-------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: [Governance] Seeking roll back of IGF Leadership Panel Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2021 15:24:40 +0530 From: parminder via Governance <governance@lists.igcaucus.org> Reply-To: parminder <parminder@itforchange.net> To: Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com>, governance@lists.igcaucus.org <governance@lists.igcaucus.org> Dear Olivier, Thanks for your response, which I take as a constructive engagement. 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. 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. 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.) 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. parminder 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. 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 :) On 26/11/21 5:31 pm, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond wrote:

Dear Parminder,

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. So what next?

Thanks,

Olivier Crépin-Leblond (speaking on my own behalf)

On 24/11/2021 15:32, parminder via Governance wrote:

...

Dear All,

Please find enclosed a letter addressed to the UN Secretary General appealing to him to roll back the decision for an IGF Leadership Panel.

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.

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.

The letter argues how the IGF Leadership Panel militates against the basic idea, objectives and structure of the IGF, and will weaken it.

Best, parminder