<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<html><head><style type="text/css"><!--
blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li { padding-top: 0 ; padding-bottom: 0 }
--></style><title>Re: [governance] Programme outline and schedule
released</title></head><body>
<div>Estimado Carlos,</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Perhaps I wasn't clear. Each of the points in paragraph 72
can be addressed by a range of possible activities. I'm
proposing that how we choose which of those activities or processes to
execute should depend crucially upon whether its execution will move
toward desirable goals or not.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>As a simple beginning to stating the goals, it's my belief that
99.99+% of the Internet community -- and here I refer to the Internet
community in its broadest sense -- will be satisfied with a set of
Internet governance arrangements that will:</div>
<div><br></div>
<blockquote>- provide them with accessible, available and affordable
Internet service;</blockquote>
<blockquote><br></blockquote>
<blockquote>- treat their communications as private and confidential;
and</blockquote>
<blockquote><br></blockquote>
<blockquote>- not block in any way their access to communication or
content or their ability to "speak" freely over the
Internet.</blockquote>
<blockquote><br></blockquote>
<div>In other words, they want unrestricted access, pure and simple,
with guarantees of privacy, and that is both necessary and
sufficient.</div>
<blockquote><br></blockquote>
<div>I suggest that governance arrangements that fulfill these three
criteria belong in a set of good governance arrangements, while those
violating any of these criteria are to be avoided. I also
suggest that how the elements of para. 72 are approached will
determine whether the exercise promotes the above goals or not.
The goals should drive the means for achieving them.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>I hope that this helps.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Amitiés,</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>George</div>
<div><br></div>
<div
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<span
></span>~~~~~~</div>
<div> </div>
<div>At 9:24 AM -0300 5/2/07, Carlos Afonso wrote:</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Grande George,<br>
<br>
George Sadowsky wrote:
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Carlos,<br>
<br>
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.</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br>
I can live with this :)<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br>
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.</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br>
The use of the verb "believe" here is most appropriate, but
even Hegel would admit the Tunis Agenda exists and cannot be
dismissed, independently of our beliefs or perceptions.<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br>
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.</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br>
Here we have to recall IGF was created carry out, as a forum, the
mandate expressed by the Tunis agenda, para 72 included *in its
entirety*, whatever our beliefs or religious inclinations (like the
belief that the current ICANN structure is untouchable and not subject
to external debate towards its revamping or modification).<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br>
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.</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br>
As pointed out above, neither the MAG (with its strong
pro-ICANN-status-quo presence) nor the organizers of the IGF process
have any authority to just dismiss any part of the Tunis agenda. This
has been the result of gross manipulation in the Athens phase which we
hope will not be repeated in Rio.<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br>
Opinions will clearly differ on these points.</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br>
You can say that again! :)<br>
<br>
fraternal regards<br>
<br>
--c.a.</blockquote>
<div><br></div>
</body>
</html>