent to the official consultation process,
>     signed by more than 170 organisations.
>
>     It was titled "“More than 170 Civil Society Groups Worldwide
>     Oppose Plans for a Big Tech Dominated Body for Global Digital
>     Governance” .
>
>     Please see the final statement and endorsements at
>
>     https://justnetcoalition.org/big-tech-governing-big-tech.pdf
>     <https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fjustnetcoalition.org%2Fbig-tech-governing-big-tech.pdf&data=04%7C01%7Cmilton%40gatech.edu%7C2dcfd5131f4f441c626c08d8ed28bb9a%7C482198bbae7b4b258b7a6d7f32faa083%7C0%7C0%7C637520107743015025%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=R7auhjhRX4Dnf1vbQFhXSpww5b%2BqGDufxLERpz5op8g%3D&reserved=0> 
>     .  
>
>      
>
>     It was also translated into Spanish, French, German and Dutch. All
>     versions are linked from the enclosed document
>
>      
>
>     We had just 3 days to get sign ons, out of which 2 were weekend
>     days. In the circumstances, the number is quite good. It shows the
>     groundswell to opposition to this move. Thanks to everyone who
>     supported this.
>
>      
>
>     We will now get this letter also sent directly to the UN SG and
>     his new Tech Envoy.
>
>      
>
>     We will like to keep this campaign open for some time to get
>     additional support and build awareness ...
>
>      
>
>     This ongoing campaign is just a start, much more needs to be done
>     and will be done to stop this assault on democracy and on
>     possibilities of effective regulation of Big Tech. We will be
>     doing all it takes, including engaging with governments.
>
>      
>
>     We will follow a twin track: develop a powerful movement within
>     civil society groups, and engage with governments and the UN.
>
>      
>
>     Will keep you posted.
>
>      
>
>     Best regards
>
>     parminder
>
>     On 05/03/21 2:15 pm, parminder via Governance wrote:
>
>         Dear All
>
>         This is anopen letter to the UN Secretary General
>         <https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fjustnetcoalition.org%2Fbig-tech-governing-big-tech.pdf&data=04%7C01%7Cmilton%40gatech.edu%7C2dcfd5131f4f441c626c08d8ed28bb9a%7C482198bbae7b4b258b7a6d7f32faa083%7C0%7C0%7C637520107743025019%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=3TT8bEZQ3%2B%2BctKS6oTJgzZFiND6Jwl5gv4vXvmdr9Zc%3D&reserved=0>
>         initiated by 16 global and national level civil society
>         networks and organisations urging him to shelve plans for a
>         High Level Multistakeholder Body which, if set up, can be
>         expected to become the default apex global digital governance
>         and policy body. This body is proposed to have a private
>         funding model, with strong hints also at a 'pay to play'
>         model. It is but obvious that Big Tech will come to dominate
>         any such body.
>
>         Quoting from the letter:
>
>             /Not only in developing countries but also in the US and
>             EU, calls for stronger regulation of Big Tech are rising.
>             At the precise point when we should be shaping global
>             norms to regulate Big Tech, plans have emerged for an
>             ‘empowered’ global digital governance body that will
>             evidently be dominated by Big Tech. Adding vastly to its
>             already overweening power, this new Body would help Big
>             Tech resist effective regulation, globally and at national
>             levels. Indeed, we face the unbelievable prospect of ‘*a
>             Big Tech led body for Global Governance of Big Tech’*./
>
>          Two technical annexes to the open letter explain the
>         background of the matter in considerable detail.
>
>         *This letter is open for endorsements, *which can be done by
>         writing an email to _secretariat at justnetcoalition.org
>         <mailto:secretariat at justnetcoalition.org>_or filling _this
>         form
>         <https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fjustnetcoalition.org%2Fbig-tech-governing-big-tech-form&data=04%7C01%7Cmilton%40gatech.edu%7C2dcfd5131f4f441c626c08d8ed28bb9a%7C482198bbae7b4b258b7a6d7f32faa083%7C0%7C0%7C637520107743025019%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=OHqaUWlDEw2GrBwrCfqJ%2F7DxnMYCbUPvoMLTkjuWGng%3D&reserved=0>_before
>         midnight PST (GMT-8) of the 7^th of March.
>
>          
>
>         Please also do circulate to other groups and networks where it
>         may attract interest.
>
>          
>
>         The open letter may also be accessed at
>         https://justnetcoalition.org/big-tech-governing-big-tech.pdf
>         <https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fjustnetcoalition.org%2Fbig-tech-governing-big-tech.pdf&data=04%7C01%7Cmilton%40gatech.edu%7C2dcfd5131f4f441c626c08d8ed28bb9a%7C482198bbae7b4b258b7a6d7f32faa083%7C0%7C0%7C637520107743035014%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=1%2FkmdHKbyNos00%2FjJKXEYAiDMmo9YqYxycHhBbk8ODM%3D&reserved=0>
>
>          
>
>         French text is at :
>         https://justnetcoalition.org/big-tech-governing-big-tech-french.pdf
>         <https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fjustnetcoalition.org%2Fbig-tech-governing-big-tech-french.pdf&data=04%7C01%7Cmilton%40gatech.edu%7C2dcfd5131f4f441c626c08d8ed28bb9a%7C482198bbae7b4b258b7a6d7f32faa083%7C0%7C0%7C637520107743045008%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=9SmzlOs7upKDdi%2FtZOK9phgb00rUbsol2vJeWMQ1G7I%3D&reserved=0>
>         and Spanish version at -
>         https://justnetcoalition.org/big-tech-governing-big-tech-spanish.pdf
>         <https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fjustnetcoalition.org%2Fbig-tech-governing-big-tech-spanish.pdf&data=04%7C01%7Cmilton%40gatech.edu%7C2dcfd5131f4f441c626c08d8ed28bb9a%7C482198bbae7b4b258b7a6d7f32faa083%7C0%7C0%7C637520107743045008%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=Kmx1IA2dhXbY8saboeEMC%2Frkis8Ul0%2FxCVLITBygdLk%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>          
>
>         Please let us know if you have any questions or comments
>         regarding the above.
>
>          
>
>         Best, parminder
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20210331/682221e4/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.png
Type: image/png
Size: 18385 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20210331/682221e4/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image004.png
Type: image/png
Size: 22318 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20210331/682221e4/attachment-0001.png>