[At-Large] Fwd: [Governance] Seeking roll back of IGF Leadership Panel
parminder at itforchange.net
Sun Nov 28 10:01:26 UTC 2021
-------- 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 at lists.igcaucus.org>
Reply-To: parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
To: Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>,
governance at lists.igcaucus.org <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
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.
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?
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
-------------- next part --------------
Governance mailing list
Governance at lists.igcaucus.org
More information about the At-Large