[governance] Programme outline and schedule released

[George Sadowsky]

Carlos,

I take as the overall objective of whatever the IGF does as focusing 
on issues relating to Internet governance, defined in the broad 
sense, to serve the purpose of economic and social development. 
Clearly there are multiple dimensions of IG, and reasonable people 
may differ in their assessment regarding how important the issues in 
each dimension are to accomplish that goal.

Within that scope, I could argue that each of the subparagraphs of 
para. 72 has the capability of meeting a set of overall long term 
goals.  However, I think that for most of  the subparagraphs below, I 
could imagine activities that are believed (by someone) to be 
consistent with the Tunis agenda, but that I believe would not meet 
those goals and would be counterproductive.

The problem with the Tunis agenda as a guide is that it can be read 
in different ways by different people, very much like complex 
religious documents such as the Bible.  Now para. 72 prescribes the 
initiation of actions or activities.  Rather than trying to define 
activities as good or relevant, or alternatively bad or irrelevant, i 
would like to focus on goals, and for each activity, ask whether it 
produces good or bad results with respect to those goals.  This 
reflects my consequentialist leanings in which the concepts of good 
and bad are the major focus rather than the concepts of right or 
wrong.  An action is 'right' if its consequences are good, and 
vice-versa.

So while I do not dismiss para. 72, I would argue that the 
interpretation and implementation of the specific activities chosen 
under each of its sub-paragraphs does need to be subjected to a test 
of whether it meets overall development goals which the IGF was 
established to promote.  Each of those sub-paragraphs can give rise 
to activities that I believe would be consistent with and supportive 
of those goals.  Likewise each can give rise to activities that are 
inconsistent with or destructive with respect to those goals.

Opinions will clearly differ on these points.

George

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

  At 6:49 PM -0300 5/1/07, Carlos Afonso wrote:
>Veni Markovski wrote:
>>I hope we can try to be more constructive, and decide first what 
>>COULD be discussed, and not use try to define what the IGF SHOULD 
>>do, and stressing that several times (see below quotes)?
>
>Interesting point of view... who determines the "could"? Is this a 
>multistakeholder environment or a bunch of order followers??
>
>>  ...article 72, for example, should be read
>>fully, not sentence by sentence, and not half sentences only. 
>>Here's a simple example:
>>
>>72 point a says: Discuss public policy issues related to key 
>>elements of Internet governance in order to foster the 
>>sustainability, robustness, security, stability and development of 
>>the Internet
>
>and point "j" says:
>
>j. Discuss, inter alia, issues relating to critical Internet resources;
>
>Read it in full, as per your own recommendation, Veni.
>
>--c.a.
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance