-------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: [Internet Policy] Seeking roll back of the IGF Leadership Panel Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2021 10:02:55 +0530 From: parminder <parminder.js@gmail.com> To: cdel@firsthand.net CC: internetpolicy@elists.isoc.org On 25/11/21 7:56 pm, Christian de Larrinaga wrote:

does anyone have a handy link to the UN decision and process?

The UN decision is described here <https://www.intgovforum.org/en/content/internet-governance-forum-leadership-...>, 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 responses to the consultation <https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/93a-public-responseshttps://www.int...>. And here a summary <https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/index.php?q=filedepot_download/1113...>. And here is the ISOC's response <https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/93a-public-responses> 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."

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.

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. What does all this say... I*t is clear that the LP decision is NOT supported by an overwhelming majority of civil society and technical community groups and people.* The question then is, for a decision that will be so important to the future of the (much loved) IGF, and global digital governance, *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'* , and that the decision be rolled back. *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.* 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. *What is the point of doing a public consultation when the powers-that-be were to then go against the outcomes of the consultation*, and do as they wish. 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. 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. 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 *weakens multistakeholder participation and power by being cowed down*. parminder 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. 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.

On Wed 24 Nov 2021 at 14:34, parminder via InternetPolicy <internetpolicy@elists.isoc.org> 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.

It 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