[governance] Programme outline and schedule released

[Carlos Afonso]

Grande George,

George Sadowsky wrote:
> 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.

I can live with this :)

> 
> 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 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.

> 
> 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.

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).

> 
> 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.

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.

> 
> Opinions will clearly differ on these points.

You can say that again! :)

fraternal regards

--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